MLB Ballparks that need roofs

[bigbean24]

Sigh... I miss the Metrodome. The fan experience (for the average fan) is way worse at Target Field. It's not just me saying that. Many people I've talked to about this said that the Metrodome was "more fun". You could get an Upper Decker, hot dog and a soda for $16 all while feeling the Twins actually cared about you, not to mention that a game was always a guarantee with a roof. At Target Field, an Upper Decker, soda and a hot dog will cost a good forty dollars. I suppose winning also has something to do with it...

[OnWis97]

Sigh... I miss the Metrodome. The fan experience (for the average fan) is way worse at Target Field. It's not just me saying that. Many people I've talked to about this said that the Metrodome was "more fun". You could get an Upper Decker, hot dog and a soda for $16 all while feeling the Twins actually cared about you, not to mention that a game was always a guarantee with a roof. At Target Field, an Upper Decker, soda and a hot dog will cost a good forty dollars. I suppose winning also has something to do with it...

I have never once heard anyone say this. Watching baseball at the Metrodome (particularly in bad upper-deck seats) was like watching MLB on Nintendo. The sterile environment, the turf, the narrow concourses. I've been to 22 MLB parks, current and defunct, and without a doubt the easiest I have to rank is the Dome at # 22.

The reason it's more expensive now is because there is more market for it. Because people prefer the experience there. Also, you can get into the upper deck down the baselines for about 12 bucks (so the soda and dog bring it to 20).

To each their own, and we both pretty much have anecdotal evidence, but mine points to absolutely no love for that godforsaken dump. You are the first person I have ever seen go the other way. I am sure there are a few people lamenting the price increase, but the experience? Whoever you are talking to are in a pretty small minority.

[bigbean24]

The people that agreed with me were in my age group, upper teens.

Another big part of it though is that you get the sense that the Twins only care about the people in Legends Club, Champions Club and the other suites. I never had this feeling at the dome. Not to mention the Twins were good at the dome. There was a lot of great memories there. I'm fairly young so my best memory was going to game 163. That game was LOUD, you will never get that noise level in Target Field.

Don't get me wrong,Target Field is beautiful.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Baseball is meant to be played outdoors

[YessSir32]

Baseball is meant to be played outdoors

No doubt about it. I've been to a few playoff games at Comerica and the chilly Michigan Octobers make it perfect for playoff baseball. The playoff atmosphere would be that much worse if it were played under a roof or dome. (Sorry Tampa )

[OnWis97]

The people that agreed with me were in my age group, upper teens.

Another big part of it though is that you get the sense that the Twins only care about the people in Legends Club, Champions Club and the other suites. I never had this feeling at the dome. Not to mention the Twins were good at the dome. There was a lot of great memories there. I'm fairly young so my best memory was going to game 163. That game was LOUD, you will never get that noise level in Target Field.

Don't get me wrong,Target Field is beautiful.

I was at game 163 too and it was awesome. Huge games like that can be enjoyed anywhere. I've been to two postseason games at the dome (1991...the only home loss, and 2009, the last Twins game ever played there) and it was electric. That probably closes the gap some...but for a June game against the Blue Jays, it's not even close.

I don't get any sense that the Twins "care" any more or less about "regular" fans than they used to. Yeah, things like the Legends Club are arguably unfortunate parts of today's ballparks. Having sat in the dugout section (which has a small area with no-line bathrooms and short-line food), it certainly is nice, but that does not make me feel any "less cared for" when I am sitting in regular seats.

There is no doubt about the power of positive memories of success so maybe that is part of the "cause" for you and your friends to feel that way (though the Twins remained competitive for the first year at Target). I have a lot of memories of the sub-.500 Twins in the 1980s (and 1990s, though I did not live here and made it to rare games) in the Dome. And the only thing worse than a dome game on a 70-degree day is a dome game on a 70 degree day with the Twins out of the race in May.

[TheOldRoman]

Hey guys, I was in attendance for game 163 the year earlier. I liked the outcome of that one better.

