Is Safeco Field's Roof Necessary?
by Fin on Feb 4, 2011 8:56 AM PST
Email
Print
So this time last year, everyone was probably scratching their heads over the decision that Target Field in Minneapolis would be an open air stadium. But doesn't it snow and rain alot there in April? Somewhere in some executive boardroom, the decision was determined that a roof would be an unneccessary addition to the already high costs it takes to build a brand new stadium, and that they would forgo it.
Meanwhile, we've been enjoying a roof over our heads at Safeco FIeld for over ten years now. Was it worth the money?
You may be thinking "of course, it rains all the time here in Seattle". I decided to play around with some data, and prove that this may be just conventional wisdom, and here at Lookout Landing, we're all about disproving conventional wisdom. I decided to take both the average precipitation per month and the number of days of precipitation for Seattle and six other cities that currently have open air baseball stadiums. I wanted to create a visualization that would allow to give a compelling side by side comparison of Seattle's precipitation compared to other major cities.
Although we should care mostly about the months April through October, I included November through March because those months support the reasoning to why people think it rains all the time here in Seattle. It does....during some parts of the year. But during most of the baseball season, you can see that is rains about the same or less in Seattle than it does in other cities. Don't get me wrong, I believe every new ballpark should have a retractable roof, but as the new stadium in Minnesota proves, not every ownership group is going to see the value added of non-interrupted baseball through the additional expense of a roof. So the big question is, did the Mariners' ownership take advantage of conventional wisdom to add a $67 million dollar roof to an already expensive ballpark? The data would prove yes.
Note: The pictures link to the visualizations.
Graph Visualizations of Precipitation Data 
Powered by Tableau
Map Visualizations of Precipitation Data 
Powered by Tableau
101 comments
|
9 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I think even apart from the issue of actual rain
having the roof closed at Safeco also provides additional warmth, which to me is just as important. It’s still plenty cold in April and September, even with the roof closed, but with the roof closed you at least get some trapped heat.
Also, anybody who actually lives in Seattle and thinks “it rains here all the time” may not actually live in Seattle. Seattle summers are probably the most beautiful, temperate summers anywhere in the continental US. Of course, sometimes they arrive late, but still.
I never noticed it being warmer when the roof is closed
But then again most of the times I do go the weather is fine and the roof isn’t closed
Eat shit bum!
"warmer" is a relative term since it's not a fully enclosed roof
but depending on where I’m sitting I do notice a bit of a difference.
Yeah, I've definitely felt it go from "brr" to "oh, this is somewhat tolerable", especially in April games.
If you’re sitting in Lookout Landing then no, there really isn’t much of a difference at all.
by Johnny Slick on Feb 4, 2011 12:25 PM PST up reply actions
It does cut down the wind...
but if you are in the outfield (especially upper deck or bleachers) you won’t notice a difference.
I'm usually in the LF bleachers.
It might actually make some of the wind a little worse, given my experiences…
Writer: ProBallNW.com
Fan: Seattle Mariners, Seattle Sounders FC, Liverpool, Seattle Seahawks, Washington State Cougars, Buffalo Bills
Twitter
I think that's probably the thing.
The temperatures here most any time of the baseball season are tolerable, but the roof helps cut down on the wind swriling around.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 4, 2011 4:37 PM PST up reply actions
Even in the sense that it does rain all the time in Seattle...
…and it kind of does in the fall and spring and winter, but even then it doesn’t rain the way it does in the Midwest, with absolute downpours making it tough to be outside at all. Our most common style of rain is the light drizzle that just kind of lasts the entire day. If that’s what they had on the East Coast back in the 1870s they probably wouldn’t have been calling a lot of rain delays either.
I wouldn't even say 'needs to be closed'. Sometimes a small passing shower will cause them to close it.
They’re not closing it to prevent a rain-out or delay, but to prevent the fans from getting a little rain on them.
