Soccer specific stadiums are great, but think about how much more valuable some of them would be with a retractable roof. On normal days they could leave the roof open, and on the hottest days the fans could watch the game in comfort. But it's about more than comfort. On the hottest days the pace of play tends to slow down. A stadium with a retractable roof would improve the quality of the game itself. In the 1960s they built the Astrodome in Houston because the assumption was that fans wouldn't want to watch baseball outdoors in the heat of a Houston summer. It's a shame the new soccer stadium in Houston doesn't have a roof. On hot summer nights that stadium is like an oven. If they had a roof and air conditioning they would draw more fans, but it's too late for that. Yes, of course it costs a lot more to build a stadium with a retractable roof, which is why we don't have them already. But now that there is more investment in MLS, I have to wonder: when will we see the first one? And which city could use it the most?
We already have two (Vancouver and Atlanta) with Charlotte being the third. Yeah they are football/soccer stadiums, but they are retractable.
In a recent interview Garber said that NYCFC is close to finalizing a deal for a new stadium. It would be great if that stadium had a retractable roof. With all the money behind NYCFC they could certainly afford to build it, and it would make the venue usable year round. But I am not expecting it to happen.
I am willing to make a prediction. If MLS goes to Las Vegas, that would be the first soccer stadium in America with a retractable roof.
Or I could see Vegas (or Phoenix) do a fixed dome with the roll-out field ala the Arizona Cardinals stadium.
I suggested this concept on our Houston boards. We kicked it around. I would put the money into capping BBVA Stadium and have a retractable roof with a climate controlled facility as the end game. God's green Earth as the playing surface. Guaranteeing the soccer fan that shows to a game in Houston that it won't be miserable for the fans n supporters. Likewise the players do not have to endure any brutal temps. With TV demands, our FO has to relent on kicking off at times demanded by UniMas or ESPN. This sometimes means mid day matches. Which are fine in March or October. Perhaps not that demanding in April. But May through the Summer up till mid October. Yes. It takes a toll on any player. Thus the product down on the field suffers.
If they build it, it will come from out of their own pocketbook. No way public money will help fund an SSS with a retractable roof. MLS is, at best, a solid five in a four league country. They'll do it for football or baseball, but not soccer. A lot of places are lucky to get public funding for their SSSs.
Just like the last 12 stadiums. I believe the last 5 stadiums (Orlando, San Jose, Los Angeles, DC and Minnesota, 5 soon to be stadiums (Cincinnati, Miami, Austin, Columbus and Nashville and 2 stadiums that were expanded (Toronto and Portland), haven't used any public money. If you want a SSS you're going to have to use your own money, as should every NFL, MLB, NBA and NHL owner (considering they all are billionaires, some have multiple billionaires).
DC provided the land, utilities and tax breaks. United paid for construction and went cheap on much of that to the point that DC's contribution was worth nearly as much as the stadium.
That number has grown every time the story was told. Originally it was about $300 million split evenly between DC and United. What was built cost more than planned because of the incompetence of the front office. If it did cost near $300 million (and I have doubts), that is exclusively due to labor costs. Some features on an already minimalist/utilitarian design were scaled back or simply not installed. Some of the Sun complaints would have been addressed by the metal mesh that was supposed to be installed on the west side that is identical to the "cube," but never happened. I was told the price of metal went up too much. I assume the solar panels that weren't even going to be installed by the team didn't go in because of POTUS making that needlessly expensive early on.
In the case of the 2 Ohio stadia, they both have public support. Mapfre got a friendly lease deal when built, then was later given tax free status with a refund (that was a point if favor of the Modell law during the suit). The new stadium is heavily subsidized, about 145 mil in city, county, and state subsidies for the stadium, infrastructure improvements in the area, plus the new training complex. FCC's situation is also subsidized in various ways. It will be owned by a special tax authority to make it free of property taxes, I believe it got a state appropriation of 15 mil or so, plus there was lots of haggling with the local school district and other community groups.
Toronto FC have played the occasional game at Skydome (now Rogers Centre), which has a retractable roof. In one memorable friendly against Liverpool FC, they closed the roof during the match, with unexpected rain approaching. For a minute or two, Brendan Rodgers seemed more interesting in the roof moving than the team he was managing! And the Montreal Impact regularly play winter and early spring games in the Olympic Stadium, which once had a retractable roof, with plans to restore the retractable roof in place.
MBS was built for both soccer and football and has a closeable roof. Indy 11 of USLC play at Lucas Oil Stadium which has a roof that opens and closes.
I'm never not shocked by the ability of MLS fans to spend money on something that has an effective use once every 3-5 years