BTW, your contention that $200 million could be shaved from the construction costs by building a domed rather than rectractable roofed stadium is seriously flawed.? If you used a number of half that amount I might agree but your number is highly inflated.

 

 

After cost overruns, it will easily hit $200 million. You don't realize how expensive it is to build an retractable roof. Regular domes are easily half the cost.

603870[/snapback]

 

 

Baseball is not meant for permanently domed stadiums, especially in South Florida. The retractable roof will do its job in guaranteeing that baseball will be played (rain or shine) and will provide a pleasant atmosphere for the day games if it gets too hot. Permanent domes are a thing of the past, and thank God for that. If this stadium does in fact come into fruition, it will be a thing of beauty.

BTW, your contention that $200 million could be shaved from the construction costs by building a domed rather than rectractable roofed stadium is seriously flawed. If you used a number of half that amount I might agree but your number is highly inflated.

 

 

After cost overruns, it will easily hit $200 million. You don't realize how expensive it is to build an retractable roof. Regular domes are easily half the cost.

603870[/snapback]

 

 

Baseball is not meant for permanently domed stadiums, especially in South Florida. The retractable roof will do its job in guaranteeing that baseball will be played (rain or shine) and will provide a pleasant atmosphere for the day games if it gets too hot. Permanent domes are a thing of the past, and thank God for that. If this stadium does in fact come into fruition, it will be a thing of beauty.

603945[/snapback]

 

 

Yes.. Not to mentioned that if they build a fixed roof they will have to use artificial turf.

 

Fish fry: The whole MLB world is getting away from Astro-Turf and you want to go back to it? What kind of mentality is that? You want to blow probably 300 million so that less that 10 years from now they start asking for another stadium? I only have one thing to say to you : What seems cheaper now is not the cheapest in the long run. Remember the Miami Arena?

MLB has officially banned AstroTurf. The Blue Jays switch to FieldTurf for 2005.

 

Only Minnesota, Tampa Bay, and Toronto use artificial turf and all use the FieldTurf system.

MLB has officially banned AstroTurf. The Blue Jays switch to FieldTurf for 2005.

 

Only Minnesota, Tampa Bay, and Toronto use artificial turf and all use the FieldTurf system.

604928[/snapback]

 

 

Whatever it's called it's freaking horrible and most players hate it. Not to mention that it sucks watching a flyball drop and bouncing 30 feet in the air. Retactable roof with natural surface is the way to go.

permanent domed stadiums suck, period. Baseball was not meant to be played only under some damn ugly roof. It was meant to be played outdoors. A retractable roof will allow baseball to be played in good weather and in bad. You are just trying to save money. But in the end it will cost more. Two words for you: Miami Arena. I do not need the Marlins a few years after the new one opens asking for yet new ballpark again. The Marlins need an awesome ballpark they can play in for at least some 40 years. A retractable ballpark is it.

BTW, your contention that $200 million could be shaved from the construction costs by building a domed rather than rectractable roofed stadium is seriously flawed.? If you used a number of half that amount I might agree but your number is highly inflated.

 

 

After cost overruns, it will easily hit $200 million. You don't realize how expensive it is to build an retractable roof. Regular domes are easily half the cost.

603870[/snapback]

 

I "don't realize"?

 

Get a grip child. :thumbdown

I "don't realize"?

 

Get a grip child.

 

 

That's your problem right there. You might want to study up on the cost overrun problems that Houston and (most famously) Seattle faced with their retractable roofs. SkyDome (the original retractable roof stadium) has already become an albatross to the Blue Jays.

 

BTW, you're probably the first person to call me a child in 20 years, moron.

Whatever it's called it's freaking horrible and most players hate it. Not to mention that it sucks watching a flyball drop and bouncing 30 feet in the air.

 

 

 

That doesn't happen with the new turfs. You're still talking like this is the same turf they used 20 years ago. It's not. They might both be artificial surfaces, but you're comparing apples to oranges. You might as well be comparing how a grass field plays to the way an all-dirt field plays.

 

 

Retactable roof with natural surface is the way to go.

 

 

Great. How do you want to pay for it?

Whatever it's called it's freaking horrible and most players hate it.? Not to mention that it sucks watching a flyball drop and bouncing 30 feet in the air.?

 

 

 

That doesn't happen with the new turfs. You're still talking like this is the same turf they used 20 years ago. It's not. They might both be artificial surfaces, but you're comparing apples to oranges. You might as well be comparing how a grass field plays to the way an all-dirt field plays.

 

 

Retactable roof with natural surface is the way to go.

 

 

Great. How do you want to pay for it?

605701[/snapback]

 

 

the parks gonna have the real turf anyways. there is only retractable roof dome in MLB that doesn't have the real stuff and that's skydome and even that has it's reasons.

 

1) to many events held at skydome to have natural turf, it would be a PPS in september scenario year round.

 

2) the roof doesn't completely come off the stadium so natural turf wouldn't survive.

 

bottomline the new park will without a doubt have natural turf, PERIOD end of discussion.

The retractable roof cost overruns alluded to earlier are a result of teams using a single entity to design and manufacture the retractable portions of the roof. Using these proprietary mechanisms result in the supplier having lots of power to bilk owners. Hopefully, this will not happen here.