I fucking hate you Mariners
The Mariners' stated goal with the roof
was to ensure that people who travel significant distances once a year to see a Mariner game would not have their vacation plans ruined by a rainout or rain delay. Makes sense to me, even though I go to several a year. If I only had one chance to go and that chance was rained out, I’d be pretty annoyed.
by pdb on Feb 4, 2011 11:47 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
That could be a good justification
especially since the Mariners territorial fanbase extends from Southern Oregon to Alaska to Montana/Idaho.
2010 Safeco Field Record: 2-1 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 12-5
by Fin on Feb 4, 2011 12:28 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
In line with this point,
I just love the fact that if I take the all-day trip to Seattle to see a Mariners game I know that (barring some extremely rare/freak occurrence) I will get to watch a baseball game and not have to worry about rain delays. Of course this does not have anything to do with if its necessity was decided by conventional wisdom
Yup.
Last thing I really want to do is drive down from Bellingham to sit in the rain for an hour and then find out the game is cancelled.
by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 4, 2011 1:13 PM PST up reply actions
Though I was at the only rain delay in Mariners history.
by Scruffy Lefty on Feb 4, 2011 1:14 PM PST up reply actions
So was I!
Had out of town guests there, too. Good times.
by pdb on Feb 4, 2011 1:19 PM PST up reply actions
What's the story on that? Did a downpour come in so quickly they couldn't close the roof in time?
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
The first rule of Lookout Landing is...
by appleshampoo on Feb 16, 2011 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
The roof stopped working mid-deployment
There was about an hour delay if I remember right as they got the mechanism working again.
Me too
The company I was interning had purchased a section that day. In the last Field Level section down the 3B line.
I got rained out at the first Cardinals game I went to. That was lame.
One nice thing about new Busch is that it’s built with big, covered concourses so just about everybody can stay dry and somewhat warm. It’s almost like they knew that area gets terrible storms.
This is why I think every new stadium should come with a retractable roof
but I suppose not every city can justify it.
2010 Safeco Field Record: 2-1 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 12-5
by Fin on Feb 4, 2011 2:52 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, if I were a fan making a day trip into the city to see a ballgame I'd be pretty bummed if it got canceled due to weather.
Dawg! He put da team on his back!
by JAH on Feb 4, 2011 3:07 PM PST up reply actions
this
its a long way for me to drive from Salem, OR to Seattle for a game.
--Dave
Addicted to Quack, your friendly, neighborhood Oregon Ducks blog
Yeah this was what they said during the Safeco field tour when I took it.
Makes sense.
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
The first rule of Lookout Landing is...
by appleshampoo on Feb 16, 2011 5:12 PM PST up reply actions
I drove a long way to see two games last April
the first game had intermittent rain, and the second was played in a monsoon. There’s no way wither gets played without the roof.
I think the current economy plays a big deal on building a roof.
Most cities feel building a stadium isn’t worth the tax payer money.
Eat shit bum!
Just realised that my last post isn't answering your question.
The retractable roof is a nice gimmick to fill seats. I don’t want to call Seattle sports fan fairweather fans but if your debating on watching the game in person or on tv I’m sure you’d rather be somewhere dry.
Eat shit bum!
That's a very good point that I didn't think about.
2010 Safeco Field Record: 2-1 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 12-5
I believe that was the main driver behind not building one in MN
it would have added something like $150 million to the already ridiculous cost.
The Safeco Field one cost $67 million
but it acts more like an umbrella than a complete enclosure. I’m sure a MN one could potentially cost closer to $150 million.
2010 Safeco Field Record: 2-1 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 12-5
If I remember correctly,
and I possibly don’t, the minnesota retractible roof plans were pretty similar to the safeco plans with the roof being umbrella-esk. The extra costs probably just came from construction inflation and maybe from the fact that target field is in the middle of downtown, not on the outskirts of it like safeco. There was also a plan for a no roof field that would be built with the capabilities of adding a roof later if it proved necessary, but that was also shot down. It’s been a very snowy year so far here in minnesota (much more than last winter) so we’ll see if that continues into spring. I know last year was somewhat uncommon in that we did not receive an april snowfall.
