I'm wondering, why, when a team builds a new stadium here that features a "roof" over the seats, does it not actually build a proper roof over the seats? The only thing these roofs (rooves?) are good for is shade, but it still lets the rain flood in. The new Wembley is over 90,000 seats and all of them are covered by a proper roof...with walls holding it up and everything...not just a few steel poles for the avant-garde art feel to it. any reasons?
I like the roof at the HDC. Great shade. And it kept the rain off the one time I remember it raining during a G match.
Exactly. That is the reason for the style roof we've got now. Sure, money may have been a consideration, but most importantly it leaves doors open for expansion in the future; which is important for the growth of US soccer.
Aren't 90% of the league's games played at night? Sure the sun doesn't go down until 8:00 or 8:30 in the summertime, but still...
Trust me, I don't want to be outside at 3:00 in Dallas in August, no matter how much shade I've got. It might be different elsewhere.
I feel your pain bro and I wish the roof were a solid monster like those in England, BUT, we are a baby league and we must remain patient with its growth. Hopefully in MLS's teenage years we'll start to see the push for expansion of each stadium and a proper roof as well. Cheers!
Chicago has about $80 million US to work with. Wembly has over $500 million. Considering what they had to work with, the Fire did an awfully nice job of design.