I never went to the Metrodome, but yeah, just from TV you could see how horrible of a venue it was. It wasn't mentioned here, but I imagine you'd hurt your neck sitting down the lines. If you were sitting in left field, you were staring straight ahead at the wall of folded seats, so you'd have to have your neck cranked to view the actual game. New Comiskey was like that to a lesser extent, because it was actually designed to be a baseball park (although primitive by today's standards). The new seats they installed a few years back are angled so they face second base. I haven't been to Target Field yet, but I hope to go in the next few years. Everything I've heard of it is that it's a great venue.

Domed stadiums in general are bad, mmkay? As mentioned, baseball is supposed to be played outdoors. The idea of "we don't have to ever cancel games because of our retractible roof" is a good one, but the problem comes when the roof is used for anything other than rain or extreme temperatures. The Astros used to almost always keep MMP's roof closed, even in perfect weather. They actually threw a little fit when MLB forced them to open the roof for the first World Series game in franchise history in 2005. It was 75 degrees outside, but they wanted to close the roof. It becomes more than an "in case of emergency" thing. Also, the stored roof panels are unslightly when stored, and can really detract from the park and the open-air feel (or so i've heard about Miller Park).

I wish the Vikings would have gotten an open-air stadium instead of another dome, but I thought the proposals for a retractable dome were silly for them. When would they have the roof open? The Colts barely open theirs, and the weather in Indy is much milder. Having teams come into frigid weather for the playoffs could potentially create a home field advantage, but we know that if the Vikings were hosting the NFC Championship game with a gametime temp of 5 degrees, the roof would be closed. The players would be more comfortable, as would the fans. There would have been no point in making it retractable just to get 3-4 outdoor games played a year. I'm glad budget concerns nixed the potential roof for the Twins.

[The_Admiral]

My ideal solution has always been for northern teams to back off on home dates in April and load up on June and July. It seems like an obvious fix: no one likes those cold, grey 35-degree days at Wrigley, where the ivy is still dormant and so are the people, but it's beautiful in the summer. But then teams get butthurt about blowing their home games early and road-tripping extensively in the heart of summer, even though if you're the Rangers, you're sidestepping your unpleasant weather as much as the Twins would be.

[The Six]

AT&T Park so the seagulls stop pooping in the stands

Miller Park so they can have a dome that doesn't have the bloodstains of dead constuction workers

Comerica Park so the next time the Tigers get swept in the World Series they don't have to freeze while doing it

Fenway Park so the Green Monster can extend all the way up within an inch of the roof,making hitting a homer there a real event

And all the stadiums in the original post so this thread doesn't get made

[bigbean24]

Hey guys, I was in attendance for game 163 the year earlier. I liked the outcome of that one better.

I never went to the Metrodome, but yeah, just from TV you could see how horrible of a venue it was. It wasn't mentioned here, but I imagine you'd hurt your neck sitting down the lines. If you were sitting in left field, you were staring straight ahead at the wall of folded seats, so you'd have to have your neck cranked to view the actual game. New Comiskey was like that to a lesser extent, because it was actually designed to be a baseball park (although primitive by today's standards). The new seats they installed a few years back are angled so they face second base. I haven't been to Target Field yet, but I hope to go in the next few years. Everything I've heard of it is that it's a great venue.

Domed stadiums in general are bad, mmkay? As mentioned, baseball is supposed to be played outdoors. The idea of "we don't have to ever cancel games because of our retractible roof" is a good one, but the problem comes when the roof is used for anything other than rain or extreme temperatures. The Astros used to almost always keep MMP's roof closed, even in perfect weather. They actually threw a little fit when MLB forced them to open the roof for the first World Series game in franchise history in 2005. It was 75 degrees outside, but they wanted to close the roof. It becomes more than an "in case of emergency" thing. Also, the stored roof panels are unslightly when stored, and can really detract from the park and the open-air feel (or so i've heard about Miller Park).

