Do the teams have to get a special permit from the leagues for a retractable roof, or something?
Registered User
Do the teams have to get a special permit from the leagues for a retractable roof, or something?
Registered User
The seattle mariners decided that they wanted a retractable roof, plus they figured out a way to swing the additional cost. The other cities you mentioned decided, for one reason or another, that they did not want, or could not afford the additional cost for, a retractable roof. Satisfied? Its as simple as that.Originally Posted by BiZmaRK
Registered User
1) It's an eyesore. I've been there. And one time I was there on a bright sunny day and they kept the field covered with the roof.
2) If I'm going to Detroit or Pittsburgh, I'm not guaranteed a game. But if I go to Seattle, I might be guaranteed a game, but it might be "indoors" on a sunny day.
Registered User
That's a really good question. I remember years ago when there was discussion about doming Candlestick Park because it would get so cold there on dry summer evenings. Would the league have granted that permit?
Registered User
I don't think you understand the difference between trolling and engaging in a healthy & challenging debate with others with whom you share an interest.
Mariners
Oohhhhhhkaaayyy...
Registered User
Debate about what? Seattle's right to have a roof? If you dont like it, dont go. Nobody is forcing you to go to Safeco Field.
Registered User
"if you don't like it, don't go." Sorry dude, that is the single worst argument given about a wide range of different topics. He doesn't like the roof, and he's discussing it, what's the harm in that?
It seems like the Seattle = roof thing may be based more in subjectivity than reality, and he makes some good points.
Mariners
Good points? Name one. BiZmaRK asked for what purpose does Safeco Field have a retractable roof, and he has been provided with abundant valid rationale from multiple posters to answer that question. However, he keeps harping on it as if no one has answered his question. That is the sign of a troll.
Birds and Fish
I think if the statistics on rain are legitimate, there is an actual issue here.
IMHO, Safeco Field is far and away the most attractive of all the retractable roof ballparks. However, with that being said I think it would be more attractive as a ballpark without the roof for obvious purposes. So Safeco without a roof could probably be in the top tier of new ballparks whereas Safeco with a roof is merely above average.
Not to mention it would have cost a lot less to build Safeco without a roof.
Of course, if the thinking of Seattle/Washington was for Safeco to host other events than just Mariners games, a roof could be justified. Not a Super Bowl, of course, given that Safeco was designed for baseball first and isn't large enough for a Super Bowl, but perhaps a Final Four?
The problem with a Final Four is that given despite the roof there is still exposure to outside elements at Safeco, it wouldn't be the most comfortable of venues for a basketball game. Not to mention the fact that having the roof closed for that amount of time would probably kill the grass.
In your dome!
Bizmark,
the dome can open or close during the course of a game. It's happened atleast 2 to 3 times already this year in toronto.
Registered User
The statistics on rainfall are correct. As PeteU says, there is room for a legitimate debate.
Some of the responses bear merit. But many raise further issues. Additionally, new people pop in here and want to discuss this - often bringing up new angles on this topic.
Instead of going troll-hunting, why not engage in a discussion about baseball.
Alvin Davis
FWIW I've been quite a few times, and I don't feel its an eyesore.
Also they haven't had the roof closed on any sunny days that I've been there, only rainy ones.
Check out some demos from my upcoming album: http://www.myspace.com/le_serge
Team Veteran
I was at only one game at Safeco Field during June 2000 with lots of my relatives in Seattle,WA. during an interleague play game that San Diego Padres beat the Seattle Mariners 7 to 4. There lots of rain up in Seattle,Washington.
#271 all-time BBF poster
Retractable roofs rock. Every team should have one.
People who don't like them seem to think it's obvious that they 'suck'.
Birds and Fish
Meeh. They're unavoidably ugly, even when the park below the roof is attractive (see Safeco). A retractable roof will undoubtedly take away from the asthetics of the park.
But for the fact that it makes a lot of practical sense given its location, I hate the idea that the new Marlins park is going to have a retractable roof. It automatically means the Marlins won't have the most attractive park in the league. (But don't get me wrong, I'm still glad they are getting a new park.)
