One thing I’ve noticed when comparing stadium architecture is that it seems very common in European stadiums to have a roof covering the seating area, but not the field itself. This seems very unusual in the US and Canada. The only exceptions I can think of that of is (former) Texas Stadium and CenturyLink Field in Seattle (though in the latter case I don’t think the roof covers all of the seats.) All other North American stadiums I can think of are either fully enclosed or completely open to the elements or, at most, have only a modest roof structure that covers only a few of the very top rows.
Does anyone have any idea why that is? Is it something to do with climate? I know that in Europe the soccer season extends pretty much year round, but the American football season extends pretty deep into winter also.
I would say in England at least it’s because it rains a lot and it’s not very nice watching a soccer game in an uncovered area when it’s pouring with rain, especially in the middle of winter. I would say the reasons that there aren’t any soccer stadiums with covered pitches in England is that it costs a lot more to build a roof over the entire stadium than it does to cover the seating areas, especially for a retractable roof to allow the game to be played in natural light. That cost to be honest is not worth it- there are a few soccer grounds in Europe with retractable roofs, but you’d be hard-pushed to find a case in Europe where the trouble and expense of building a retractable roof was actually worth it.
I had forgotten about those. Red Bull Arena in New Jersey would be another example. I think in these cases the architects may be consciously trying to design a “European” style stadium.
That’s a picture of Silver Stadium, a minor league baseball park that was blown up real good in the late 90s. But before that, a roof covered nearly every seat.
We’re getting a partially covered stadium up in Saskatchewan to replace our old Mosaic Stadium: http://ipolitics_assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/03296468-1024x576.jpg
Fully enclosed stadiums come from the era of multi-purpose stadiums where one stadium was designed to be used for baseball, football, rock concerts, and other big events. Examples of these include Seattle’s the Kingdome and Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh. These venues, while functional, had the problem of being mostly sterile, colorless, and dull environments to watch a game so they fell out of fashion by the 1990s when there was boom in retro ballparks like Camden Yards in Baltimore. Also, around the same time, team franchise owners began pushing for their own stadiums–often with luxury boxes–rather than having to share one facility. Because baseball is played during the spring and summer when the weather is usually nice and football is played regardless of weather conditions, there was less need for fully-enclosed or partially-enclosed stadiums (Safeco Field in Seattle–where weather can be unpredictable even during the summer–is one noticeable exception). As a result, there are fewer domed and partially-enclosed stadiums used in North America.
[QUOTE=NDP;16539064 Because baseball is played during the spring and summer when the weather is usually nice and football is played regardless of weather conditions, there was less need for fully-enclosed or partially-enclosed stadiums (Safeco Field in Seattle–where weather can be unpredictable even during the summer–is one noticeable exception). As a result, there are fewer domed and partially-enclosed stadiums used in North America.[/QUOTE]
To a large extent it’s also just a function of how well funded the stadium is, to be quite honest. There is no logical reason why Milwaukee and Cleveland have retractable roofs on their baseball park but Detroit and the Mets do not. One must simply assume that the Brewers managed to extract more dough from the taxpayer. Truth be told, the main issue with getting a new stadium (and in baseball this started with Toronto’s SkyDome, not with Camden Yards) is more revenue, which is achieved by having a downtown location equipped with many luxury suites and amenities.
Or there is the issue of style. Even had they had the money, the Yankees would not have built a roof on the new Yankee Stadium because the fans would have hated it, though the weather can be notoriously terrible there.
Another thing to remember about baseball stadiums is that if it’s raining more than lightly, then the game is probably not being played. Football (American) virtually never stops for weather and any level. I don’t believe that football (soccer) is halted too often for rain either. I haven’t watched a lot, but I’ve seen it played in rain that would certianly stop a baseball game.
It would need to be monsoon conditions to stop a soccer game. They play in all weathers and only stop the game if (a) the pitch is frozen solid (most big clubs now have heated pitches) or (b) it’s raining/snowing so hard you can’t see the ball.
Sounds like baseball is more like cricket, which is routinely stopped for rain.
It has to be fairly heavy rain, though, since opportunities to schedule a makeup game are severely restricted (and they have to refund the ticket money if the game is simply cancelled). They’ll play through light rain, and even the heavier stuff if the game is close to completing 5 innings and thereby becoming official if they have to stop after that. Rain delays of multiple hours, even with the game not being resumed until after midnight, are not uncommon. If balls had to be bounced off the ground, like in cricket, then there’d certainly be a much lower threshold for rainfall.
To the OP question, an American ballpark is used only about 6 months of the year, and on only half the dates in that time. An NFL football stadium is used on only 10-12 *days *a year. A roof permits it to be used for many other revenue generation opportunities, year-round.