This is all from stuff I’ve just picked up by living in minnesota for the past 3.5 years, so I could be wrong on everything (I haven’t researched any of this). I know every local I talked to thought it was dumb to not build a roof, but they also don’t pay taxes in minneapolis.
Seems kind of ridiculous to completely write off the possibility of a roof
not only because of the cold weather in the tail ends of the baseball season, but also Minneapolis gets more precipitation during the summer months than the winter months, per my visualizations. If you refer to the graph I made for each city, Minneapolis’s and Seattle’s graphs are almost inverse as far as their monthly precipitation trends go.
2010 Safeco Field Record: 2-1 ; Overall Safeco Field Record: 12-5
by Fin on Feb 4, 2011 9:03 PM PST up reply actions
I think the prevailing attitude was more that people wanted a new stadium...
…to be the opposite of the Metrodome. Not having a roof is part of that. There were some concerns that a retractable roof (at least a modestly priced one) would add to the footprint of the construction and they might not have enough space for that to keep it downtown.
Also, from over in Milwaukee, there are a lot of complaints that the roof is closed too often, so some people get worried that if the team has the option to close the roof, they are going to be stuck with indoor baseball more than they’d like, and with everyone hating the Metrodome so much, that’s something people really don’t want.
Ultimately, you just can’t have it both ways. You can’t have completely outdoor baseball and a modestly priced stadium and provide a guarantee that folks from out of town will get to see their game on time. Having moved from Minnesota to Seattle, I find that having outdoor baseball at Safeco adds a lot to the experience, but Safeco with the roof closed seems a bit dark and sad (though better than the Metrodome.)
One other thing, too
Folks in Minneapolis might be just a little touchy on the subject of stadium roofs just now.
by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 5, 2011 9:10 AM PST up reply actions 1 recs
Haha!
At least you didn’t mention our bridges.
"Don't take life for granted, because tomorrow isn't promised to any one of us." -Kirby Puckett
"Gardy MOY. Feel great disturbance in Force. As if millions of Internet cranks cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced." -BatGirl
by less cowbell, more 'neau on Feb 5, 2011 2:34 PM PST up reply actions
It seems like revenue generated from game days should pay back the stadium cost relatively quickly though.
That argument always seemed weird to me. A good new stadium is a temporary hit on the economy, then a huge boost, it seems like. I mean…how is downtown Seattle doing without the Sonics now? Having those dates for sporting events seems to outweigh stadium/arena costs.
There have been many studies that have disproven that theory
I’ll see if I can find one or two, but as I recall the studies seem to conclude that the benefit is insubstantial.
by pdb on Feb 8, 2011 7:55 AM PST up reply actions
Here's one
A Closer Look At Stadium Subsidies
Most of the articles and studies I’ve read seem to conclude that the money spent around a sports stadium – new or old – is money that would have been spent elsewhere – on movies, dinners out, concerts, etc – had that stadium not been there, so there’s no net gain to the economic picture of a city by adding a publicly financed stadium to the mix.
by pdb on Feb 8, 2011 8:01 AM PST up reply actions
Arenas are better than football or baseball fields, but yes entirely.
People only have a limited amount of money to spend on entertainment. That’s why Blockbuster saw a huge surge in movie rentals during the last mlb strike.
Wherever you are, here you go.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 8, 2011 8:56 AM PST up reply actions
I think it depends on how far out you draw the lines.
You’re right that studies have proven that additional money isn’t spent on the metro level. By the way, I really enjoyed the irony of the Clay Bennett ownership group making that argument in the Seattle trial even as they were signing a sweetheart deal in Oklahoma City.
This doesn’t really have anything to do with metro-level stadium funding, but I think local businesses near the stadia are absolutely helped or hurt by the presence of sporting events—I believe the restaurants and bars near Seattle Center have been pretty badly hurt by the Sonics leaving.
But there is an obvious effect on the businesses that are located right near the stadiums.
