Orlando City looking to Brazil Fanaticos are the ‘more’ consumer Jersey ad revenue part of the mix The Lefton Report: Model evolves Pending vote doesn’t faze Giants Faces and Places MLB aims to get them to the ballpark SN offers data, demos from ePlayer Chargers may fight over L.A. Abbott adds World Marathon Majors deal
SBJ/June 2-8, 2014/FacilitiesPrint All
Rogers Centre’s majestic retractable roof has proved its durability over the stadium’s first 25 years of operation, said Dave McCormick, the Toronto Blue Jays’ manager of engineering.
But advances in technology and the use of common parts at newer stadiums have left the old SkyDome with a fading, much older operations system, leading to an overhaul for that portion of the roof structure, McCormick said.
For the past four years, Walter P Moore, a structural engineering firm that works on sports facilities, has been consulting for the Blue Jays to determine the extent of roof upgrades. The total cost, including a newly designed mechanization system, will run about $9 million, McCormick said.
The investment covers the tracks on which the roof runs, rubber underpadding, motors and wheels, and a new software system controlling the operation. “Everything that moves or that the roof travels on is being replaced, upgraded or repaired,” McCormick said.
The refurbishment will make parts for the Rogers Centre roof easier to order.
Photo by:COURTESY OF TORONTO BLUE JAYS
The stadium’s retractable roof is a proprietary system with very large customized parts, compared with newer sports roofs produced by Uni-Systems Engineering. As a result, the Blue Jays must place some orders one year in advance from Siemens Canada, the only firm making them.
“God forbid they go out of business,” McCormick said. “If the roof dies, it takes us anywhere from five minutes to two days to get it fixed. But it’s been very reliable. We’ve had some operations issues but no catastrophic instances. We work very hard to make sure it’s running smoothly.”
Another reason for the upgrades: The Blue Jays are weighing a conversion from artificial turf to a grass field in 2018 after the roof is completely renovated, and they need to ensure that the roof can open more frequently to catch sunlight should they decide to move to a grass surface.
To this point, no decisions have been made on the future playing surface, McCormick said.
The roof now opens and closes 60 to 70 times a season, not a lot compared with stadiums with grass whose roofs move up to 400 times a year, he said. The Blue Jays keep the roof closed during the winter months, road trips and any time during the season when temperatures dip below 50 degrees.
The roof refurbishment comes after the Blue Jays saw the structure get hung up on its rails during a game, the result of movement by the concrete and steel beams supporting the roof a few inches over time. It’s something called “creep” in the construction industry, said Lee Slade, a structural engineer and principal with Walter P Moore.
Creep developed stress in the structure, effectively creating pinch points in two locations, affecting the roof’s movement, he said.
Newer stadiums with retractable roofs such as Minute Maid Park in Houston have a mechanism built into them that can sense when one piece of the roof is moving ahead of the other portion. When that happens, it automatically corrects a misalignment in the rail transport system, Slade said.
The Blue Jays’ stadium is 11 years older than the Astros’ facility, and its unique roof does not have the same level of backup support. Adding more layers of protection is part of the upgrades, and the modernization will make it easier to order parts from multiple suppliers, McCormick said.
“Rogers Centre didn’t have any controls like that so the operator would have to stop the roof, back it up, reset it and sort of drive it the way you drive a tank,” Slade said. “What we found is we needed to do some structural corrections … to keep the roof from binding at these pinch points.”
The Toronto facility is not the only stadium renovating its retractable roof. Safeco Field in Seattle turns 15 years old in July after opening midseason in 1999, and the Mariners’ facility is going through an eight-year, $8 million project to replace the roof’s wheel assemblies.
The Atlanta Falcons could potentially change the way retractable roofs look after their new stadium opens in 2017. Could they also cause a policy change at the NFL?
Bill Johnson, a principal with 360 Architecture and the firm’s chief designer heading the Falcons’ project, thinks so. The stadium’s “camera shutter” roof is designed to open and close in as little as 4 1/2 minutes, which would make it one of the fastest-moving structures in sports.
The Falcons’ innovative roof is designed to open and close in as little as 4 1/2 minutes.
Photos by:360 ARCHITECTURE
“I’ve told the Falcons that it gives them an advantage in negotiating with the NFL, that perhaps they can have longer to decide” whether to keep the roof open, Johnson said.
