Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: Cardinals Stadium Roof vs. Chase Field Roof
"The roof uses more than 100,000 square feet of Teflon coated translucent fabric which allows light to pass through."
-Wikipedia
This is a new composite material that they used for the Cardinals Stadium roof. I believe that it's a newly developed material. Any chance that they could replace the current Chase Field steel roof with this newer material? Anybody with an engineering background on here that might be able describe whether it's physically possible? I went to the Cards/Steelers game and the roof really made it a better atmosphere. My biggest complaint about Chase is it's an airplane hanger when the roof's closed. And if the roof is white, then it'd be a home-field advantage like at the Metrodome.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:04 pm Post subject: Re: Cardinals Stadium Roof vs. Chase Field Roof
dirtygary wrote:
"The roof uses more than 100,000 square feet of Teflon coated translucent fabric which allows light to pass through."
-Wikipedia
This is a new composite material that they used for the Cardinals Stadium roof. I believe that it's a newly developed material. Any chance that they could replace the current Chase Field steel roof with this newer material?
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 266
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:12 pm Post subject:
I'm no engineer, but there are at least four things immediately wrong with that proposal:
1) White ball + white roof = trouble for everyone
2) the trusses and structural members would severely restrict any diffuse light
3) that roof is made to move, and is calibrated based on its weight. You start screwing with the structure, you'll mess up the ability to open and close it.
4) You'd have to re-engineer the entire roof with the right structural members to hold up the new material, while retaining the old members necessary to hold its shape and allow it to move. Cost: tens of millions at least, plus probably another 100-200M for execution.
I'm sure an engineer could give you a bunch of reasons why this wouldn't work. Here's another one: Do we really want to copy how the Cardinals do anything????
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2264
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Mon Aug 28, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject:
DesertKnight wrote:
I'm no engineer, but there are at least four things immediately wrong with that proposal:
1) White ball + white roof = trouble for everyone
2) the trusses and structural members would severely restrict any diffuse light
3) that roof is made to move, and is calibrated based on its weight. You start screwing with the structure, you'll mess up the ability to open and close it.
4) You'd have to re-engineer the entire roof with the right structural members to hold up the new material, while retaining the old members necessary to hold its shape and allow it to move. Cost: tens of millions at least, plus probably another 100-200M for execution.
I agree with all four points. My question is why is that roof not opened on days and nights that the weather is nice? I was at the airplane hanger Saturday night and it would have been perfect for an open roof with stars, the moon, and fresh (okay, city) air.
I agree with all four points. My question is why is that roof not opened on days and nights that the weather is nice?
It is.
Quote:
I heard on the radio they had a monster truck event over the weekend and one of the trucks ran through a brick wall.
Really? That's kickass.
Quote:
Anybody with an engineering background on here that might be able describe whether it's physically possible?
To which there's this response.
Quote:
I'm no engineer, but there are at least four things immediately wrong with that proposal:
1) White ball + white roof = trouble for everyone
2) the trusses and structural members would severely restrict any diffuse light
3) that roof is made to move, and is calibrated based on its weight. You start screwing with the structure, you'll mess up the ability to open and close it.
4) You'd have to re-engineer the entire roof with the right structural members to hold up the new material, while retaining the old members necessary to hold its shape and allow it to move. Cost: tens of millions at least, plus probably another 100-200M for execution.
I love it when non-experts provide the advice that was requested from experts/professionals.
First, the white roof would be a home-field advantage. Second, there aren't so many trusses to diffuse light shining through a transleucent material. Third, what if the new material is lighter than the current steel panels on the roof? Fourth, if no weight problems, than re-engineering is not necessary.
So again, is there anybody on here that has an engineering/construction background that could back-of-the-envelope pro forma this?
Quote:
Do we really want to copy how the Cardinals do anything????
This is just ignorant. Yeah, we should also run a no-huddle offense. It's the only NFL stadium in the Top-10 of North America because it's a good stadium. The roof provides a far superior experience/atmosphere. It really looks like you're just in the shade, and not in a steel roofed air plane hanger.
Did anybody go to the Cards/Steelers game, or has anyone been in the stadium?
I agree that we shouldn't do it if it costs $200M. But $200M to put new paneling on a roof seems a bit outrageous. It would only cost that much if it weren't possible to do, but that's beside from the point. Just wanted to get a little conversation on whether anybody's an engineer, been to the new stadium, and thinks our roof sucks.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
I'm no engineer, but there are at least four things immediately wrong with that proposal:
1) White ball + white roof = trouble for everyone
2) the trusses and structural members would severely restrict any diffuse light
3) that roof is made to move, and is calibrated based on its weight. You start screwing with the structure, you'll mess up the ability to open and close it.
4) You'd have to re-engineer the entire roof with the right structural members to hold up the new material, while retaining the old members necessary to hold its shape and allow it to move. Cost: tens of millions at least, plus probably another 100-200M for execution.
I'm sure an engineer could give you a bunch of reasons why this wouldn't work. Here's another one: Do we really want to copy how the Cardinals do anything????
