OT Baseball and Football Coming to Portland?

[kjironman1]

40 games into the season equates to average of 20 at home so at let's say average of 38% chance April +May there might be 7.5 game days affected by rain at all... Again that doesn't mean a rain out because that 35% might be a shower in the morning and nothing by game time.

So what is your point? Why all the problem with a roof on the stadium? Having a retractable roof only makes sense? Why would we even think about not having one?

 

[kjironman1]

MM brings up a good point, though, in terms of fan comfort. If you had a chance to build a top-of-the-line-ish stadium in a small market, maybe you do want to worry about fan comfort.
Then again, how much do the TImbers fans care about rain (legit question...never been to a match)?

Timbers Army does not care about rain. There is that.

 

[Schilly]

So what is your point? Why all the problem with a roof on the stadium? Having a retractable roof only makes sense? Why would we even think about not having one?

I don't care if they want to build one with a roof, I am just supporting the notion that it being a necessity is horse shit.

 

[kjironman1]

I don't care if they want to build one with a roof, I am just supporting the notion that it being a necessity is horse shit.

I totally disagree. Absolutely needs to have a roof or it will never get built and too many people will simply not support the team without it. But that again is simply an opinion. I know there is no way a bond passes for a stadium without a roof.

 

[blue9]

MLB2PDX alive again?

Fuck Mike Barrett!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Why wouldn't we want more events there? Are you saying you don't want them there? Why is this even a point?
If there is a roof then the CAN have events there. That was the point.

The part I disagree with about your point is that I don't think "roof over baseball field" = more events, like it would at a basketball stadium that doubles for hockey or concerts or something. I can't think of a baseball stadium with a roof that does more than play baseball. Tropicana Field in St. Pete doesn't--concerts are generally held at Buc's stadium or the Lightning's. Safeco doesn't. Minute Maid doesn't--their concerts are at the football stadium or Rockets' stadium. Chase Field is having one concert and one bowl game. Just off the top of my head...

 

[kjironman1]

I don't care if they want to build one with a roof, I am just supporting the notion that it being a necessity is horse shit.

You are talking about sitting watching a baseball game tomorrow night in Portland Oregon during the NLCS without a roof. Or even better yet. Try that in Mid April. Ridiculous.

 

[BrianFromWA]

You are talking about sitting watching a baseball game tomorrow night in Portland Oregon during the NLCS without a roof. Or even better yet. Try that in Mid April. Ridiculous.

Been to BOS or NYC or CLE or CHW or DEN or ... ?

 

[kjironman1]

The part I disagree with about your point is that I don't think "roof over baseball field" = more events, like it would at a basketball stadium that doubles for hockey or concerts or something. I can't think of a baseball stadium with a roof that does more than play baseball. Tropicana Field in St. Pete doesn't--concerts are generally held at Buc's stadium or the Lightning's. Safeco doesn't. Minute Maid doesn't--their concerts are at the football stadium or Rockets' stadium. Chase Field is having one concert and one bowl game. Just off the top of my head...

But at this point Portland Doesn't have a "Bucs Stadium" or other large venue. Right now all they got is Moda and Safeco (which is not covered) and then there is MC. Again i just don't see your point in not building a venue that can be enclosed. Just makes better all around sense.

 

[dviss1]

This is the thinking why it will never happen

No city should pay for a billionaire's brick and mortar business.

 

[dviss1]

Fuck it. Might as well make it retractable. This is cool as shit!

 

[BrianFromWA]

Like I've said, I love SafeCo and its roof, and that you never have to worry about rain (it still can get Cold Adonal Foyal, though). But SEA had enough taxes put on the sports district to make it recoverable money for a quarter-billion-dollar add-on. I don't know that PDX can, but I don't think they HAVE TO.

 

[kjironman1]

Been to BOS or NYC or CLE or CHW or DEN or ... ?

Tomorrow Portland will get about an inch of rain. You really want to compare that with Denver or Cleveland or Chicago?
Tomorrow Boston 72 and Sunny
Tomorrow New York 71 and Sunny

Thanks for playing.

 

[kjironman1]

Fuck it. Might as well make it retractable. This is cool as shit!

It is cool. That is really all my point has been. If you are going to build it. Build it right.