NFL teams decide 90 minutes before kickoff whether the roof will stay open or closed for regular-season, wild-card and divisional playoff games, league spokesman Brian McCarthy said. League officials make the decision for conference championships
and the Super Bowl.
NFL policy dictates that after a decision is made, the roof must remain in that position for the entire game. There are exceptions: If it’s open, it can be closed if officials believe oncoming inclement weather may threaten the welfare of fans, players, coaches and stadium personnel.
On the other hand, the roof can remain open in the rain or snow if officials believe it does not pose harm to those in the stadium, McCarthy said.
Those situations almost never happen though, according to 360 Architecture’s research. The firm’s data show the four NFL teams playing in stadiums with movable roofs — the Cardinals, Colts, Cowboys and Texans — keep those structures open an average of less than three games a season.
Teams play it conservative on the roof issue for a reason you might not expect, Johnson said: a lack of weatherproofed interiors in premium spaces, Johnson said.
“A lot of these buildings are not waterproofed inside the suites,” he said. “So if there’s even so much as a 20 percent chance of rain, if you leave the roof open, then you risk losing your materials through water damage.”
Soggy hospitality spaces will not be an issue at the Falcons’ new stadium. The team prefers to play most of its games outdoors, so it went the extra step of having 360 Architecture choose waterproof materials for the seating bowl and the front of the suites.
“The other thing is, they’re going to play MLS in that building and MLS wants to be outdoors whether it rains or not,” he said. “So we can leave the roof open and have the rain come in and rain on everything and it’s OK. A lot of NFL and MLB stadiums cannot do that.”
Twenty-five years ago this week, Toronto’s SkyDome opened its doors as the world’s first retractable-roof stadium and a funny thing happened. The roof itself became an attraction.
Baseball fans hung around after Blue Jays games to watch the massive structure begin its journey after the final pitch and slowly roll across the top of the building. Outside, motorists would stop their vehicles on a downtown freeway to watch, said Bob Hunter, SkyDome’s former president and CEO.
Rogers Centre, formerly SkyDome, was the first of its kind.
Photo:COURTESY OF TORONTO BLUE JAYS
“It was the most unique and expensive roof design,” Hunter said. “Given the fact that the stadium has been open 25 years and the roof is opening and closing [about] 100 times a year, it still runs pretty well. And I still think it’s a beautiful stadium.”
Just as the moving roof attracted the attention of Toronto, it also drew the eyes of those who develop sports facilities, who found that their game had been irreversibly changed. With the innovation, outdoor venues could allow fans to stay dry on the bad-weather days and soak up the sun on the good ones. Teams could be confident that the players would play, and the fans would spend money, regardless of the forecast. And, unlike in domes, teams could still play on grass if they chose to.
Since that day in Toronto — June 3, 1989 — 10 more retractable-roof stadiums have opened across MLB and the NFL, and an NFL project in development in Atlanta, with a roof that opens and closes by mimicking a camera shutter, could set the tone for future buildings. But change has been slow, in part because retractable roofs remain an anomaly in sports: Of the 44 MLB and NFL facilities built over the past quarter-century, only 10 of them have such roofs. (BC Place, home to MLS and the CFL, also has one.)
Each stadium with a retractable roof had its own set of environmental factors as drivers, whether it was heat, humidity, hurricanes, rain, snow or freezing cold, said Lee Slade, a structural engineer and senior principal with Walter P Moore, a consultant for more than a half-dozen retractable roof projects. Special events such as the Houston Livestock Show & Rodeo, a three-week-long event with nightly concerts that is the Texans’ co-tenant at NRG Stadium, also persuaded officials at some buildings to incorporate a roof. The desire to host the NCAA Final Four and Super Bowl played a part at multiple NFL buildings.
All told, retractable roofs have largely paid off for teams, especially over the course of baseball’s 81 home games every season, the architects designing these super-structures and the stadium managers operating them said, though there is little hard data available to determine revenue generation connected to retractable roofs.
The Brewers, for example, increased game attendance by nearly 50 percent over the first six years of operation at Miller Park, compared with the previous six years at County Stadium, their old ballpark, according to research mentioned in a 2009 essay written by Bart Riberich, president of Uni-Systems Engineering, the manufacturer for most retractable roof mechanization systems in sports.
