I’m sorry, I don’t understand your point here. Apparently the field at Western Oregon University’s football stadium is drained effectively. What reason is there to believe that Providence Park wouldn’t be able to be drained effectively? Is it because it would be difficult to dig down underneath Providence Park because of Tanner Creek? Is it definite that Tanner Creek is really under the stadium in a place where it would be important to have a good drainage system for the stadium? And would there be no reasonable way to divert the creek or dig around it? I don’t hate the Timbers’ artificial turf. But if I were the Timbers’ owner, I probably would install natural grass (at least on a trial basis) or look into building a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium somewhere else in the Portland area. Among other things, there is reason to believe that the Timbers could have a natural grass field that is better for soccer (and perhaps better at preventing injuries) than the current artificial turf field. A good grass field also likely would help the Timbers attract elite players. First, it seems to me that, based on some of Merritt Paulson’s quotes, there is a decent chance that the Timbers will be playing their home games on a natural grass field some time within the next ten years. For instance, in an interview Paulson gave in July of 2015 on the issue of grass at Providence Park, he said the following: We continue to look at the surface of the field. We’re unique in that we change the [artificial] turf every two years. It’s the best [artificial] turf. We use it for nothing else besides soccer—very little else, I should say, besides soccer. But if we had the ability to change the surface, that is something we’ll take a hard look at. I’ve got some obligations to the city that I have to meet. We have a challenging stadium in terms of a sunken field with little exposure to the sun and a bunch of other things, including a creek running under the field, Tanner Creek. But I think that is something we’ll continue to assess, as well. But my main point is not one about what Paulson is likely to do within the next few years vis-à-vis the playing surface of Providence Park. My main point is about what I think he should do. Although I concede that I don’t know all the details of Providence Park’s idiosyncrasies (for instance, I want to learn more about the how Tanner Creek likely would affect the implementation of a drainage system), my primary claim is a normative one, not an empirical one. As I said, I think Paulson should install a natural grass field on at least a trial-basis or consider building a new stadium that would seat 35,000 to 40,000 people. However, I recognize that the cost of the latter would be significant. I can understand Paulson’s reluctance to wanting to spend that kind of money. But he already is proposing to spend over $50 million for a renovation that will include only 4,000 additional seats. As for the cost of installing a grass field, it seems somewhat questionable to me that it would be vastly more costly to install a grass field on trial basis than to continue to replace Providence Park’s artificial turf surface every two years, which is what the Timbers are doing now. In 2014, it cost just the city of Portland $343,363 to replace the artificial turf at Providence Park, and that cost may not include what it cost the Timbers themselves to replace the turf. In other words, the Timbers themselves may have paid an additional 500,000 to have the artificial turf replaced. Meanwhile, in 2010, the grass of Wembley Stadium, which many people had been critical of, was replaced with Desso GrassMaster (a grass/synthetic hybrid) for $323,875, about the same cost of Portland’s biannual replacement of Providence Park's artificial turf. Now, in order to have a decent grass field installed at Providence Park, there may have to be infrastructure changes that would be costly. And it probably would be good to include a heating and drainage system, which also could be costly. For instance, it cost Toronto FC $3.5 million to convert its field from artificial turf to natural grass. This cost included the cost of installing a heating system and drainage system. Here is a link: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/stnew/article/2009aut8.pdf So, I can understand how one would be hesitant to try a grass field on Providence Park. But it would be helpful to know how much it likely would cost to install and maintain a grass field at Providence Park for five years versus how much it likely would cost to have the Timbers install a new artificial turf field every two years. If the difference in cost is great, that would be a reason against trying a grass field. If the difference is not so great, it would be a reason for trying a grass field. If the cost factor isn’t drastically different, the other potential advantages of grass are so great that, even if it is somewhat more costly to try a grass field, it would probably be worth the cost. Can Providence Park be significantly expanded? The proposed expansion of 4,000 additional seats isn’t a lot of additional seats. It’s not as if Paulson has proposed to expand Providence Park so that it will have 35,000 seats. But if Providence Park can be expanded in a reasonable way to include 35,000 seats, that is something the Timbers should consider doing. First, Portland is selling out every game, and they have 15,000 season-ticket holders. So, if you add the 13,000 people who are currently on the wait list for season tickets to the current season ticket holders, that is 28,000 people. So, then you would be only 7,000 people short of selling out a 35,000 seat stadium regularly. Moreover, the excitement alone of the new stadium would probably increase aggregate demand. We’ve seen this in Toronto, Los Angeles, and New York, and we like will see it with DC United. And, according to this article by Adam Love et al., the so-called novelty effect of new stadiums lasts for at least three years. Here is a link: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2458126 And, in baseball, the honeymoon period attracts an average of an additional 10,000 fans per game. But could the Timbers consistently sell out a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium after the novelty effect has worn off? The Timbers currently sell out 21,000 seats on a regular basis. If you add the 13,000 people on the season ticket waiting list, that is 34,000 people, just 1,000 shy of 35,000. But suppose the Timbers were to get only half of all the people who currently are on the waiting list to regularly attend games at a new stadium, that is still 28,000 people. And soccer is getting steadily more popular in the U.S. as a spectator sport. Moreover, with a grass field, the Timbers would be more likely to attract high-profile, star players, which could well help push their average-attendance into the 35,000 to 40,000 range, at least over the course of the next 20 years, as soccer is likely to continue to become more popular. Demographic trends are one factor that favors soccer’s increased popularity over that period of time. So, I think that, over the next 20 years, there is a good chance the Timbers could sell out a 35,000 to 40,000 seat stadium on a regular basis.
