It's not even about the retractable roof thing, really. A lot of stadia that have them really don't have to have them (Seattle might be the only one that actually needs it thanks to the rain), and on top of that Skydome in particular looks craptastic despite having the roof.

It's much more about cookie cutter multi-purpose ballparks. The "charm" of the Polo Grounds aside, baseball people have finally come round to the notion that if you want to give fans a true baseball experience, you need to have them in a park that is made for baseball, not baseball plus football plus roller hockey. Part of me is a little sad to see *all* of these stadia go away - I'd like to see at least one structure stand as an example of what people looked for in stadium design in the 60s and 70s - but in each case, I find it hard to decry the tearing down of the old stadium in favor of a new one, at least when it comes to the cookie-cutter parks. Really, I think you could make a pretty good argument that Philadelphia, at least, made a step backwards when the Phillies moved out of Connie Mack Stadium / Shibe Park and into the Vet. Even the Pirates going from Forbes to Three Rivers or the Reds from Crosley to Riverfront, granted that significant upgrades would have needed to have been made to those stadia to make them major league quality.

It seems like "to be decided" has been the fate of the Astrodome since Reliant Stadium opened nearby, and yet here we are, 10 years later, and we're still only at the point where a "recommendation" is going to be made.

The Astrodome may have been an engineering accomplishment for its day, but by the time I visited in 1998, it was a pretty horrible place to be: dark, unappealing, and ill-suited for baseball in nearly every way. It stands now only as monuments to the short-sighted practical concerns of its builders in the 1960s and to the municipal dysfunction of Houston and Harris County, for letting it stand, unmaintained, for so long after it was rendered obsolete.

Part of me is a little sad to see *all* of these stadia go away - I'd like to see at least one structure stand as an example of what people looked for in stadium design in the 60s and 70s

Happily, the A's aren't close to vacating the Coliseum, so you have that to enjoy for a few seasons longer.

(Seattle might be the only one that actually needs it thanks to the rain),

Didn't someone in an earlier post point out that Seattle receives little rain during the baseball season?

It's not even about the retractable roof thing, really. A lot of stadia that have them really don't have to have them (Seattle might be the only one that actually needs it thanks to the rain)

I guess it depends on how you define "have to have them." Nothing sucks quite like a rained-out game. As much as I adore Wrigley, there's quite the convenience factor that comes with going to games at Miller Park.

I would say that the 'multi-use' stadiums were less a design/aesthetic choice than just a better allocation of funds to spent on private businesses... I.e.., owners have been hitting up municipalities to buy them stadiums as long as/since they figured out they could.... so the multipurpose boon was simply a better choice for the local governments - as in, OK - here, Eagles & Phillies - we built A park that you can both use.

Owners have now figured out they can get even MORE welfare and not have to settle for a perfectly usable "stadium", but instead, get a "ballpark".

Didn't someone in an earlier post point out that Seattle receives little rain during the baseball season?

I didn't say it and don't know who did, but it's true. Less precipitation than Chicago, New York, Atlanta, etc.

I think that's the only convenience factor involved with going to Miller Park. I loathe that stadium.

Seattle is fairly average in terms of inches of rainfall, but #6 in the country in terms of days of rainfall.

OTOH, there isn't much rain during the summer. On the gripping hand, lots of baseball takes place in the spring, before the "dry season" sets in around June or July.

Edit: when a took a tour of Safeco field, they pointed out that, as the only baseball team for a long way in every direction, they draw a lot of remote fans, for whom a rainout means a missed baseball game and a lousy trip to Seattle. Propaganda, sure, but it also makes some sense.

On the gripping hand, lots of baseball takes place in the spring, before the "dry season" sets in around June or July.

Got to milk those few sweet days of contention!

(I kid, I kid).

Seattle is fairly average in terms of inches of rainfall, but #6 in the country in terms of days of rainfall.

As it should be.

Edit: when a took a tour of Safeco field, they pointed out that, as the only baseball team for a long way in every direction, they draw a lot of remote fans, for whom a rainout means a missed baseball game and a lousy trip to Seattle. Propaganda, sure, but it also makes some sense.