Shiny new stadiums often record big attendance gains over their aging predecessors, but over those six years at Miller Park, stadium officials said, they played host to more than 600 events without a weather-related delay or cancellation, a result that only a roof could produce.
Miller Park’s roof has been instrumental in generating group sales and attracting fans statewide, said Rick Schlesinger, the team’s chief operating officer, allowing Brewers fans in distant locales to make the drive knowing they’re guaranteed to see a game.
Said Scott Jenkins, who has managed three retractable roof stadiums: “Particularly in baseball, it’s a godsend to have a roof and know that you’re going to play the game and not get stuck in a rain delay or have to do a doubleheader.”
The Toronto Blue Jays played their first 12 seasons at old Exhibition Stadium, an open-air football stadium on a site where two venues had burned down before a final rebuild in the late 1940s.
It made for a poor layout for baseball, and Toronto sports fans made fun of the place. “They called it the mistake by the lake,” said Hunter, now chief facilities and live entertainment officer for Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment.
Toronto winters’ reach into the spring and fall didn’t help matters. On the Blue Jays’ first Opening Day in 1977, 6 inches of snow covered the ground at Exhibition Stadium. The game was played, after the snow was swept off the field.
“It was a bad baseball stadium designed for football,” Hunter said. “Plus the climate here in April and October is not conducive to having great attendance.”
Football didn’t necessarily fare much better. The CFL’s Toronto Argonauts also played at the stadium, and the 1982 Grey Cup game was played there in a driving rainstorm that caused the restrooms to overflow, leading public officials to pursue a new indoor sports facility.
Summers can be sunny and beautiful in Toronto, though, and the Blue Jays preferred to play as much outdoor baseball as possible. So when a design competition was held, a small architecture firm headed by the late Rod Robbie and his partner, Michael Allen, won it with a blueprint providing the largest roof opening among the finalists.
SkyDome opened two months late after going through hundreds of millions of dollars in cost overruns, mostly due to the magnitude of the project, said Hunter, who originally was hired as senior vice president of operations in 1987 to oversee the development. The total cost was in the neighborhood of $600 million in U.S. dollars, he said, a hefty sum for a stadium in those days.
After seeing the complexity of the Toronto roof, designers kept it simple in Houston.
Photo by:COURTESY OF HOUSTON ASTROS
The roof itself ate up more than 25 percent in construction costs, said Earl Santee, a senior principal with Populous and a designer of three retractable-roof stadiums. Years ago, Santee researched SkyDome to design Minute Maid Park in Houston, his first retractable-roof project. Today, efficient design and improved technology has dropped those costs considerably, Santee said.
“SkyDome was revolutionary because it was the first retractable-roof stadium, and being in Canada with snow loads and the multi-use nature,” Santee said. “Therefore, the roof was big and heavy. It was just different than the rest of them, and it cost a lot of money because of that.”
At the time it opened, though, SkyDome and its motorized roof, the first of its kind in sports, was an engineering marvel and Canadians framed it as the Eighth Wonder of the World, Hunter said.
The 11,000-ton roof was composed of two panels moving along parallel tracks and a third panel rotating in a circular motion around the ballpark’s perimeter.
Newer retractable roofs are controlled by laptop computers linked to cameras and sensors that track the roof’s motion on its path, but the early retractables such as SkyDome worked on basically a four-button system with a joystick, Slade said. The roof took a leisurely 20 to 25 minutes to cover the field, much slower than newer versions.
“It was designed beautifully … and it has worked quite well over years,” said Slade, whose firm is consulting for the Blue Jays to overhaul the roof operations system (see related story).
Fast forward to 2014 and more than 60 million people have passed the gates of the stadium, now known as Rogers Centre, for more than 2,000 events, including two Blue Jays World Series championships. In 1997, the stadium booked a record 302 event days. It has won multiple industry awards.
The stadium stands alone as a “trailblazer and it’s hit a milestone no other roofs have ever seen,” said Dave McCormick, the Blue Jays’ manager of engineering and the roof’s caretaker.
