MLB Ballparks that need roofs

[BBTV]

If I was a professional, I might prefer indoors as well, since it's totally consistent. In a game where wind can give or take home runs from you that could cost you millions on a contract, or rain could create conditions that lead to injuries that cost you millions, etc, I think I'd opt for the sterilness of a dome.

If you're playing 13 out of 14 days, it's kind of like you're working at an office every day, so why not have it be like an office?

As a fan and a recreational softball player, I feel totally opposite of all this.

[TheOldRoman]

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.

Safeco is undoubtedly the best at giving an outdoor feel, but even with that, there's still the huge roof structure hanging over right field and CF, blocking view of the skyline and so forth. The proposed Rays stadium would have come close to what you're suggesting. There would have been an awkward giant pole and a few sail lines, but there wouldn't have been all that much covering the field when open.

[The_Admiral]

I adored that proposal, but alas, cutting-edge waterfront ballparks don't build themselves.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

That I could live with. It still feels outdoors because it's not confined. The only retractable roof stadium I've been in is the Skydome/Rogers Centre and even with the roof open, it's not the same. It's relatively old though, so I'm not sure if the newer ones have been engineered to be a bit more 'open'.

[McCall]

What gets me is at the time they announced that plan in te fall of 2007 coinciding with the new uniforms, all the fans would comment on the stories, "put a winning team out on the field first then you can build a new stadium". Well they went out the next season and won the AL East and made it to the World Series to start what's about to be a 6-year run as a winning ballclub and yet they still can't get any support.

[TBGKon]

I adored that proposal, but alas, cutting-edge waterfront ballparks don't build themselves.

Well it was kinda that, but the residents of St Pete didnt want it on their waterfront since the land was city land. If it was private land, I bet they Rays would be in that park right now.