As Chris said, the restaurants and bars near Key Arena have been hurt badly by the Sonics leaving. That’s what drew people to that area, rather than those people spending their money in other neighborhoods.
On a city-wide level, I don’t know that it makes much a financial difference though.
"I've seen prison breaks with more organization and cooperation than this"
You know we're still paying for the Kingdome, right?
Here’s a recent story. I could have sworn that part of our sales tax in Seattle and/or King Co. was also going toward paying down this bond, but I can’t find that anywhere.
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
The first rule of Lookout Landing is...
by appleshampoo on Feb 16, 2011 5:20 PM PST up reply actions
I THINK that the SafeCo payments are done now, but I'm not 100% sure.
I know there was a big to-do about the Mariners finishing some sort of financial payments to the city/state in regards to SafeCo earlier than thought awhile back.
That said, I’m pretty sure that the sales tax didn’t change, the money just went towards something else.
Writer: ProBallNW.com
Fan: Seattle Mariners, Seattle Sounders FC, Liverpool, Seattle Seahawks, Washington State Cougars, Buffalo Bills
Twitter
It's Safeco not SafeCo
and you’re right, the payments as laid out in the original agreement are pretty much done, but I believe the county is on the hook for any future improvements although I could be wrong.
I remember it always being "SAFECO Field" on the scoreboards when written out not as a logo.
Charter Member: Dave Sims Sweet Hat Club // Career .384 BA, .543 OBP for Rocky Diablos
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Feb 18, 2011 2:52 AM PST up reply actions
The official business name is Safeco
it’s never been camel case. I don’t know why it bugs me so much but it’s probably because I hate hate hate camel case.
I often wish Safeco didn't feel so closed in
Even with the roof open it looms over the stadium in right field. But at least it doesn’t feel like you’re sitting inside the world’s largest vagina.
Actually, after spending some time in Miller Park in Milwaukee
I think Safeco feels like the perfect balance between open air/closed roof.
You! Cake or death?
Both miller Park and Chase Field in Phoenix appear on TV to be closed-air stadiums, even with their roofs open.
Safeco doesn’t have have that sort of feeling at all.
Just because this post may not contain a pun, I have not surrendered my pun-alienable rights.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 4, 2011 7:27 PM PST up reply actions
I was at a game, that started with the Miller Park Roof closed and the glass pannels open
The only thing to tell me they were open was the occasional breeze that came through the ballpark. Than the panels had to close because of lightning, and I didn’t even notice until my dad pointed it out.
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 7, 2011 2:22 PM PST up reply actions
Huh - I have been to several games there and never even realized the panels did that.
But your account leads me to believe maybe I am not just ridiculously unobservant?
You! Cake or death?
Ya I didn't know either, low and behold what once showed outside showed glass....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MillerPark2.jpg
picture of the panels open
What goes up must come down.
Sorry Duck fans
by Neil Vincent Roberts on Feb 9, 2011 5:33 PM PST up reply actions
Chase Field is the size of about 11 airplane hangars so doesn't even feel remotely confining
This is not a good thing, but at least it’s not claustrophobic.
by pdb on Feb 4, 2011 9:49 PM PST up reply actions
To be honest...
… I hardly even notice the roof when it’s open. Maybe I’m just used to it, but I don’t think it closes things in at all.
Writer: ProBallNW.com
Fan: Seattle Mariners, Seattle Sounders FC, Liverpool, Seattle Seahawks, Washington State Cougars, Buffalo Bills
Twitter
It adds a little bit of closed-inness
But it’s not overly intrusive. Mostly, I don’t like the aesthetics of it. When I look over Safeco field, wherever I happen to be, it seems like a distraction, something that’s not supposed to be there. There’s somewhat of a feeling of it looming over the right field stands that doesn’t seem in place in a ballpark.