I am a construction lawyer with some familiarity with the steel design for the roof at Chase. What Desert Knight says about the roof being designed to move (camber) as a result of the weight of the steel moving with the roof as it retracts is correct. Changing the material would in fact change that relationship and would probably lead to all sorts of issues with the operation of the roof. Those issues could be overcome, but at enormous cost. Thus, it is most likely technically infeasible from a cost perspective to change out the roof panels.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 2264
Location: Gold Canyon
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 8:42 am Post subject:
dirtygary wrote:
TAP wrote:
My question is why is that roof not opened on days and nights that the weather is nice?
It is.
As determined by whom? I've been to Chase many times when the weather was pleasant outdoors yet the roof was closed, creating the unnecessary airplane hangar atmosphere. I suspect that recent roof opening/closing decisions have had more to do with controlling home runs than with responding to weather conditions.
I believe the team has some guidelines concerning when the roof is open and when it isn't. I'm sure they'd rather have it open and not spend the $ cooling the place. I think it's time to accept that just because the sun is down, 95 still isn't that comfortable. Ironic, the same growth that supports the baseball team creates the urban heat island that makes it impossible for the city to cool down and enjoy a nice outdoor ballgame in the evening.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
Joined: 11 Aug 2006
Posts: 49
Location: Scottsdale
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 10:36 am Post subject:
dirtygary wrote:
Did anybody go to the Cards/Steelers game, or has anyone been in the stadium?
I went and was much more impressed with the Cardinals Stadium roof than the Chase Field roof. First, it really did seem that Cardinals Stadium was better lit (at least for a day game). Chase Field frequently seems very dark, even during day games. Second, Cardinals Stadium seemed to be much more comfortable, especially for a day game. I'm frequently uncomfortable in Chase Field, even with the air conditioning. (I'm assuming that the metallic roof makes it harder to cool, although other factors could be in play here.) Finally, the Cardinals Stadium roof really is nicer from an aesthetic perspective. It didn't really feel like an airplane hanger, but more like a regular building.
Did anybody go to the Cards/Steelers game, or has anyone been in the stadium?
I went and was much more impressed with the Cardinals Stadium roof than the Chase Field roof. First, it really did seem that Cardinals Stadium was better lit (at least for a day game). Chase Field frequently seems very dark, even during day games. Second, Cardinals Stadium seemed to be much more comfortable, especially for a day game. I'm frequently uncomfortable in Chase Field, even with the air conditioning. (I'm assuming that the metallic roof makes it harder to cool, although other factors could be in play here.) Finally, the Cardinals Stadium roof really is nicer from an aesthetic perspective. It didn't really feel like an airplane hanger, but more like a regular building.
One is almost ten years old. The other is ten days.
One is almost ten years old. The other is ten days.
Correct. And the BOB sucked when it was 10 days old, primarily because of that goddamned roof. Reminds me of Montreal. Anybody remember when it was announced that we were awarded an expansion franchise? The Diamondbacks ran that full-page ad with a picture of the Ballpark, etc? They said the ballpark would have a clear roof and a misting system. I can do without the misting system, although that would be a nice natural humidor, but the glass/translucent roof woulda made all the difference.
And my engineering buddy said that replacing the roof materials is absolutely possible, might be a little expensive - not $200M, but probably similar to what that America West Arena expansion/renovation cost ($30-$50M), but you wouldn't see an attendance increase from it. For what it's worth. So we have an engineer, a construction attorney, and a bunch of speculators getting in on the topic.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
Dirty, of course it's possible to replace the roof, but it isn't cost effective. There is no reason to do it. It might be an eyesore, but it isn't going to make it any less cooker or warm.
Also, I don't recall any talk of it being a clear roof. What would they have used, glass? Moreover, it was the first fully retractable roof. Nobody had done anything like it before. You can't fault them for that. We needed a roof since it was too hot in the day or at night for much of the season.
I think your real issues are with having a roof. Welcome to AZ. We need a roof most of the time and in 1994 when they were designing/building BOB, there weren't other options.
Btw, I really like Chase. Yeah, when it's closed its got a hanger feel, but when it's open there aren't many that are as gorgous in my opinion.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 70
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:03 pm Post subject:
I'd posted my displeasure with NEVER having the roof open for day games on the old board, and I'm a big proponent of having the lid open (as I think BOB is a great ballpark when the roof and panels are open), so I thought I'd chime in here.
The reason the roof is never open on day games is because the casual fan whiners down the RF line complain that the sun is in their eyes. So I have two technical questions about this new roof idea for anyone qualified to answer:
1) This new material allows light through, but how well does it block out HEAT? Because as others in the thread have noted, the cost associated with cooling the ballpark seems to govern a lot of the roof politics.
2) Does the material filter the direct sunlight? Because if the RF fans are still going to have the sun in their eyes, this idea will never fly, politically.
And for the record, I'd love to see this happen.
