There are quite a few, but the bulk of them are either for climate (Seattle) or they have a roof (Minnesota). I can't think of one that has turf "just because"... With the other four outdoor stadiums in LA (Rose Bowl, Coliseum, Dodger Stadium and Anaheim Stadium) all grass, it doesn't make much sense.
Not sure, but I thought I read once that a lot of NFL coaches prefer turf; something about it playing 'truer' (I guess more predictable) and faster, which is good for the skill players.
No final decision has been made as to whether the new Rams stadium in Inglewood will have grass or an artificial surface.
New England is the closest I can think of. I am sure they claim it is due to climate, but pretty confident they could support grass. Wonder how many NCAA stadiums in that area use turf? Yes I know NFL plays a little later in the year and a couple more games than NCAA. I am sure they used grass at some point in their history. Lambeau Field uses grass (may be hybrid now). If they can do it in Wisconsin not sure why New England can't.
I am sure cost has something to do with it. Football (not our kind the other kind) is tough on grass and gets tougher as the weather gets harsher. The upfront cost of a top level grass or hybrid pitch is not much different than that of a quality synthetic these days....but it costs more (I hear) to maintain it at a high level.
That roof had some element to it where they were planning on projecting images on it or some such nonsense but that is why they are planning the roof and part of the reason they announced a field turf surface. NFL teams also like the turf because it is cheaper and is a good reliable surface for their sport. It bounces back faster when they have big concerts which I'm sure is in the plans for the Rams stadium. I hope Germerica is right, however, and it is not a final decision.
Yes but that would still fall in the "turf just because" category that was being discussed. Of course it is cheaper. The other poster was mentioning roofs and climate as being the reason behind most turf in the NFL. I don't think New England falls into either of those.
People always think that cost is a "just because" decision....when they are talking about other people spending money To the people actually spending the money....cost v benefit is always an important part of the decision making process. So, an NFL owner is building a stadium who's primary purpose is to host NFL games where synthetic surfaces are perfectly acceptable (and as some people have pointed out may actually be preferred) a secondary use is entertainment/concerts where synthetic is preferred and it reduces their cost....a 3rd use may (possibly) be soccer (there is no hint that any soccer team wants to make the stadium their home but there are internationals and friendlies to consider I guess) but the market they are building in already has (or will have) 2 soccer specific stadiums and 2 large grass field alternate venues that could host soccer (so they have a ton of competition for soccer so any design accommodations made with soccer in mind would be highly speculative spending at best)....and the choice of synthetic does not even rule out soccer anyway....the sport has been played on synthetic surfaces lots of times and there is always the option of bringing in grass if needed/wanted. Given those circumstances, the choice of a synthetic playing field seems wholly rationale and understandable.
Just to fill in some of the blanks on the New England situation, the original CMGi Field was "built with soccer in mind" in 2002, and did indeed have a grass field for the first few years. Bob Kraft is a savvy businessman, and he only hires top, top people, absolutely the best, trust me on this. So the architect designed the stands so high that there were parts of the field that never got any direct sunlight. There was an underground heating system to keep the roots going when the ground froze. Despite what NFL announcers would say about the field being torn up by a bunch of 150-lb guys running around on it, it was looking shabby after a couple of Pats games in the rain. One time, a receiver slipped while running an out pattern while the ball was in the air, and the CB came in and had an easy pickoff and ran it in for the game-winning TD. Then, during the Pats bye week, which happened to coincide with a Revs' playoff game, a new turf field was installed. But "at the end of the day, Gillette Stadium is a great place for soccer," or so says Jonathan Kraft.
Perhaps this would be a good time to note that the three SSS we're tracking on this thread will all have natural grass fields. When all other comparisons are exhausted we'll be examining which types of grass are most suited for soccer.
Update on Buzzard Point stadium WaPo linky highlights: Handover of land from city to team this weekend...to break ground in January or February. Hoping for 14 months to build, but planning for 16 months...no desire for any games at RFK after 2017, so 2018 likely to open with a wandering caravan of road trips for DC United. Many more deets in the linked article
Can someone give us more info on this "United faces a zoning hearing Nov. 2 (6:30 p.m.) at One Judiciary Square. Among the lingering issues is the impact of the project on commercial development at nearby parcels."? Is there still a possibility of the stadium not happening or getting further delayed?
Virtually impossible to stop the project, but I could see a delay as a slight possibility. There is really nothing going on down there, but they may have to alter the plans a little bit.
After all of this I had no idea there were still more hoops to jump through. This has been portrayed as a done deal for quite some time.
Not breaking ground until 2017? Seems like this will be the order of completion then... 1. LAFC 2. DC United 3. MN United
Any update on Minnesota project? At one point I thought they were planning to begin construction this fall. Do we know that LAFC project has cleared all site review hurdles? The Sports Arena seems to be coming down quickly, but I imagine that cleaning it up enough to be construction ready will take another couple months.
THE RACE IS ON. "Construction on the planned Major League Soccer stadium in Washington, D.C.’s Buzzard Point neighborhood is being executive on time and on schedule, according to the Deputy Mayor’s Office for Planning and Economic Development (DMPED). On Tuesday, the DMPED announced that all pre-construction and infrastructure obligations is now complete for the planned D.C. United Stadium. Construction is now expected to begin this year." more: http://dc.curbed.com/2016/10/4/13163578/dc-united-stadium-construction-milestone
Atlanta announced that instead of starting next season on the road while their stadium is being completed they are going to open up at Georgia Tech’s Bobby Dodd Stadium 783717530074423296 is not a valid tweet id
I've been beaten to the punch on a DC story by an LA (FC or Galaxy?) supporter! It's good news, especially the part about construction beginning this year. We had heard January-February 2017, which still may be the case. Does anyone know the official definition of "beginning construction" as opposed to "site prep"? It would be nice to have a marker for the beginning of the construction race.