Also true of Milwaukee. Well, they're not exactly geographically isolated like Seattle, but they do draw from all over Wisconsin. I imagine that any team with a retractable roof can make this kind of argument, and it's an important point, because rainouts are a genuine inconvenience for fans.

Edit: when a took a tour of Safeco field, they pointed out that, as the only baseball team for a long way in every direction, they draw a lot of remote fans, for whom a rainout means a missed baseball game and a lousy trip to Seattle. Propaganda, sure, but it also makes some sense.

Instead of soaking the local taxpayers with the motorized roof, wouldn't it have been far cheaper to hire Rick Dempsey to perform skits on the rain-drenched tarp?

Also true of Milwaukee. Well, they're not exactly geographically isolated like Seattle, but they do draw from all over Wisconsin. I imagine that any team with a retractable roof can make this kind of argument, and it's an important point, because rainouts are a genuine inconvenience for fans.

And this game, stayed with his parents, and sat in the Shea Stadium parking lot in the rain for about five hours, then went back to Pittsburgh the next morning since he had to take a test that night. His dad got to use the tickets at least.

look, i've watched 'the killing' and you can't fool me. it's always raining in seattle, and not just some pleasant shower but a dreary grey cold drenching rain that makes you want to blow your brains out.

Also true of Milwaukee. Well, they're not exactly geographically isolated like Seattle, but they do draw from all over Wisconsin.

I make the trip up from the Chicago 'burbs a couple of times a year. I don't recall if the roof has ever been shut due to rain, probably once or twice. But there have been several cold days that I was darn glad they closed it.

I think my late father wins the thread. He flew from Philly to Chicago for the first night game at Wrigley Field.

Deswpite the fact that I nearly got incinerated on a relatively cool Arlington day last week at the Ballpark, I am glad they built the thing without any kind of roof. It is a real paradox to go to Cowboys Stadium, as I did last November, on a breathtakingly perfect day for sports, and sit inside watching football in air conditioning.

I think that's the only convenience factor involved with going to Miller Park. I loathe that stadium.

I don't adore it but I don't hate it. It's comfortable, etc. No, it's not Wrigley but that's not my standard of comparison.

On the gripping hand

Man, I love that series. Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle FTW!

Yeah, the real need for the roof is a bit overblown, but as a PR thing it was a decent idea (as noted, we get a lot of fans coming in from Spokane or Vancouver or Portland or even further beyond who might cancel altogether if they hear it might rain) and, huge costs or no, it is a *really* pretty thing to look at. It's like if JP Morgan had bought out the Athletics and decided to put a retractable roof over Shibe Park, that's what it would have looked like.

I really liked The Mote in God's Eye when I read it many, many, years ago. I've never read any of the sequels; I should do so...

Yeah, the real need for the roof is a bit overblown, but as a PR thing it was a decent idea (as noted, we get a lot of fans coming in from Spokane or Vancouver or Portland or even further beyond who might cancel altogether if they hear it might rain) and, huge costs or no, it is a *really* pretty thing to look at. It's like if JP Morgan had bought out the Athletics and decided to put a retractable roof over Shibe Park, that's what it would have looked like.

I was at the games Monday and Tuesday night. It was closed on Monday night right before game time, and they opened the roof just before the game. It was open on Tuesday, and they closed it during the first inning. Every time I see that huge black thing slowly, silently rolling along, I think I'm an extra in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. My Dad was a mentor of the one of the engineers who designed the roof, BTW.

It's like if JP Morgan had bought out the Athletics and decided to put a retractable roof over Shibe Park, that's what it would have looked like.

The mind boggles at what a stadium roof would have been made of back then. I'm imagining something like two giant wooden cargo ship hulls that meet in the middle like a drawbridge.

Part of me is a little sad to see *all* of these stadia go away - I'd like to see at least one structure stand as an example of what people looked for in stadium design in the 60s and 70s

Kauffman Stadium and Angels Stadium are both of this era, although they have both undergone extensive renovations (and Kauffman was never multi-use).