I wish the Vikings would have gotten an open-air stadium instead of another dome, but I thought the proposals for a retractable dome were silly for them. When would they have the roof open? The Colts barely open theirs, and the weather in Indy is much milder. Having teams come into frigid weather for the playoffs could potentially create a home field advantage, but we know that if the Vikings were hosting the NFC Championship game with a gametime temp of 5 degrees, the roof would be closed. The players would be more comfortable, as would the fans. There would have been no point in making it retractable just to get 3-4 outdoor games played a year. I'm glad budget concerns nixed the potential roof for the Twins.

I totally agree with that. I don't get the same feeling about the Vikings as I do about the Twins when it comes to the Metrodome. Having an open air stadium would, well I don't know how to say this but it would bring a certain mystique. It'd be like the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau. It would bring a "cool" homefield advantage. We'll see what its like next year when the Vikings will be playing in TCF Bank Stadium.

I also totally see where you guys are coming from with the Target Field/Metrodome discussion. The Metrodome is my chldhood with many great memories. So that's why I feel the way I do.

[bosrs1]

Hey guys, I was in attendance for game 163 the year earlier. I liked the outcome of that one better.

I never went to the Metrodome, but yeah, just from TV you could see how horrible of a venue it was. It wasn't mentioned here, but I imagine you'd hurt your neck sitting down the lines. If you were sitting in left field, you were staring straight ahead at the wall of folded seats, so you'd have to have your neck cranked to view the actual game. New Comiskey was like that to a lesser extent, because it was actually designed to be a baseball park (although primitive by today's standards). The new seats they installed a few years back are angled so they face second base. I haven't been to Target Field yet, but I hope to go in the next few years. Everything I've heard of it is that it's a great venue.

Domed stadiums in general are bad, mmkay? As mentioned, baseball is supposed to be played outdoors. The idea of "we don't have to ever cancel games because of our retractible roof" is a good one, but the problem comes when the roof is used for anything other than rain or extreme temperatures. The Astros used to almost always keep MMP's roof closed, even in perfect weather. They actually threw a little fit when MLB forced them to open the roof for the first World Series game in franchise history in 2005. It was 75 degrees outside, but they wanted to close the roof. It becomes more than an "in case of emergency" thing. Also, the stored roof panels are unslightly when stored, and can really detract from the park and the open-air feel (or so i've heard about Miller Park).

I wish the Vikings would have gotten an open-air stadium instead of another dome, but I thought the proposals for a retractable dome were silly for them. When would they have the roof open? The Colts barely open theirs, and the weather in Indy is much milder. Having teams come into frigid weather for the playoffs could potentially create a home field advantage, but we know that if the Vikings were hosting the NFC Championship game with a gametime temp of 5 degrees, the roof would be closed. The players would be more comfortable, as would the fans. There would have been no point in making it retractable just to get 3-4 outdoor games played a year. I'm glad budget concerns nixed the potential roof for the Twins.

I totally agree with that. I don't get the same feeling about the Vikings as I do about the Twins when it comes to the Metrodome. Having an open air stadium would, well I don't know how to say this but it would bring a certain mystique. It'd be like the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau. It would bring a "cool" homefield advantage. We'll see what its like next year when the Vikings will be playing in TCF Bank Stadium.

I also totally see where you guys are coming from with the Target Field/Metrodome discussion. The Metrodome is my chldhood with many great memories. So that's why I feel the way I do.

I have to admit, I'm finding it odd hearing people talking about one of, if not the worst stadiums in baseball history so fondly.

[OnWis97]

Hey guys, I was in attendance for game 163 the year earlier. I liked the outcome of that one better.

I never went to the Metrodome, but yeah, just from TV you could see how horrible of a venue it was. It wasn't mentioned here, but I imagine you'd hurt your neck sitting down the lines. If you were sitting in left field, you were staring straight ahead at the wall of folded seats, so you'd have to have your neck cranked to view the actual game. New Comiskey was like that to a lesser extent, because it was actually designed to be a baseball park (although primitive by today's standards). The new seats they installed a few years back are angled so they face second base. I haven't been to Target Field yet, but I hope to go in the next few years. Everything I've heard of it is that it's a great venue.