 

[julius]

A roof is something they should build eventually, IF they build it, but not right away.

 

[Schilly]

You are talking about sitting watching a baseball game tomorrow night in Portland Oregon during the NLCS without a roof. Or even better yet. Try that in Mid April. Ridiculous.

How about we take a look at how many teams have a roof at all...

Marlins, Brewers, Astros, Blue Jays, Mariners, Rays... Tampa Bay the only with a fixed roof. So basically you can freeze your ass off in any Northern city in October. Here's the precipitation map for this week, keeping in mind only 6 teams have a roof.

 

[julius]

Tomorrow Portland will get about an inch of rain. You really want to compare that with Denver or Cleveland or Chicago?
Tomorrow Boston 72 and Sunny
Tomorrow New York 71 and Sunny

Thanks for playing.

well, in that case, because tomorrow those cities are going to be dry, Portland should totally invest in a roof.

Because if it doesn't rain tomorrow in NY (or Denver, Chicago, Cleveland or Boston) it will never rain there anymore.

 

[Schilly]

But at this point Portland Doesn't have a "Bucs Stadium" or other large venue. Right now all they got is Moda and Safeco (which is not covered) and then there is MC. Again i just don't see your point in not building a venue that can be enclosed. Just makes better all around sense.

Most the big acts just hit the Gorge anyway.

 

[kjironman1]

How about we take a look at how many teams have a roof at all...

Marlins, Brewers, Astros, Blue Jays, Mariners, Rays... Tampa Bay the only with a fixed roof. So basically you can freeze your ass off in any Northern city in October. Here's the precipitation map for today, keeping in mind only 6 teams have a roof.

Nice find from a week ago. Yes anywhere can get wet and cold. My point is and always has been why? Why in Portland Oregon would we even consider it? Go look at the report again for tomorrow and all the weather in the corner up there in the northwest is there again.

 

[kjironman1]

Most the big acts just hit the Gorge anyway.

Good point.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I get it, you won't vote unless there's a roof b/c you think it's an absolute necessity and have anecdotes about weather in PDX and that you'll get more events during the offseason. I just disagree with the "necessity" piece b/c a) October baseball isn't a given, and people will come anyway if it does happen, b) I can't think of another roofed baseball stadium that does anything in the offseason except take up space until spring, and c) other places have, well, October weather also.

2016:

This year, we're looking quite a bit warmer than in 1997, making it much easier to cheer in the stands! The first two games' start temperatures are in the mid 40s -- definitely doable.
However, Tuesday it's looking there will be some rain, so that'll make it a bit harder for the players, but if you're lucky enough to be in the stands, definitely bring a rain coat.
1995: The games played in Cleveland against the Braves were definitely pretty warm for late October, in the 50s with no rain. Talk about perfect game weather for both fans and players! 1997: The games played in Florida were obviously very toasty compared to Cleveland, in the mid 70s to 80s. Here in 1997, games 3 and 5 weren't bad, in the high 40s to 50s. It was game 4 that was notably chilly, with game temperatures starting at 41 degrees which dropped to the mid 30s - burr!

The only World Series game in league history to be suspended due to rain was Game 5 of the 2008 World Series between the Tampa Bay Rays and Philadelphia Phillies, when the combination of rain and wind in Philadelphia forced the Oct. 27 game to be completed two days later.
Incidentally, the coldest World Series game of the last 40 years was on Oct. 22, 1997, in Cleveland, with a game-time temperature of 38 degrees, wind chills in the upper teens and flurries falling during the game.