Some stadiums in the Northwest have playing fields with good natural grass surfaces. I provided a link to information on Western Oregon University's MacArthur Stadium. Here is that link: http://www.wouwolves.com/sports/2008/12/18/GEN_1218085026.aspx Moreover, the Portland Pilots Men's and Women's soccer teams share a soccer facility (Harry Merlo Field) that has a natural grass surface that has gotten very good reviews. Here is a link: http://www.portlandpilots.com/sport....aspx?tab=merlofieldclivecharlessoccercomplex So, natural grass fields have been successful in the Northwest, even when one of their tenants is a college football team. The question is: Are the idiosyncrasies of Providence Park such that it would not be a good idea to try a grass field there? I think that would depend partly on how much it would cost to install a good one versus how much it would cost to resurface Providence Park every two years with a new artificial turf field.
I am sure you are right. I bet the owners haven't looked at the possibilities of installing grass field. I bet they were just like "what the heck lets just use turf". I think you should call them up as you obviously know more about it than them. I am not sure you can keep their attention with your 30 pages of content. Unfortunately for you being able to type lots of words does not equal being right.
You have been given many reasons why grass won't work yet you continue with the same question you started with. This conversation obviously not going anywhere.
Things that favor the Timbers: The remodel doesn't materially change the view of the field from the street (which they legally have to maintain and which was a sticking point in the previous renovation) The Timbers are paying for it entirely with their own money It would significantly add to the city's revenue via additional ticket tax revenue. The Timbers have already brought their plans to the city , which means the city council already knows about the plans and presumably whatever concerns the city had on the preliminary plans have been addressed. Things working against the Timbers: There were real problems with the neighborhood during the last renovation. As I recall the Timbers had to make design changes to get the neighborhood association on board. Any objections would slow the process down. The arcade over the street might be a place homeless people would want to sleep, which would make the neighbors unhappy. Aesthetic objections by the community in general. This is a big change to the existing stadium, there might be enough opposition to the design that the city will demand further changes. The Timbers might try to extract concessions from the city in exchange for paying for the renovations. The only one I can think of is kicking Portland State football out of the stadium, but the Timbers seem like they're pretty creative. Regardless, anything the Timbers ask the city for could bog the process down. To be honest I think there's a lot in the Timbers favor here, but the city government typically has been especially sensitive to the criticism of neighborhood associations especially and the community in general. In general I assume that it'll always take longer than it should to get the city council to sign off on something. We'll see if my pessimism is warranted this time around.
Before you continue, why don't you answer this question: Everyone knows that grass is better than turf. Why do you suppose that the Timbers owner refuses to put in a grass field?
My understanding is that Merritt Paulson has looked into the possibility of installing grass at Providence Park. And he has said he is considering it. In fact, at one point he said it was 50/50 as to whether it would happen. But up until this point the management of the Timbers has decided not to install grass at Providence Park. And the members of the Timbers’ management probably do have more relevant knowledge of Providence Park and the surrounding area than I do. But that one individual has more expertise than another individual in an area relevant to knowing (or reasonably inferring) that given claim X is true is not sufficient for one’s knowing (or even reasonably inferring) that the individual with more relevant knowledge knows that X is true and the one with less relevant knowledge does not know whether X is true. For instance, Duane Gish had a PhD in biochemistry from Berkeley. I do not have a PhD in biochemistry. But Gish was a young-earth creationist. Here is information on Gish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Gish And here is information on young-earth creationism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism Meanwhile, I know that all organisms alive on earth today descended from a single-celled micro-organism that lived on earth about 3.7 billion years ago. Thus, that Paulson and the management of the Timbers know more about Providence Park and the surrounding area than I do is not sufficient for my not reasonably inferring that the Timbers should install a grass field at Providence Park.