I can certainly see the practical side of it. I don’t like it, but then again, I’ve never had to experience how miserable a rainout can be.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 4, 2011 8:27 PM PST up reply actions
I only notice it
when I go to a park with no roof, then return. I visted AT&T Park this summer and upon returning to Safeco the lack of openness was noticable. Maybe we could spend a hundred mil to make the roof sort of sink down below the level of the stands once it’s retracted. I haven’t been to Milwaukee but that park looks like you’d feel claustrophobic inside, open or closed.
AT&T also doesn't have three levels in the right-field bleachers.
But if you want an open-looking park, PETCO Park is just so wide open in center field it looks like it could go on for days.
Charter Member: Dave Sims Sweet Hat Club // Career .384 BA, .543 OBP for Rocky Diablos
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Feb 5, 2011 2:16 AM PST up reply actions
Different sport, but you should try Lucas Oil Stadium in Indy
Having watched Colts-‘Hawks there a year ago, I have to say, I don’t know why they didn’t just build a regular old roof; that thing’s not a convertible, it just has an itty-bitty sunroof.
by The Ancient Mariner on Feb 5, 2011 9:08 AM PST up reply actions
I think part of it is the outrage from the casual fans or non-fans.
Like I remember one of my friends’ parents when Qwest was built thought it was ridiculous to have an outdoor stadium in Seattle, even if it was for football. Now this is a small sample but I wouldn’t be surprised if a not-insignificant amount of Seattlites would have a similar problem with a stadium being built that doesn’t account for the main thing we are known for and possibly having money wasted in that way. Not that this is right or that their votes even mattered (no politics) but it’s a factor.
I don't live in Seattle
But usually make two or three trips a season up to see some games and the roof is very often closed during April and September games.
Regardless, it’s nice to know that the game won’t be delayed. In college I took a road trip with some buddies one summer and we stopped at Comerica for a Tigers game that got delayed, I think, four hours. It was awful.
I think the roof is totally worth it.
I've gone to a couple cold and rainy games that wouldn't have happened without the roof.
It might not be “necessary” but it lets every game actually be played without delay. I’d that’s worth it.
The decision not to put a roof on Target Field
Was decided by money. According to Gardenhire last year, they simply didn’t have the cash to do it, it wasn’t like they looked everything over and let the decision rest as being “unnecessary”.
Personally, I like the roof. Not only are there no rain-outs as previously mentioned, but I take my camera to every game to take photos for my blog – if there is no roof, there is no way for me to do that without risking a piece of equipment I cannot currently afford to replace. Also, I tried to “enjoy” a Sounders game in the rain once, and I won’t be doing that again any time soon. I can stay home and take a shower.
But that’s just me.
~Garrett Olson is my secret boyfriend~
Great charts, by the way.
I haven’t seen that site before. It looks pretty damn useful.
by nathaniel dawson on Feb 5, 2011 12:25 PM PST reply actions
There's also the fact that Safeco gets used in the winter months for other events
For example:
Microsoft’s company meeting
There was a Bowl Game there for a couple years
None of those things happen if it weren’t for the roof.
I'm pretty sure the Seattle Bowl was a one-off event.
Wherever you are, here you go.
by thehemogoblin on Feb 7, 2011 10:01 AM PST up reply actions
It was played at Qwest in 2002, Safeco in 2001
My first game at Qwest was a Wake Forest/Oregon snooze. Who knew that stadium could get loud?
On what basis?
Economic or purely subjective?
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 8, 2011 8:37 AM PST up reply actions
Subjectively...I go to 65+ games a year, and it seems that the roof is rarely closed.
However, it’s worth it to me, even if it is only used a few times a year, to make sure there is never a weather related delay. Not sure if it’s worth the cost of the roof, but it sure makes it nice as a fan to know a rain delay is never around the corner.
Yeah, I love the roof. I also love Safeco.
But there’s a very good case it never should have been built and a very good case that the Twins were smart not to add the roof.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 8, 2011 9:12 AM PST up reply actions
I think in Safeco's case, it was worth the cost, if the cost is what I think it was ($67M)
in part because our fan base is probably more spread out than anywhere else in the country.
$150M or whatever it was for a roof at Twins Field (Target can go die) isn’t worth it.