_________________
Ryan
D-Backs die-hard fan in enemy territory
I'm in full support of the roof. And yeah, they originally wanted a glass roof, which there was no way in hell it could have been pulled off. Didn't work the first time they tried, at the Astrodome, and wasn't going to work this time.
Yes, we were the first retractable roof, and they will never build another retractable roof like ours again for several structural reasons. One being the fact the steel expands so much during the day time.
Quote:
I think your real issues are with having a roof. Welcome to AZ. We need a roof most of the time and in 1994 when they were designing/building BOB, there weren't other options.
Born and raised here, so I believe I'll be doing the majority of the welcoming to AZ.
Quote:
Btw, I really like Chase. Yeah, when it's closed its got a hanger feel, but when it's open there aren't many that are as gorgous in my opinion.
When the roof and panels are open, it's ok. It's still a symmetrical cookie-cutter. I basically don't go to games when the roof is closed. When it's questionable, I turn on the pre-game, and if I see an open roof, I head on out to the game.
Houston's retractable is way, way better. The glass wall instead of steel/scoreboard wall is far superior. If only they didn't put the LF fence so close, and that was on purpose.
I'm critical about our parks because they are our cathedrals and should be as cool as they possibly can be. Actually, I'm a complete jock/dork that spends an inordinate amount of time thinking about our stadiums and how they compare to others that I have seen.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 3035
Location: In front of my computer
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:49 pm Post subject:
Quote:
The reason the roof is never open on day games is because the casual fan whiners down the RF line complain that the sun is in their eyes.
It's absolutely BLINDING. You can't see a damn thing. It's dangerous actually. It's about more than just physical comfort. This IS Arizona, and the sun is stronger than other places.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 1554
Location: clawing my eyes out, praying for sleep. booyah.
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:58 pm Post subject:
i'll second shoewiz on the sun danger. i moved here, having had no trouble with my eyes in my entire life. within two years, my eyes were shot. now i've had multiple surgeries on them, and i cannot ever go outside again without prescription sun glasses. it's seriously dangerous.
wear uv sunglasses, boys and girls.
(my dad always said masturbation would make me go blind. so i figured, why not just go until i needed glasses? now i have glasses, but i'm not stopping. eyes aren't THAT important.)
(stayed home sick today. i have a fever.)
_________________
Hank, you're dead to me.
The reason the roof is never open on day games is because the casual fan whiners down the RF line complain that the sun is in their eyes.
It's absolutely BLINDING. You can't see a damn thing. It's dangerous actually. It's about more than just physical comfort. This IS Arizona, and the sun is stronger than other places.
Yeah, down the right field line was blinding to the point of danger. It was a responsible decision by the club.
Quote:
Glass may have been a thought, but it was NEVER promised to the public.
I'm 5th generation Arizonan. I feel special.
I think I might still have the ad in storage. I'm not shitting you guys on this. I was so fired up back then. Saw this picture of a kick ass park, and the text listed the following features (my reaction in parantheses):
-49,500 capacity (just right)
-Retractable, glass/see-through/clear roof (really kickass)
-Misting system (good idea)
-Pool in right field (I can handle that)
-Going to be called Bank One Ballpark (Screw these guys, I'm sticking with the Dodgers)
And then I didn't like them until I actually saw a jersey with "Arizona" on it and had to go with my home state. And I was at ASU and could go to games.
I'm a 3rd generation Tucsonan. Definitely don't feel special.
_________________
The pen is mightier than the sword, if that pen is shot out of a gun
I have a lot of complaints about the ballpark, but the roof is the least of them. A concession made to the power of our summer, and the beauty of our winter. It could be open more though, I agree.
From opening day until two seasons ago, my season tickets were in right field. The last two seasons have been in left field. I have no idea what you guys are talking about with people complaining about the light. Never heard it, never complained. I find the best fans in the bleachers. They understand we play an outdoor game and sunshine is part of that.
Now as far as the construction...the brand new giant lite-brite set around the infield is HORRIBLE. Whoever is responsible for that should be FIRED!The rest of my complaints are about employee attitudes and lack of customer service.
I'm not an engineer, but common sense says replacing panels is not big deal...if they weigh different amounts, just add weight like balancing a tire.
Joined: 10 Aug 2006
Posts: 660
Location: Gilbert, AZ
Posted: Tue Aug 29, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject:
Like the stadium when the roof is open, accept it when it's closed. Chase is a better stadium than Enron when the roof is open on each, IMO. I still like Chase better when the roof is closed, but to each their own.
Saying a white roof would be a home field advantage and relating it to the Metrodome is ignorant. The Metrodome was built as a football stadium and the Twins were left hanging to fend for themselves. When their only option was to lease the Dome, they were stuck with the design the Vikings wanted.
A football against a white ceiling? Fine. A baseball against a white ceiling? Asinine. It's a horrible baseball stadium. They have taken multiple steps there to make it less white because it's a bad idea.
DG, I think your only solution is to wait another 20 years until talk of replacing BOB/Chase/Discover/Wells Fargo Field stirs.
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