Yeah, the real need for the roof is a bit overblown, but as a PR thing it was a decent idea (as noted, we get a lot of fans coming in from Spokane or Vancouver or Portland or even further beyond who might cancel altogether if they hear it might rain) and, huge costs or no, it is a *really* pretty thing to look at. It's like if JP Morgan had bought out the Athletics and decided to put a retractable roof over Shibe Park, that's what it would have looked like.

The original 1970 plans for Royals Stadium and the NFL's Arrowhead Stadium were to include a rolling roof that could slide over one stadium onto the other (after a proposed downtown multi-use dome like the Astrodome was shot down). I think a lack of money caused them to scrap those ideas, but the idea was revived (and rejected in a vote) when the two stadiums were renovated a few years ago.

The mind boggles at what a stadium roof would have been made of back then. I'm imagining something like two giant wooden cargo ship hulls that meet in the middle like a drawbridge.

It probably was totally useless against rain, but the Colosseum* had a retractable sunroof.

*) Yeah, the Roman one, not the one in the Bay Area.

Chef beat me to it, but retractable roofs are 2000 years old.

And given that the velarium at the Colosseum was made of canvas, I think it would probably keep out most of the rain, although it wasn't meant to cover the field, so who knows if the games would go on or not.

It just covered the people in the crowd?

How big is the Colosseum anyway, compared to a baseball stadium? I have no idea of this stuff.

How big is the Colosseum anyway, compared to a baseball stadium? I have no idea of this stuff.

Wikipedia says that the central arena is an oval that measures 287 feet by 180 feet so it would be too small for baseball, football or soccer.

look, i've watched 'the killing' and you can't fool me. it's always raining in seattle, and not just some pleasant shower but a dreary grey cold drenching rain that makes you want to blow your brains out.

Of all the many annoying things about that show, that's maybe the one that gets me the most. It almost never rains that hard in Seattle, ever, yet in The Killing's Seattle, it's been monsoon season for 14 straight days.

Wikipedia says that the central arena is an oval that measures 287 feet by 180 feet so it would be too small for baseball, football or soccer.

Right in the sweet spot for sport killing, though.

Wikipedia says that the central arena is an oval that measures 287 feet by 180 feet so it would be too small for baseball, football or soccer.

The Circus Maximus would have to be used for baseball then. But a 2000ft centerfield depth is also a bit problematic.

How big is the Colosseum anyway, compared to a baseball stadium? I have no idea of this stuff.

It seated an estimated 50,000 people.

The Circus Maximus would have to be used for baseball then. But a 2000ft centerfield depth is also a bit problematic.

When I was a kid, my buddy and I "built" Circus Maximus on "Earl Weaver Baseball" with the max fence distances and played games there. Fun times.

I am old enough to remember the building of the Astrodome. The issue wasn't rain. It was heat. Houston, in the summer, is horribly hot and very humid if you don't live there and get acclimated. If I remember right, the roof was a necessary part of the deal, or MLB would not let a franchise go to Houston because of the heat. I don't guarantee that I remember right. I went to the Astrodome once, in 1965. It was a very odd stadium, because of the winds that the air conditioning generated, and because of the difficulty finding a fly ball against the dome background (they had to fix that real quick). Watching even good outfielders just lose the ball and struggle around like they had suddenly turned into Babe Herman was really funny, if you weren't rooting for anyone. Then, after the game, you'd go outside, and it was like you had walked into a sauna. - Brock Hanke

I really liked The Mote in God's Eye when I read it many, many, years ago. I've never read any of the sequels; I should do so...

They're pretty good IMO.

Also, any old-timers around here that used to read Pournelle's technology column in Byte Magazine? Far and away the best, most enjoyable, most fun column I've ever read. Instead of the typical rant (a la Dvorak) or lecture on how businesses are doing things these days (Seymour), Pournelle just spent time making various bits of technology work together in his home. Why? Because that's what nerds do. I have all sorts of nonsense running at the house, for no other reason than I wanted to see if I could. It's a lot easier to do that sort of thing thanks to the 'tubes, but in those days you pretty much had to read it in a magazine or book or something. (Or ask on Compuserve...)

I learned a lot from his columns, but even when I didn't, I had a great time reading them.