I think in terms of the overall project, looked at in isolation, that Safeco's roof was worth it.
by Aaron Campeau on Feb 8, 2011 10:43 AM PST up reply actions
I would say that Chase Field and maybe Minute Maid are the only other cases where a roof is absolutely worth the cost
just because it allows for air conditioning so the fans don’t die. I don’t know how much more or less humid Arlington is than Houston but it seems like Houston required a roof for fan comfort, and I know I wouldn’t go to a day game at Chase in July with the roof open.
Arlington is less humid.
Houston is the armpit of America
by Matthew on Feb 8, 2011 11:49 AM PST up reply actions 3 recs
But these prices, 10 years apart, aren't all that different.
Also, given the cost overruns, it seems like $67M may be lowballing it.
A: Pimping, Safeco's Roof
Q: Things That Ain’t Easy, But Are Necessary
by lemonverbena on Feb 8, 2011 10:06 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
We had one in 2007
Against the Indians. I think it had something to do with a rainout over there, if memory serves, but it still happened.
~Garrett Olson is my secret boyfriend~
I was in Cleveland for that and got stuck there for a 24-hour period without transportation.
Fuck that series.
Charter Member: Dave Sims Sweet Hat Club // Career .384 BA, .543 OBP for Rocky Diablos
by Two Rs and Two Ls on Feb 18, 2011 2:53 AM PST up reply actions
We had one against the Royals a few years back too.
by Mariner John on Feb 14, 2011 11:26 AM PST up reply actions
I was able to attend one at the Kingdome in 1985 against the Angels.
Six hours of baseball was just about the greatest thing ever for me at that age. Doug Decinces made an error that made 7-year-old me think he was the world fielding third baseman ever.
Oakland offered the Dodgers
a “domed covered stadium” back in 1957.
O’Malley had been in contact with Buckminster Fuller about a dome for a ballpark in Brooklyn.
Officially awaiting the 2011 MLB season
by One won lost won on Feb 15, 2011 9:29 PM PST reply actions
misquote
“dome covered Ball Park”…not “stadium”.
Officially awaiting the 2011 MLB season
by One won lost won on Feb 15, 2011 9:31 PM PST up reply actions
Kudos on the post
But come on, completely necessary. I LOVE OOH’ING WHEN THEY OPEN/CLOSE IT!
by Charles Gipson is a Mangod on Feb 16, 2011 3:51 PM PST reply actions
Deadspin did a jag on this in their "Why Your Stadium Sucks" series
Linky. But they don’t even mention the “days with rain” stat, which is a very good inclusion here. Would be nice to total up average days with rainfall over the baseball months; looks like we come out pretty close to even with a couple of the comparison cities.
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
The first rule of Lookout Landing is...
I read that
They seemed to spend most of the article complaining about the train, and it must have been done a while ago, for them to be complaining about the lack of food options in or around the stadium. I didn’t think it proved anything about SafeCo “sucking”.
Then again, I’m not much of a complainer, so maybe I just don’t understand.
~Garrett Olson is my secret boyfriend~
You run a blog, you should be increasing your complaining by 1000%!
Dawg! He put da team on his back!
If you read the rest of the series
they basically focus on anything bad at every ballpark, hence the name. It’s kind of a really stupid idea if you ask me, but it was relevant to the conversation here.
Yeah, I didn’t notice that comment about the food before, but it’s pretty retarded now. Besides all the vendors outside, you’ve got Pyramid and Jimmy’s literally across the street from the the stadium in 2 directions. And plenty more within a few blocks.
Mariners/D Broncos/BSU Broncos fan in Seattle
The first rule of Lookout Landing is...
by appleshampoo on Feb 17, 2011 4:32 AM PST up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Lookout Landing
Related FanShots on Lookout Landing
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
- Giancarlo Stanton misses cutoff man, and Logan Morrison is thankful he did (Video)
- Snoop Dogg delivers memorable first pitch at U.S. Cellular Field