Thanks for the post. But I don't see how it is relevant to what I have written. If you don't mind, could you elaborate on it?
I didn't ask you to evaluate the possibility that Paulson is mistaken. I asked you to come up with the reasons why Paulson might not want to install grass, given that he knows that it is a better playing surface.
You like the sound of your own voice or typing. For a person who uses so many words you don't actual say anything other than, "I think I am really smart and I have figured everything out. Now listen to me tell you how smart I am again."
Nothing you have written in the above paragraph makes less plausible anything I have written. Assuming that you are suggesting that, because I may have certain weaknesses, the claims I have written are not justified, you have committed the ad hominem fallacy. In The Introduction to Logic, Irving Copi gives some examples of the ad hominem fallacy and shows how abusive premises often don’t support the individual's conclusions. According to Copi, It is very common in rough-and-tumble argument to disparage the character of the opponents, to deny their intelligence or reasonableness, to question their integrity, and so on. But the personal character of an individual is logically irrelevant to the truth or falsehood of what the person says, or the correctness or incorrectness of that person’s argument. To contend that proposals are bad or assertions false because they are proposed or asserted by ‘radicals’ (of the left or the right) is a typical examples of the fallacy ad hominem, abusive. Abusive premises are irrelevant—but they may sometimes persuade by the psychological process of transference. Where an attitude of disapproval toward a person can be evoked, the field of emotional disapproval may be so extended as to include disagreement with the assertions that person makes. There are many variations in the patterns of ad hominem abuse, of course. Sometimes the opponent is abused for being of a certain persuasion—an atheist or communist. Sometimes a conclusion is condemned simply because it is one shared by persons who are believed to be vicious or of bad character. Many contend that Socrates, at his famous trial in Athens, was found guilty of impiety partly because of his close associations with persons widely known to have been disloyal to the state, and rapacious in conduct. ‘Guilt by association’ was repeatedly suggested in the United States during the 1950s, by the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, when misconduct was alleged in part because of the support given by those accused of political causes (e.g., civil liberties, and racial equality) supported also by the Communist Party. Because argument ad hominem, abusive commonly takes the form of attacking the source or genesis of the opposing position—which is not relevant, of course—it is sometimes called ‘the Genetic Fallacy.’ …A legendary example of the abusive variety of ad hominemalso arose in a courtroom, in Britain. There the practice of law has long been divided between solicitors, who prepare cases for trial, and barristers, who argue or ‘plead’ cases in court. Ordinarily, their cooperation is admirable, but sometimes it leaves much to be desired. On one such latter occasion, the barrister ignored the case completely until the day it was to be presented at court, depending upon the solicitor to investigate the defendant’s case and prepare the brief. Arriving at court just a moment before trial was to begin, he was handed his brief by the solicitor. Surprised at its thinness, he glanced inside to find written: ‘No case; abuse the plaintiff’s attorney!' Although there are some minor problems with what Copi has written here, his basic point—that abusive premises are not sufficient for one to reasonably infer that one’s conclusion is true—is a good one.
I think a likely explanation for Paulson's reluctance to install a grass field is that he is worried that, because of a number of factors (for instance, Portland's weather and the Timbers' sharing the stadium with PSU's football team), a grass surface would -- at least after being playing on in November -- not be as a good a playing surface as the artificial turf surface that the team currently is playing on, and a grass surface wouldn't be cheap to install.