For all those factors driving SkyDome’s roof design, the opposite held true in the heat of the Arizona desert. Nine years after SkyDome debuted, Bank One Ballpark (now Chase Field) opened in 1998 as the majors’ second retractable-roof project and its first with a grass field.
The roof’s design and operation is much different than SkyDome, in large part because the Arizona climate provided its own set of issues far apart from those in Toronto, said Bill Johnson, a senior principal with 360 Architecture and designer of the Arizona Diamondbacks’ stadium when he worked for the former Ellerbe Becket.
The challenge that then-Diamondbacks owner Jerry Colangelo presented them was that of playing baseball on grass in 100-degree summer heat. Unlike Toronto, designers did not have to deal with keeping the space warm or keeping out the cold and snow, Johnson said.
Arizona’s heat, and the Diamondbacks’ grass field, created new demands for roof designers.
Photo by:KATIE WARREN / ARIZONA DIAMONDBACKS
“The way all those roof pieces came together [at SkyDome], there had to be big [rubber] bladders that were inflatable to seal it and make it weather tight,” Johnson said. “It was ugly and hugely expensive. It was wrong on so many levels … so it was not anything we really explored.”
Instead, Ellerbe Becket started from scratch to develop a new version of a retractable roof, one less expensive than SkyDome’s structure. Johnson and his crew won the job after building a model for their interview containing a small motorized roof to prove their concept would work.
“It was a fun time, a research and development situation,” he said. “Now, it seems commonplace that we have all these stadiums with all these roofs, but back then, there wasn’t anything out there [for grass fields]. No one had really attempted this.”
It was on the Diamondbacks job that Johnson first learned of the operating principles behind the mechanisms that operate most retractable roofs, an education that paid off for him in the long run.
To find the best experts possible to help design the 4 1/2-acre structure, Johnson reached outside his typical network of consultants and hired Hatch Engineering, the same Toronto firm that conducted a peer review of SkyDome’s motorized roof, he said.
Hatch’s real expertise was designing and building gantry cranes that unload shipping containers from ocean freighters at sea ports. The same low-tech approach to the cranes’ motorized system could be applied to a retractable roof, the consultant said.
It made sense, Johnson thought. Gantry cranes operate 24/7 and most of their parts are off-the-shelf components. If a motor burns out or a gear is stripped, a replacement can be found quickly and delivered on site in a matter of days.
“When we went in to see Colangelo, we told him there were are all these unknowns and the last thing we need to do is make some highly automated, technical solutions,” Johnson said. “We need to use tried-and-true technology … and that’s the way it went.”
To this day, the roof runs smoothly, and its motion has become part of the fan experience, accompanied by an original team composition that the Diamondbacks call their “rain dance,” he said. It opens down the middle with sliding plates moving in opposite directions. The size of the opening can be adjusted to trace the sun’s daytime path. The roof opens and closes in about five minutes and remains one of the fastest in sports, Johnson said.
“It was simple, cost-effective and because it is kind of bulletproof, it is one of the most operated and utilized roofs to this day,” he said.
For the most part, stadium developers plan retractable roofs as simple as possible, considering the scope of these gigantic mechanized structures and the key role they play in stadium operations.
Minute Maid Park opened in 2000 and project officials’ intent was to “spend the money where the fans are and not necessarily up in the roof,” Santee said. “Keeping the roof cost efficient and functionally efficient was really important.”
The keep-it-simple mantra hit home for teams, architects, engineers and manufacturers after they saw the cost escalation at SkyDome.
“There was a feeling of significant risk because of difficulties with [SkyDome],” Riberich said. “I know Earl and the whole Houston team went into the Astros’ project cautiously.”
To avoid making the same mistake in Houston, project officials developed a roof that unlike SkyDome had multiple redundancies built into the mechanization system. If one piece failed, the roof would still operate and the game could go on unaffected by the weather, Riberich said.
“You don’t want to build a watch, but you are building an outdoor mechanism and it needs to be designed with a failsafe approach,” Slade said.
Riberich said designing the roof system to ensure redundancy with a multitude of smaller, off-the-shelf parts readily available instead of using larger custom-built components did not increase the cost of the Minute Maid Park project.
Miller Park was a different story. Brewers fans preferred a roof as part of an early 1990s survey to determine whether they would drive long distances to attend a game if the team could guarantee it would be played, said Santee, originally involved in the team’s research.
