The surroundings on one side are decent, but they are fairly grubby on the three other sides.
The inside, no matter how well the inhabitants are doing, is rarely filled to capacity. But there is no flexibility when college visitors who draw noticeably more interest come to perform.
The seats are fine, the concourse is fine, the lighting is fine, the temperature is fine.
So why do we almost get the impression that the Georgia Dome is near condemnation?
Understanding the economics is easy. Revenue is split between the Falcons and the Georgia World Congress Center Authority. The team needs more revenue, so the best thing would be for the Georgia World Congress Center Authority and the Falcons to rework the Dome and come up with a better contract.
If Atlanta does better, so does the GWCCA.
A report last summer stated a cost of $200 million for a retractable roof and $349 million for assorted expansion and additional parking spaces. That’s only $250 million less than the project cost of a new open-air stadium. And 95 percent of the time, “new” makes more sense.
Welcome to that five percent.
Anybody who attended the Falcons’ final few home games can attest that -- contrary to the yearly shocked bellyaching from November to February that “it’s cooold,” as it gets every blessed year -- Atlanta isn’t a winter open-air stadium town.
Green Bay won the playoff game because it went outside at halftime and thought it was home again. Dallas found out what Atlanta knew: Mother Nature doesn’t always care about Super Bowls and weather. It was substantially worse in Dallas this year than it was in Atlanta 11 years ago.
We also found out that even at a billion bucks, Jerry’s House wasn’t perfect.
The proposal puts a 65,000-seat open stadium at the north end of the Georgia World Congress Center, opposite and across a street from its current location.
The new stadium is farther away from Marta, rendering that substantially less relevant. And Marta from the Southside to the Dome is almost a tailgating experience with thousands of people happily -- and safely -- using it.
The new stadium is farther from Dome/CNN/Philips hotels and parking and replaces nearly 1,500 parking spots with about a third of that.
So less Marta, less parking, more walking and 6,000 fewer seats.
Yeah, that’s going to happen in December and January in Atlanta. And we can safely say the Falcons will be regularly playing into January.
Take a look at the site. You thought getting into and out of the Dome now was a mess? This is worse, even after some road adjustments. Imagine dealing with twice as much foot traffic while you wait in what’s already a brutal traffic flow plan.
Taking the roof off removes a huge home-field advantage. The volume of Atlanta sports fans in general needs that roof to hold in the noise, as well as the people. Falcons fans will never equal the intensity of Packers or Pittsburgh Steelers fans or those loonybirds in metro New York.
Have a retractable roof and, hey, the Falcons need some help, flip a switch. Come the final two months of the season, that roof is staying shut.
And despite having its own channel, predicting weather remains something of a crapshoot. Remember our weather alerts in January? And how the Falcons battled snow and ice to make it to Flowery Branch during their playoff week?
Taking the top off turns it into a football-only facility, so that’s spending $700 million for 10 weeks per year, maybe 11 or 12. And Atlanta is all about fair weather when it comes to sports, so how willing will people be to sit in bad weather for a team that might be struggling?
In Atlanta, not many.
Plus, the Dome has to live, so now the city and citizens will be paying for its upkeep despite less revenue as well as about half of the Falcons’ new stadium, no matter where it goes.
If logic loses again and they must build, one view that has been in place here for more than a year is to just build across Northside Drive.
Take a look at an aerial picture. The Dome itself wouldn’t displace a remarkable amount of buildings, homes or people. It would be right across from the GWCC, and thus retain quality parking spots and respectable walking distances.
Similar location, retractable roof, expandable seating, transportation plan and parking at least gets no worse, area gets cleaned up a bit more and go ahead and sell naming rights, and we’re good.
But we’d be better with a retractable roof and some makeup.
Contact Michael A. Lough at 744-4626 or mlough@macon.com
