Originally posted by Rodinxxv:
Originally posted by Rascal:
Originally posted by Marvin49:
The reason Levi's Stadium doesn't have a roof is not because of the added cost.
Its because its in Santa Clara. There is no reason to put a roof on a stadium in California.
Football should be played outside and on grass.
I don't understand why people don't like the 49ers new stadium because it looks like...you know...a STADIUM. They only seem to be happy if it looks like a spaceship, an iceburg, or Bobby Brown.
Points do go to Minn for not having a huge sphincter on the roof like one of the designs in Atlanta.
You answered the question yourslf. When the opportunity came to build a new stadium, I think most fans had great expectations. The Levi's Stadium is OK, but I think most of us expected something high-tech and spectacular looking. As for the roof, I have no problems with it as long as it can be opened up wide when the weathe ris nice. I am sure it rains in Santa Clara, it will be better for the fans plus it won't harm the field as much, thus reduces chances of injury. As much as tradition goes, even with Wimbledon in the UK, they eventually had to find money to build a roof over their Centre Court.
Minnesota's roof will not be retractable because it was too expensive, and this design is already 1 billion dollars(in Minnesota). There is no need of a roof in Santa Clara ever, even when its raining. You may have not noticed that football, unlike tennis, is played in the elements. They put a roof on Centre Court cause of the hours and hours of rain delays that constantly plague Wimbledon. It was disrupting scheduling so badly as of late that they were almost forced too.
Why are people so obsessed with roofs, spaceships and megachurches? Why would you put a roof on a stadium for an extra billion dollars that you would probably never really have to use.
Yes, football "can" be played in the elements, but the point is it doesn't have to. Is also the fans experience as well, I would hate to go to a game like last season when we played the Pats in Foxborough, it was pouring down the whole game. Granted it was a great game, but I would hate to have to stand in the rain for 3 long hours that's for sure.
Yes, one could argue may be the weather in Santa Clara is less extreme, thus there is less of a need for a roof. But, for the Vikings, it snows like crazy there in the winter. Anything is an upgrade from that tent top they had when it collapsed under the snow.