The ballpark, designed by HKS and NBBJ, opened in 2001, one year after Minute Maid Park, with a dramatic
The distinctive fan-shaped roof at Miller Park, shown open and closed, has worked smoothly since problems early in the building’s history. It was designed to work as part of the design rather than overpower it.
Photo by:SCOTT PAULUS / MILWAUKEE BREWERS (2)
“What we were so focused on at Miller Park was a departure from the way retractable roofs had been done to that point,” said Bryan Trubey, a principal at HKS who worked on the project. “We wanted to do something that was part of the architecture rather than overpowering it.”
Whatever it looked like, it failed to live up to the Brewers’ initial expectations. Over the ballpark’s first few years of operation, millions of dollars were spent to replace defective parts in the mechanization system originally produced by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries of America.
Lawsuits were filed on both sides. In 2005, after a three-year court battle, a financial settlement was reached between Mitsubishi and the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball District, the stadium’s owner.
Over the past eight seasons, Miller Park’s retractable roof has performed largely error-free with the exception of the occasional leaks caused by heavy storms hitting at just the right angle to seep through the structure.
“There was nothing wrong with the design, as it’s shown now with the proper equipment installed,” said Riberich, whose firm completed a peer review of the replacement project. “Unfortunately, because of some of the problems at Miller Park, people feel like the fan design is too complicated.”
Johnson applauds the creativity behind Miller’s Park roof because it was something different.
Unfortunately, “we lost the innovation momentum because I think people got nervous,” he said. “You were setting yourself up for some big risk if you pushed the envelope on this stuff.”
That is exactly what 360 is doing with its groundbreaking roof design for the Atlanta Falcons’ planned $1.2 billion stadium. The motion of the eight-sided structure mimics a camera shutter, and a large video screen rings the inside of the roof, flashing images tied to the event on the field.
“It’s distinctive architecturally, and functionally it’s a brilliant design,” said Scott Jenkins, the Falcons’ general manager for the new stadium.
The architect’s focus is on doing a better job integrating the structure’s design with the seating bowl and concourses below. Johnson feels there has been a disconnect between those elements because of roof complexity and cost dictating stadium design. By creating a better flow between the two, he believes stadiums can become even more attractive to potential naming-rights sponsors and founding partners.
“What we’re hoping to do in Atlanta is turn that around and say that we want the roof to not be independent of a great stadium design,” Johnson said. “I think that’s a big milestone and a big change.
“We’re going to bring it all together and make it more of an icon and less of a stadium in a box.”
The “stadium in a box” image was one criticism of the Diamondbacks’ stadium, Johnson’s previous retractable-roof project. Critics said it didn’t feel like the shape of a ballpark. The result reflected all the unknowns at the time for those structures, he said.
The Falcons’ roof looks complex but it’s really not, Johnson said. It simply moves smaller, lightweight pieces shorter distances in a straight line. The roof can stop and start at any point in its motion to control the amount of sunlight shining through and still look beautiful doing it, he said.
“We’re really not pushing the envelope so much on the operable technology in Atlanta but we are pushing the envelope in terms of the integrity and holistic design of the facility,” Johnson said.
What do the next 25 years hold for retractable roofs? Retrofits are the newest trend. In 2011, BC Place replaced its dated inflatable dome-style roof with a new cable-supported fabric structure atop the Vancouver stadium, which opened in 1983. The new retractable-roof structure has steel posts providing greater reinforcement than the old roof, which collapsed during a 2007 snowstorm. A second fabric layer underneath the main roof effectively cuts seating for MLS games. The $520 million project included other building upgrades driven in part by its use for the 2010 Winter Olympics.
Two more soft roofs could be coming in the NFL. The Miami Dolphins, pending the resolution of funding issues to pay for a retrofit, have a plan to put a roof canopy at Sun Life Stadium, in an effort to get the Super Bowl back to South Florida.
The Jacksonville Jaguars are considering a movable fabric roof for EverBank Field, but it’s just a concept at this point, team President Mark Lamping said.
The Marlins considered a soft-fabric roof cover for their new ballpark until they saw Hurricane Ike hit the Texans’ NRG Stadium and rip a portion of its fabric roof to shreds in 2008.