https://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/looking-back-at-the-coldest-wo/423058
1) 1997 World Series, Game 4
Perhaps the most memorable World Series game in terms of how cold it was occurred back on Oct. 22, 1997 in Cleveland, Ohio.
The Florida Marlins played Game 4 against the Cleveland Indians in a winter-like chill. At first pitch, the temperature was 38 degrees with a wind chill of 18 degrees. Snow flurries fell throughout the game and ice patches formed on the infield. This game is officially the coldest World Series game on record. MLB didn't track weather records until the 1970s so it's certainly possible there were colder games prior to the 70s.
Perhaps one of the more interesting facts was that the first two games of this series were played in Miami where the temperatures were in the high 80s throughout the games.
2) 1979 World Series, Game 1
Another famously cold World Series Game which pops up quite often occurred way back on Oct. 10, 1979 in Baltimore, Md. when the Pittsburgh Pirates took on the Orioles.
First pitch temperature was 41 degrees, which doesn't sound all that bad. The problem was that a steady, chilly rain fell throughout the game, creating difficult playing conditions. Players complained of their hands going numb and the ball being so slippery that they couldn't get a grip. In fact, there were 6 total errors in the game, 3 by each team.
3) 2008 World Series, Game 5
Game 5 of the 2008 World Series was played in two parts at Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia, Pa where the Phillies took on the Tampa Bay Rays. The game began on Oct. 27 with 50-degree temperatures and rain falling, but the rain became so heavy in the bottom of the 6th inning that the game was called by the umpires. The delay lasted too long to wait around and with rain forecasted into the 28th, no one knew when Game 5 would resume.

 

[Schilly]

Nice find from a week ago. Yes anywhere can get wet and cold. My point is and always has been why? Why in Portland Oregon would we even consider it? Go look at the report again for tomorrow and all the weather in the corner up there in the northwest is there again.

Because 24 of 30 teams who also can get hit with weather at any time this time of year, some even get snow... And they make it work just fine. You talk like someone who lives in New Mexico and hear that it rains in Portland.

BTW why does the week matter?

 

[kjironman1]

well, in that case, because tomorrow those cities are going to be dry, Portland should totally invest in a roof.

Because if it doesn't rain tomorrow in NY (or Denver, Chicago, Cleveland or Boston) it will never rain there anymore.

You realize that is not the point at all but i guess you have already pointed out you would build a stadium completely mobilize construction and then try to RE Mobilize back to build a roof at a later date.
Look i am an Ironworker by trade. I have been a construction general Foreman and Superintendent for years. I have built stadiums. My first one was Bank One Ball park in Phoenix Arizona. You do not go back and fix it later. You build it the way it needs to be built the first time.

 

[julius]

Nice find from a week ago. Yes anywhere can get wet and cold. My point is and always has been why? Why in Portland Oregon would we even consider it? Go look at the report again for tomorrow and all the weather in the corner up there in the northwest is there again.

because adding a roof doesn't actually make a huge difference? And it's not like the stadium is going to be like Autzen with no covered seating.

 

[BrianFromWA]

^those aren't even counting SF and DEN over the last decade or so. SF is probably the closest I could think of to what PDX baseball should be...downtown-ish stadium, scenic lines, cool climate...

 

[BrianFromWA]

You realize that is not the point at all but i guess you have already pointed out you would build a stadium completely mobilize construction and then try to RE Mobilize back to build a roof at a later date.
Look i am an Ironworker by trade. I have been a construction general Foreman and Superintendent for years. I have built stadiums. My first one was Bank One Ball park in Phoenix Arizona. You do not go back and fix it later. You build it the way it needs to be built the first time.

This I agree with. Retrofitting sucks.

 

[kjironman1]

Because 24 of 30 teams who also can get hit with weather at any time this time of year, some even get snow... And they make it work just fine. You talk like someone who lives in New Mexico and hear that it rains in Portland.

BTW why does the week matter?

The week didn't matter. I thought it was a good look at the point you were making. It was recent and during the playoffs and the entire country was wet.
No i was born and raised in Portland.

 

[tlongII]

I still don't believe the city/county/state should pay A RED CENT for any of this though. Billionaire owner groups are just that, billionaires. Pay for your own shit.

I agree 100%. And that is exactly why it will never happen.

 

[kjironman1]

This I agree with. Retrofitting sucks.

Worse than SUCKS. I tried fixing Montreal's roof. We simply welded it shut.

 

[julius]

You realize that is not the point at all but i guess you have already pointed out you would build a stadium completely mobilize construction and then try to RE Mobilize back to build a roof at a later date.
Look i am an Ironworker by trade. I have been a construction general Foreman and Superintendent for years. I have built stadiums. My first one was Bank One Ball park in Phoenix Arizona. You do not go back and fix it later. You build it the way it needs to be built the first time.

The thing is, it's not actually necessary. I'm saying IF they foolishly do it, they should do it later. It's not worth the cost now.