Domed stadiums in general are bad, mmkay? As mentioned, baseball is supposed to be played outdoors. The idea of "we don't have to ever cancel games because of our retractible roof" is a good one, but the problem comes when the roof is used for anything other than rain or extreme temperatures. The Astros used to almost always keep MMP's roof closed, even in perfect weather. They actually threw a little fit when MLB forced them to open the roof for the first World Series game in franchise history in 2005. It was 75 degrees outside, but they wanted to close the roof. It becomes more than an "in case of emergency" thing. Also, the stored roof panels are unslightly when stored, and can really detract from the park and the open-air feel (or so i've heard about Miller Park).

I wish the Vikings would have gotten an open-air stadium instead of another dome, but I thought the proposals for a retractable dome were silly for them. When would they have the roof open? The Colts barely open theirs, and the weather in Indy is much milder. Having teams come into frigid weather for the playoffs could potentially create a home field advantage, but we know that if the Vikings were hosting the NFC Championship game with a gametime temp of 5 degrees, the roof would be closed. The players would be more comfortable, as would the fans. There would have been no point in making it retractable just to get 3-4 outdoor games played a year. I'm glad budget concerns nixed the potential roof for the Twins.

I totally agree with that. I don't get the same feeling about the Vikings as I do about the Twins when it comes to the Metrodome. Having an open air stadium would, well I don't know how to say this but it would bring a certain mystique. It'd be like the Frozen Tundra of Lambeau. It would bring a "cool" homefield advantage. We'll see what its like next year when the Vikings will be playing in TCF Bank Stadium.

I also totally see where you guys are coming from with the Target Field/Metrodome discussion. The Metrodome is my chldhood with many great memories. So that's why I feel the way I do.

First to Roman's point about the sight lines...sitting down the first base line was OK (relative to the Dome). Down the third base line, you were looking at the 50-yard line. Obviously, Target Field is better for that purpose (though I was a bit disappointed...I don't think it does as good of a job as Miller Park, for example.. Target kind of points you into the outfield sometimes). Other seating issues included being 15 feet off the ground in the first row behind the plate, no overhang put the upper deck extra far away, and the incredibly wide sections created a nightmare to get out if you were in the middle (and constant standing when you were on the end).

As for the retractable roof idea, I am glad they did not go that way too. First off Miller Park, which is functionally great (great sight lines) looks like the Death Star from the outside and is very tacky on the inside and the roof is ever-present (though the only other one I've been to, Safeco, does better in this regard). Second, I totally agree about the "when it's closed" problem. I went to a closed-roof game at Miller Park when it was in the mid-50s. That's silly. Baseball should default to outdoors, not indoors. But some of these places tend to default to indoors. And didn't the D-Backs close the roof every time Schilling pitched, at his request? Ugh.

As for the Vikings, I agree that open air would have been great, but I find it ironic that you like the Dome better for the Twins than the Vikes. The dome is serviceable for football (Pro...it destroyed the college atmosphere). It still has a sterile environment, narrow concourses, not enough bathrooms, etc., but from a seating perspective it is not terrible. So it was at least serviceable for the NFL when it was built. It was a total disaster for baseball from day 1.

[bigbean24]

Yeah, the venue was a piece of crap, but the memories my friend, the memories! It's like having a slow kid brother, sure hes gonna do some retarded things, but he's still your kid brother. Okay that was a bad comparison, but I think you got my point.

Here's an article that shares some of my thoughts:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/363104-minnesota-twins-six-things-fan-will-miss-about-the-metrodome

I know it's Bleacher Report...

I think the reason I enjoyed it for the Twins and not the Vikings has to do with winning and that football is a game that's better on t.v. but baseball is better in person.

[OnWis97]

Yeah, the venue was a piece of crap, but the memories my friend, the memories! It's like having a slow kid brother, sure hes gonna do some retarded things, but he's still your kid brother. Okay that was a bad comparison, but I think you got my point.

