PDA

View Full Version : Retractable Roof?


beasly213
06-20-2008, 10:50 AM
This was just something I was thinking about today at work. With the weather so crappy always in April in May would you guys ever want a retractable roof at US Cellular or whatever the stadium would be called?

There are pluses and minuses to both sides of this. Obviously a plus would be never having to worry about weather and a minus would be you lose the open air enviornment even though the roof would be open.


If next year for some reason the Sox said they have to build a new stadium and they said they were going to put a retractable roof on it how would you guys react?

I wouldn't be all for it but I wouldn't hate the idea either.

Thoughts?

oeo
06-20-2008, 10:54 AM
I wouldn't care, as long as it looked more like Safeco, rather than something like Minute Maid Park. A lot of the retractable roof stadiums don't look like baseball stadiums...Houston's being one of them. Then again, with the hill, the flag pole, the wall, etc., there isn't much to like about Houston's ballpark. Maybe it's nice inside, but in terms of a baseball field, it sucks.

That said, it's not really necessary in Chicago.

RTI_SoxFan
06-20-2008, 11:01 AM
This was just something I was thinking about today at work. With the weather so crappy always in April in May would you guys ever want a retractable roof at US Cellular or whatever the stadium would be called?

There are pluses and minuses to both sides of this. Obviously a plus would be never having to worry about weather and a minus would be you lose the open air enviornment even though the roof would be open.


If next year for some reason the Sox said they have to build a new stadium and they said they were going to put a retractable roof on it how would you guys react?

I wouldn't be all for it but I wouldn't hate the idea either.

Thoughts?

Baseball is meant to be played outside no matter what the weather. I'm against domes and retractable roofs for baseball and more importantly football.

Chez
06-20-2008, 11:04 AM
I would be for it assuming the field would still be grass and not turf. Sitting in the rain or cold is no fun. Neither are rain outs.

BRDSR
06-20-2008, 11:13 AM
I understand the appeal, but I would personally be very disappointed. They're ugly, it would almost certainly block any view of outside the stadium (not that the available views are all that great), and it's just not cool to play baseball indoors.

More importantly, it would be incredibly expensive. If the Sox had or could raise that kind of money, there are so many better things to use it for.

sox1970
06-20-2008, 11:15 AM
I like Miller Park but it's very dark in there, and even when it's nice out, there are hellacious shadows everywhere.

I'm glad the Cell is open air.

ondafarm
06-20-2008, 11:18 AM
An architect I know says that the big difference is air-conditioning. Basicly, if you plan to air condition a retractable dome (obviously only when the dome is closed) like you have to in Houston, Arizona, etc. then the requirements mean it won't be a great baseball park. The Rogers Center and Miller Park are two retractable domes which pay less heed to air conditioning and seem to work better.

I actually like Miller Park, even if the beer is lousy.

hawkjt
06-20-2008, 11:20 AM
I was all for the Bears building a new retractable stadium from scratch next to Soxpark. As a taxpayer,I wanted a multi-use facility that could be used for super bowls and Final Fours as well as winter concerts. Something that could be used more than 10 times a year like Soldier Field.
It would have been a real boost to the year-around economy around Soxpark also which would have created more nightlife around soxpark..just my opinion.

But for baseball? No.

scarsofthumper
06-20-2008, 11:26 AM
I don't know. I've only been to Minute Maid and Skydome, but those are unique places. I think IF the Sox ever did a dome, it would be something unique, but I don't think it will ever happen.

Think about it, with the dome closed we lose the fireworks....

doublem23
06-20-2008, 11:28 AM
Until someone can figure out a way to shoot helicopters down after home runs with the dome closed, deal me out.

BRDSR
06-20-2008, 11:30 AM
Think about it, with the dome closed we lose the fireworks....

The fireworks would cause this:

http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/escape/images/piofirerages.jpeg?Log=0

Oh, wait. That happened because English soccer fans started a fire in the stands.

http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerofile/41690/brilliant.jpg

Brilliant!

ondafarm
06-20-2008, 11:37 AM
Until someone can figure out a way to shoot helicopters down after home runs with the dome closed, deal me out.

