Quote:
Originally Posted by daharris80
I've had two questions as I've seen this stadium redeveloped, I wonder if anyone here can help.
1. Why did they use the third-base side for the long part of the field and not the first-base side? From the existing structure the first-base side (especially the arrangement of the upper deck) appears to be a more natural fit for football. Its odd that on the third-base side the upper deck ends before the new north end-zone. If it was turned the other way the could have a home side upper deck that went from end zone to end zone and there would be fewer sections that need to be demolished. The only reason I can think of is that they wanted the home side to face east and have more shade.
|
Sunlight. In the evenings the sun sets in the west and you can't have the setting sun blinding the players if they are looking downfield. A secondary factor was probably the view of Atlanta in the inzone (if it were perpendicular to the field, if they wanted to expand the stands, it would block the view of the city, whereas they can preserve this view (like Sanford stadium in Athens) with this orientation.
I have no idea about #2, but it may be reserved for the marching band photographers. I'm sure it's cheaper leaving the seats in than taking them out in many instances. They indicated that next spring they will be doing a 'phase II' upgrade of the stadium. This initial work was limited due to time constraints with football season approaching.