Here's an article that shares some of my thoughts:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/363104-minnesota-twins-six-things-fan-will-miss-about-the-metrodome

I know it's Bleacher Report...

I get it. And I'm not going after you...just genuinely surprised.

[crashcarson15]

I can see where bigbean24's coming from here to be honest. I've got tons of great experiences from the RCA Dome and while Lucas Oil Stadium's really nice, I can't help but miss the RCA Dome. The Colts' move coincided with me losing all interest in rooting for the team because in many ways, LOS has kept me from ever going to an NFL game there. Back in the day of the RCA Dome, fans could buy single-game tickets where after the move to LOS, single game ticket sales about ended.

Also, Lucas Oil Stadium is just so damn cavernous it's almost excessively big—especially for the comparatively low capacity in the stadium.

[BBTV]

I hate having tickets for a game and it's pouring rain or just miserable out and they won't postpone it until after it starts and it starts in a rain delay. I understand why they do that, but it really sucks not knowing if you need to go and waste your time and be wet and miserable, or eat your tickets. The fun of baseball outdoors in a nice park outweighs the crappyness of the wet days, so I don't want a full fledged dome here, but some egghead engineer should be able to come up with designs for like a giant umbrella that can just temporarily cover the park when it rains, or maybe a huge slanted "roof" that retracts into the ground when it's not needed. The park would still be "open", but you wouldn't get all wet and icky.

[bosrs1]

I hate having tickets for a game and it's pouring rain or just miserable out and they won't postpone it until after it starts and it starts in a rain delay. I understand why they do that, but it really sucks not knowing if you need to go and waste your time and be wet and miserable, or eat your tickets. The fun of baseball outdoors in a nice park outweighs the crappyness of the wet days, so I don't want a full fledged dome here, but some egghead engineer should be able to come up with designs for like a giant umbrella that can just temporarily cover the park when it rains, or maybe a huge slanted "roof" that retracts into the ground when it's not needed. The park would still be "open", but you wouldn't get all wet and icky.

They already have that. It's called SAFECO Field. SAFECO really is different than the other domes. It is an open air stadium that just happens to have a giant steel umbrella that slides over it on rainy days. And it really does feel like an open air park when it's open unlike the other domes which still have the dome framework looming over at least two sides when it's open.

[BBTV]

I hate having tickets for a game and it's pouring rain or just miserable out and they won't postpone it until after it starts and it starts in a rain delay. I understand why they do that, but it really sucks not knowing if you need to go and waste your time and be wet and miserable, or eat your tickets. The fun of baseball outdoors in a nice park outweighs the crappyness of the wet days, so I don't want a full fledged dome here, but some egghead engineer should be able to come up with designs for like a giant umbrella that can just temporarily cover the park when it rains, or maybe a huge slanted "roof" that retracts into the ground when it's not needed. The park would still be "open", but you wouldn't get all wet and icky.

They already have that. It's called SAFECO Field. SAFECO really is different than the other domes. It is an open air stadium that just happens to have a giant steel umbrella that slides over it on rainy days. And it really does feel like an open air park when it's open unlike the other domes which still have the dome framework looming over at least two sides when it's open.

Oh absolutely. I've never been there, but Safeco is my favorite of all the retractable stadiums for that very reason. Houston, Milwaukee, Miami, etc. look horrible when the roof is open since it's still enclosed. The glass panels really don't accomplish anything.

For the amount that it is needed here, I wouldn't advocate anything that elaborate, but there's got to be something.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

Comerica Park so the next time the Tigers get swept in the World Series they don't have to freeze while doing it

Hey now...

[BigBubba]

I remember Paul Beeston described the SkyDome as "a closed dome that's open when the weather's nice" as opposed to other parks that are "open stadiums that are closed when the weather's bad". He said that Roberto Alomar and RA Dickey (among others) actually prefer playing indoors and would do so all the time if they could.