Ground to air missles on the roof. Unless you mean to watch which we'd probably need the jumbotron for.

oeo
06-20-2008, 11:42 AM
Baseball is meant to be played outside no matter what the weather. I'm against domes and retractable roofs for baseball and more importantly football.

You can't argue against places like Texas, Arizona, and Seattle. They need the retractable roof.

There's no need for one in Chicago, though.

nug0hs
06-20-2008, 11:55 AM
Check out the renditions of the new stadium in Tampa:

http://tampabay.rays.mlb.com/tb/ballpark/new_ballpark_images.jsp

beasly213
06-20-2008, 12:05 PM
Check out the renditions of the new stadium in Tampa:

http://tampabay.rays.mlb.com/tb/ballpark/new_ballpark_images.jsp


Only problem with that design is rain doesn't just come straight down.

Look out for the sideways rain!

pierzynski07
06-20-2008, 12:12 PM
I can see something being built above home plate, and extending out over the stadium to cover the field.

ondafarm
06-20-2008, 12:15 PM
I've heard some moderately serious talk of Tampa being located (the franchise not the city or the bay.) Orlando being the typical suggestion.

gobears1987
06-20-2008, 12:17 PM
Baseball is meant to be played outside no matter what the weather. I'm against domes and retractable roofs for baseball and more importantly football.
I'd agree on most accounts, but a baseball stadium in Minnesota needs a retractable roof.

DSpivack
06-20-2008, 12:19 PM
I've heard some moderately serious talk of Tampa being located (the franchise not the city or the bay.) Orlando being the typical suggestion.

That new stadium's "roof" reminds me of the drawings I've seen of what the Colosseum (the Romans being the original creators of the retractable roof) would have looked like.

russ99
06-20-2008, 12:25 PM
I wouldn't care, as long as it looked more like Safeco, rather than something like Minute Maid Park. A lot of the retractable roof stadiums don't look like baseball stadiums...Houston's being one of them. Then again, with the hill, the flag pole, the wall, etc., there isn't much to like about Houston's ballpark. Maybe it's nice inside, but in terms of a baseball field, it sucks.

That said, it's not really necessary in Chicago.

I love Minute Maid. The hill, the flagpole, the wall configuration and the short porch add to the character. It's a whole lot better than the cookie-cutter Astrodome.

Also, indoor baseball in Houston is a necessity, not a nicety due to the common summer rains, the extreme humidity and mosquito problems.

Sox should stay open air as far as I'm concerned. I see the Cubs going into the Schaumburg Cubbiedome well before the Sox would move indoors.

BigPapaPump
06-20-2008, 12:25 PM
I'd agree on most accounts, but a baseball stadium in Minnesota needs a retractable roof.


Their new stadium is going to be an open-air ballpark. There's going to be some cold ass games in April up there.

ondafarm
06-20-2008, 12:26 PM
That new stadium's "roof" reminds me of the drawings I've seen of what the Colosseum (the Romans being the original creators of the retractable roof) would have looked like.

I was thinking it looked one heck of a lot like the velarium myself.

White City
06-20-2008, 12:30 PM
Won't something be built if you guys get the Olympics for 2016? Perhaps the time is now to stump for it to be a new facility for the Sox and to have a retractable roof.

oeo
06-20-2008, 12:31 PM
I love Minute Maid. The hill, the flagpole, the wall configuration and the short porch add to the character. It's a whole lot better than the cookie-cutter Astrodome.

How could it not be better than the Astrodome?

You can have a stadium with character, without screwing with the on-the-field play. The Cell is an example of that. You call the hill and flagpole character, and I call it stupidity. There's no reason for that to be on a baseball field. Also, the whole place just seems like they tried to cramp a stadium into a very small place. I'm sure it's a nice place, but as for playing baseball in it...bleh.

thomas35forever
06-20-2008, 12:35 PM
If one was put on the current ballpark, it would take a lot of time and cost a lot of money. Don't be surprised if they'd have to close off at least some of the UD. I vote no until we get a new stadium, which won't be for a very long time if ever.

scarsofthumper
06-20-2008, 12:57 PM
Won't something be built if you guys get the Olympics for 2016? Perhaps the time is now to stump for it to be a new facility for the Sox and to have a retractable roof.
Baseball isn't on the schedule for the 2016 Olympics. Hell, the 2012 games aren't even getting Baseball/Softball

White City
06-20-2008, 12:59 PM
Baseball isn't on the schedule for the 2016 Olympics. Hell, the 2012 games aren't even getting Baseball/Softball

I meant the main stadium where the Lighting Ceremony takes place. It could be multi-use for the Games, then get converted to Sox-only afterwards.

ondafarm
06-20-2008, 01:01 PM
I meant the main stadium where the Lighting Ceremony takes place. It could be multi-use for the Games, then get converted to Sox-only afterwards.

I'd be curious how you think that design would work. Olympic Stadium was always considered a drain on the Expos and some of the sightlines there weren't good at all.

Huisj
06-20-2008, 01:06 PM
I'd be curious how you think that design would work. Olympic Stadium was always considered a drain on the Expos and some of the sightlines there weren't good at all.

Turner Field was the main olympic stadium in Atlanta, and then they tore half of it town and made it into the baseball stadium, so it's possible.

It'd make more sense to do it for the Cubs than for the Sox though.

White City
06-20-2008, 01:32 PM
Turner Field was the main olympic stadium in Atlanta, and then they tore half of it town and made it into the baseball stadium, so it's possible.

It'd make more sense to do it for the Cubs than for the Sox though.

Right. I'm in the ATL, so I'm using the Ted as my model for this.

It probably does make more sense to do this for the Cubs, though. But hey, why wouldn't Obama try to get it in the Southside?

DSpivack
06-20-2008, 01:39 PM
Right. I'm in the ATL, so I'm using the Ted as my model for this.

It probably does make more sense to do this for the Cubs, though. But hey, why wouldn't Obama try to get it in the Southside?

Not a horrible idea, but the Cubs on the south side?? :o:

White City
06-20-2008, 01:53 PM
Not a horrible idea, but the Cubs on the south side?? :o:

Two different thoughts, but poorly expressed.

1) It makes more sense for the Cubs (and their outdated, crumbling urinal of a stadium).
2) And yet, Obama is going to potentially be President through 2016, they might give Chicago the Olympics as a favor to him, and screw the Cubs, so perhaps he could stump for a new stadium on the South Side (for the Sox) instead of replacing Wrigley Field?

DSpivack
06-20-2008, 02:36 PM
Two different thoughts, but poorly expressed.

1) It makes more sense for the Cubs (and their outdated, crumbling urinal of a stadium).
2) And yet, Obama is going to potentially be President through 2016, they might give Chicago the Olympics as a favor to him, and screw the Cubs, so perhaps he could stump for a new stadium on the South Side (for the Sox) instead of replacing Wrigley Field?

I was thinking you meant for the Olympic Stadium to be turned into a stadium for the Cubs--and from what I've read, the proposed stadium would be in Washington Park.

Hitmen77
06-20-2008, 03:31 PM
I like Miller Park but it's very dark in there, and even when it's nice out, there are hellacious shadows everywhere.

I'm glad the Cell is open air.

Agreed. A retractable roof would allow for natural grass - but it would have a very indoor feel to it.

At any rate, retractable roofs weren't very common (only at the expensive Skydome) when New Comiskey was built in 1991. To retrofit a retractable roof on The Cell now I'm guessing would be ridiculously expensive.

ondafarm
06-20-2008, 03:34 PM
Agreed. A retractable roof would allow for natural grass - but it would have a very indoor feel to it.

At any rate, retractable roofs weren't very common (only at the expensive Skydome) when New Comiskey was built in 1991. To retrofit a retractable roof on The Cell now I'm guessing would be ridiculously expensive.

Virtually impossible is what I'm told. The footings required would require ripping out a lot of existing structure. Of course, since you and I actually own US Cellular Field (as Illinois taxpayers) perhaps JR will go for it.

soxrme
06-20-2008, 03:45 PM
Should have been done in the first place. Attendance would be better, especially in early months and no rainouts would make the whole schedule easier. I have heard though that Wirtz and JR had a deal with our mayor about these because of the UC.

DSpivack
06-20-2008, 04:07 PM
Agreed. A retractable roof would allow for natural grass - but it would have a very indoor feel to it.

At any rate, retractable roofs weren't very common (only at the expensive Skydome) when New Comiskey was built in 1991. To retrofit a retractable roof on The Cell now I'm guessing would be ridiculously expensive.

I believe the Royals and Chiefs were looking into 'sharing' a retractable roof between the two stadiums (they're next to one another), but it would've been too expensive.

Frater Perdurabo
06-20-2008, 06:27 PM
You could build a giant roof made from transparent aluminum (it has been invented; not just in Star Trek anymore!), put on giant casters, and have it rolled from over the parking lot to over the stadium only when it's raining/snowing/sleeting/hailing.
:D:

chisoxmike
06-20-2008, 06:36 PM
This was just something I was thinking about today at work. With the weather so crappy always in April in May would you guys ever want a retractable roof at US Cellular or whatever the stadium would be called?


No.

tick53
06-20-2008, 07:25 PM
I like this idea about as everybody liked my white shoes on the White Sox thread.:D:

whitesox901
06-20-2008, 08:11 PM
if its like the Rogers Centre im cool, but I do like the fact that the Cell is an outdoor park, so I like it in certain occasions, but I dont think its needed for my team :gulp:

FedEx227
06-20-2008, 08:28 PM
Meh, I think teams are slowly but surely finding out these things aren't all their cracked up to be. While it has benefits in April, it is a hassle and a real downer from May-August.

chisoxfanatic
06-21-2008, 01:02 AM
if its like the Rogers Centre im cool, but I do like the fact that the Cell is an outdoor park, so I like it in certain occasions, but I dont think its needed for my team :gulp:
I wouldn't want a retractable roof like that either. I've been to Skydome with the roof being open, and you still feel you're completely inside. I appreciate the openness that Comiskey possesses.

Nellie_Fox
06-21-2008, 01:12 AM
Their new stadium is going to be an open-air ballpark. There's going to be some cold ass games in April up there.I've been to some cold-ass games at Comiskey in April. The Twins used to play at Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington (currently the site of the Mall of America,) and they survived. They'll be just fine in the new park, and it will be a VAST improvement over the warehouse they currently play in.

TDog
06-21-2008, 01:21 AM
An architect I know says that the big difference is air-conditioning. Basicly, if you plan to air condition a retractable dome (obviously only when the dome is closed) like you have to in Houston, Arizona, etc. then the requirements mean it won't be a great baseball park. The Rogers Center and Miller Park are two retractable domes which pay less heed to air conditioning and seem to work better.

I actually like Miller Park, even if the beer is lousy.

If you don't plan to watch a baseball game, Miller Park isn't such a bad place. Unfortunately, it's a lousy place to watch a baseball game. I didn't think that would be the case when I had season tickets for the last season to County Stadium.

I really don't like Miller Park, and I really expected I would. Even if the retractable roof didn't leak, it made for a dismal, dark and lifeless setting for baseball. Even when the roof was open, the design characteristics that accommodated the roof contributed negatively to a configuration that provides a lousy venue for baseball.

DSpivack
06-21-2008, 11:07 AM
I've been to some cold-ass games at Comiskey in April. The Twins used to play at Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington (currently the site of the Mall of America,) and they survived. They'll be just fine in the new park, and it will be a VAST improvement over the warehouse they currently play in.

I actually really like the design for the Twins new stadium, with the limestone touches, it not seeming 'retro', and cool-looking 'overhang' down the 1B side. That said, it'll be hard to really determine until construction is done.

Good or bad, it'll be nice get out of the HHH Dome.