My understanding is that Tanner Creek is directly under only a small percentage of Providence Park, namely the Southeast corner of the stadium. Here is a link to a map of Tanner Creek as it relates to Providence Park: http://www.landscapeandurbanism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Slide13.jpg And here is a link to a good article on mlssoccer.com by Nick Firchau about Tanner Creek and Providence Park: https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2014...g-truth-creek-under-portlands-providence-park According to Firchau, The creek runs roughly 50 feet underground in most places under Portland, but because the stadium was built in the natural amphitheater already 30 feet below road grade, it’s actually much closer to the surface at Providence Park. [Timbers’ Executive Ken] Puckett says at one point near the Southeast corner of the stadium—opposite the Timbers Army supporters section—the creek is just seven feet below the foundation of the Providence Sports Care Center, built in 2010. So, would it be reasonable for the Timbers to install a drainage system underneath the field at Providence Park without actually raising the field? I tend to think so. My understanding is that the field at BMO Stadium in Toronto has a drainage system underneath the soil-mixture in which the grass grows. The drainage system that BMO Field uses is called SubAir. The SubAir system both sucks down water away from the grass and pumps up air into the grass; and maybe it does some other things as well. I don’t get the impression that the drainage system sits that far beneath the soil. Here is a link to a video of how the SubAir System works for the greens of golf courses: http://subairsystems.com/products/subair/works/ It looks like the drainage system would be about three feet below the tips of the grass. In addition, BMO Field has a glycol heating system, which is essentially a network of pipes that pumps a heated liquid (glycol) around the field. This keeps the field warm and helps the grass grow well in cold temperatures. The glycol heating system sits below the drainage system. Here is a link to an article on BMO Field’s heating and drainage systems: https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/mls-cup-surface-bmo-field-turf-toronto-underground-heating According to the article, There are 12 inches of a 95/5 USGA mix above the glycol heating system. The drainage is encased pea stone and is hooked up to the SubAir System. One of the highlights of BMO Field’s construction is the glycol heating system. This system provides the ability to control the temperature of the soil through conductive heat. There are over 42 km of ¾” piping that run 6” apart under the soil that carries the heated glycol to and from the 8 million BTU’s of heat generated by the 4 natural gas boilers. Here is a link to the above article: http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/stnew/article/2012spr20.pdf I don’t know whether it would be important for the Timbers to have a glycol heating system (or any kind of heating system) underneath the field at Providence Park. The weather in Portland doesn’t get that cold. It’s not Lambeau Field. But maybe it would be good to have a heating system underneath the field at Providence Park in order to increase the probability of keeping the grass roots extending deep into the soil. And regardless of whether the field at Providence Park should have a heating system, I think it would be important for the field to have a drainage system. There is a lot of rain in Portland. New York City gets about 50 inches of rain per year; Portland gets 43.5. The glycol heating system rests underneath every square foot of the field, with piping that sits six inches apart. But the piping doesn’t go down that deep into the ground. The piping sits close to the surface. Here is an article: https://www.fourfourtwo.com/us/features/mls-cup-surface-bmo-field-turf-toronto-underground-heating Consider, especially, the second image. Moreover, even the part of Tanner Creek that is the closest to the surface of the field of Providence Park is seven feet below the surface. So, underneath the field at Providence Park, I think there would be room to have grass, soil, a drainage system and a heating system and still have room to spare without having any important installations come in contact with the creek. At the place closest to the surface of the field, the creek is seven feet below the surface. And the entire system—including grass—looks like it would be no more than five feet from top to bottom. Thus, I suspect that there would be about two feet to spare between the bottom part of a drainage system and the creek itself. And if the Timbers were not to include a heating system, which might not be important for them to include, the whole system would be even shallower. So, I suspect that the system could be put into the ground above the creek --or on top of the cement that is the floor of the stadium -- without the system coming in contact with the creek. However, if there would be an issue with certain parts of a drainage system and/or heating system running into part of the creek, then maybe the Timbers should consider raising the field. But, obviously, that would be more expensive that just installing that grass, soil, a drainage system and a heating system.
The issue of time isn't that important to whether the Timbers should install grass. So what if it were to take 2 months for the Timbers to complete the process? As long as the installation process were to occur during the offseason, it likely would not reduce the number of important choices that anyone could make. However, the cost is more of an issue. If you put the sod in with a drainage system and maybe a heating system and the sod doesn’t do well enough, then you’re in a difficult spot. It’s a risk. Then you would have a season in which you would play on substandard grass or you would have to take out the grass and install artificial turf again. But how likely is it that the grass would not do well enough to be at least adequate for at least one season? I don’t know. And that would be a good question to ask people who are experts on grass sports fields, especially ones in rainy climates.
Seriously, can we take this discussion of grass at Providence Park somewhere else? It has nothing to do with this remodel.
Tanner Creek runs directly under the field from the SE corner to under the TA. During the renovation, they needed to build a "bridge" over the area where the creek runs and they cordoned off the entire length of the creek in the stadium. This "bridge" construction and mapping of the creek began on Sept. 7, 2010, the first day of construction because of fear of collapse. They will not be adding more weight onto the field without additional structural support. Additional structural support construction is not something you do on "a trial basis."
Hmmm.. that's a lot of text on something that isn't part of Portland's renovation. Can we put the grass discussion to bed for now?
Did someone say, "renovation?" Didn't make Jan. nor Feb. ones. I look forward to watching the construction again in the offseason.
It was passable entertainment given the lack of (local) soccer during that time. =D I often kept the reno-cam up on a corner of my monitor while working.