Registered User
The beauty of Seattle more than makes up for the "ugliness" of Safeco.
Good Grief.
Umbrellas at ballparks are irritating.
8 17 14 31 37 41 42
NYS: Home of Champions
Safeco certainly isn't ugly - it's one of the best ballparks today - but I do think it would be made better by a lack of roof.
On the surface, yes, it is obvious why Safeco has a roof - the Mariners figured it would be worth the cost to put it in and decided to spend the extra money to install a retractable roof. But there are underlying issues here that are worthy of discussion, including what drove the Mariners to decide that a roof was worth it. Statistically, they really don't need it any more than a lot of other major league cities that get along fine without a roof.
I do think that the perception of Seattle as extremely rainy fueled much of the desire for a retractable roof (just as it fueled much of the desire for a dome in the 1970s), and teams moving from domes generally want a retractable roof on their next stadium (Houston and Seattle are the two that did, the Twins did not although they initially planned to, and the Rays want a retractable sail on their new park). I'm sure those two things are the main reason Safeco has a roof on it.
The question is, does Safeco Field need a roof? Statistics seem to show that it doesn't need one.
Registered User
No park needs a retractable roof. The two markets that truly need indoor baseball, Arizona and Houston, might as well have fixed designs since they play a ridiculously small amount of games with the lids open.
The retractable designs are ugly, and they are a foolish expense in publicly funded stadiums.
Good Grief.
I bet you said the same thing about lights in '88.
8 17 14 31 37 41 42
Registered User
I dont see how building a retractable roof in the past will come back to bite them in the a.. in the future.
Registered User
As someone who lived in Seattle for four years, I can say that Safeco Field really did not need a roof. The Seahawks have done alright next door at Qwest Field for the last 6 years with simply two large canopies covering either grandstand. In fact, the Seahawks went something like three whole season before rain fell during one of their games, and they play at the beginning of the Seattle rainy season.
The only time when Safeco would really need a roof is at the beginning of the season, but because of cold rather than rain. The temperature the first few weeks of April will rarely get above 45 or 50 degrees in the Emerald City, thus necessitating something to at least somewhat reduce the coldness. Even then, Safeco Field's roof acts more like an umbrella, leaving the ballpark exposed to the air temperature outside unlike what is seen in Houston, Arizona, Milwaukee, and Toronto.
One thing that should be mention is that the Mariners have experienced a rain delay since moving into Safeco Field. In a game against the Angels, played in July 2000, I believe, the skies opened up and the game was delayed because the roof malfunctioned and wouldn't move. As a result, the Safeco Field groundskeepers had to run like chickens with their heads cut off to first locate the tarp, then put it on the field. It was truly one of the funniest, most ironic things I've ever seen in my life.
Having said all of that, Safeco Field is probably the most beautiful ballpark I've ever seen. It's retro, but not overdone considering that brick and steel fit in very well with the Pacific Northwest. It's also unique in its food selection, affordable, and just simply nice. For a team that does not have a slew of history in the way of championships and had had trouble keeping superstars (ala Randy Johnson, Ken Griffey, A-Rod, etc), the Mariners really tried hard to give this place some personality and it worked well.
Good Grief.
I think the reality is that Safeco Field does not need a roof, but that the Mariners wanted a roof.
Why did they want a roof?
Just in case a family thinks twice about coming to the game because of the weather.
The bottom line is the bottom line. The Seattle Mariners need to provide a comfortable venue for people to go to to watch games. Unlike football which is played a tenth of as many times and in front of a more active and hearty audience, baseball teams need to make it as easy as possible for the casual fan to justify coming to a game.
Charting average rainfall doesn't really apply to this unless you are charting when the rain falls and how it relates to gametime conditions. An all day drizzle is going to affect attendance worse than an hour long down pour because folks know a down pour will pass.
That said, I think the Mariners have great stadium and am so glad that they got out of the Kingdome but not out of Seattle.
... man, I had too much time to think about this.
8 17 14 31 37 41 42
NYS: Home of Champions
It won't, it's just a question of aesthetics, and whether something that isn't really aesthetically pleasing, no matter how well it's done, was necessary given the situation.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks