There are currently five fields that have retractable roofs as far as I could find.
Safeco Field (Seattle Mariners) - Has a three panel system that is meant to be more of an umbrella, rather than an airtight climate controlled covering. This means there are some areas that can be very chilly. It takes 10 minutes for the roof to close.
Minute Maid Park (Houston Astros) - The first of the retractable roofs, it cost $65 million to build. Most of the roofs do not open to provide a 100% viewing area, but this one does. It takes 20 minutes to close but only costs $5 of electricity to open or close.
Rogers Centre (Toronto Blue Jays) - The four section roof cost $100 million and takes 20 minutes to close. Unlike most parks, Rogers closes the roof very seldom, around four times per year.
Chase Field (Arizona Diamondbacks) - The two halves do not close 100% but take only five minutes to close. The stadium can be cooled 30 degrees in three hours when needed, which given Arizona's weather, is most of the season. The halves are so light that it only takes $2 in electricity to open or close them.
Miller Park (Milwaukee Brewers) - The fan shaped, seven panel system cost $50 million, closes in 10 minutes and has been plagued by issues. When opened the fan still shades the first base side most of the day making it hard to grow natural grass. It also leaks (which designers say it was never meant to be 100% waterproof) and has had several expensive mechanical repairs needed.
While I agree that it would have been nice to have a retractable roof on Target Field during some games, I still think the impact of postponed games will be minimal. Listening to my friends, the rain delays might have a larger impact. Make some of the less fanatical fans wait for a game to start for a few hours, and they might not come back.
Now for my bigger question - Target gets extensive brand presence as a part of the 25 year deal. Wonder what we can expect under that umbrella?
More on that to come...
Go Twins!!!
3 comments:
My husband's family is from Tacoma, and they were kind of ticked with how the financing of the Safeco Field was handled, and the roof was a big chunk of that.
I do wish that we were getting a roof, and that the Twins would pay for it, but I had no idea how much they cost!
And I am not surprised at all that Target is getting the name on this ... Safeco, Minute Maid, Miller... it's part of a national trend. I think it's kind of obnoxious, but with the Target Center, Xcel Center, and others, it doesn't phase me too much.
If they start selling Archer's Farms brand food at the ball park (and at Archer's Farms prices) it might actually help me save a few bucks at the game! :)
Our pricetag for the roof was $100 million if it had gone ahead. While I think it would be cool to have, I have to agree that it isn't probably worth that much! Course, ask me again as I brush the snow off my seat at an early Spring game!
However, you have to take a look at why the Twins moved from outdoor to indoor in the first place. One reason that gets overlooked by many is that the twin cities isn't an extremely highly populated area (compared to many other markets in the country) so we wanted, by having a dome, to say to our Duluth, Fargo and even the Dakota's, Iowa, or Wisconsin fans who are Twins fans to be sure the game will be played. It was always 70 and sunny in the dome and it will be most of the time at target field. Not always though. I like outdoors better then indoors when it comes to baseball, but honestly, we could have, for the third time, messed up our stadium which God-forbid could lead to the Twins moving. It could reduce our market substantially without a roof because our fan base will be reduced and no one wants to sit in the snow at a baseball game - in April. And October. And hopefully soon coming games in November. And you know what they say about us Minnesoootans whether, if you don't like it... wait 10 minutes.
Post a Comment