“A lighting protector blew off the building and it worked like a razor blade, sliced the roof and left it famously in tatters,” Slade said. “It wasn’t a structural problem, but it made the Miami client nervous, and so we went away from the fabric to a hard roof.”
A new leading-edge material, PTFE, a lightweight, flexible, synthetic surface common for sports projects in Europe, is being used for the Arthur Ashe Stadium retrofit. Its cousin, ETFE, is a more translucent material being used for the fixed roof for the Vikings’ new stadium.
Those materials are more expensive because of their transparent qualities, allowing views from inside and outside the facility, Slade said.
“It’s a very exciting time because we feel like we can do more than we used to be able to,” he said.
There will always be budget pressures in developing retractable roofs, Slade said. “They create a building that cannot be created otherwise,” he said. “But they will continue to be far and few between. There’s just not that many of them.”
Riberich says there will always be a need for “convertible stadiums.” Fans like to be outside but teams can’t afford to have events wiped out by weather conditions, and he believes the trend will trickle down to new construction in the college ranks.
It’s not just the roofs that keep moving. Several stadiums have retractable glass walls in the outfield and end zones in addition to operable roofs. The Vikings’ stadium roof won’t move, but it will have giant glass doors on one end and a large chunk of retractable seats in the bowl.
“The big change is these buildings are transforming themselves in a three-dimensional way rather than just one thing moving,” Trubey said.
Running a retractable-roof stadium isn’t as simple as pushing a “close” button when rain clouds roll in, veteran stadium manager Scott Jenkins says.
The Atlanta Falcons hired Jenkins in February to be the general manager of their new facility opening in 2017. It’s his third job operating a retractable-roof stadium after stints at Safeco Field and Miller Park.
The Falcons’ stadium will have artificial turf, but his two previous stops had grass fields. The big challenge was to keep the roof open to grow grass before making a decision on closing it to keep fans and players dry and comfortable during the game.
Stadiums with grass fields move their roofs multiple times a day to capture sunlight, protect the field from inclement weather and cool the seating bowl before the first pitch.
In Houston, one of the most sweltering spots in sports, Minute Maid Park’s roof has “probably moved 4,000 times over 14 years, which is a lot of use,” said structural engineer and senior principal Lee Slade of Walter P Moore, who lives and works in the city.
“I think the frequency of moves surprises most people, and the designers certainly fall into that category,” Jenkins said. As a stadium operator, “you learn that you have to be a weatherman and you have to be at the ready, and it’s going to move back and forth quite often.”
For Jenkins, multiple concerns have played into the open-or-closed decision. Some were obvious — keeping the groundskeeper happy, for instance — and some not so much: avoiding a 10 percent labor penalty for cleaning crews to mop up peanut shells sticking to the seating bowl should it start to rain after a game when the roof was open.
“Because you have a roof, you’re spoiled with the ability of closing it and protecting yourself [against] the rain,” he said. “So there’s higher expectations to how you manage moisture on the field. So you’ll shut the roof.”
First thing the morning after a game, though, the groundskeeper wants the roof open to grow grass. Depending on the weather forecast and the possibility of rain (or maybe snow in Milwaukee), the roof could open and close multiple times leading up to the first pitch, Jenkins said.
“Now if it should rain during the game, you shut it right away,” he said. “Once you shut it, you’re not going to open it. You can see within a 24-hour period, you can go from open to close several times … with the goal of providing the best possible experience for the fans and the players.”
At Miller Park, Jenkins had to deal with the humidity of Wisconsin summers and April’s often bone-chilling cold, which meant closing the roof for games to manage the park’s temperature. It wasn’t as big a concern in Seattle, where the roof does not cover the sides of the stadium.
“You do sometimes think about the roof if it’s going to be a really cold night,” he said. “It does stay a little warmer if you shut the roof. There is a comfort factor that comes into play in Seattle when you don’t condition the air.”
Mariners groundskeeper Bob Christofferson is the team’s point man for what goes on with the weather, the grass and the roof position. The Mariners’ former president, Chuck Armstrong, made the ultimate call on whether the roof would open or close until he retired after last season.
“Bob and I would sweat it out every now and then when we would see the radar and couldn’t get hold of Chuck to say we should close the roof now,” Jenkins said. “You end up cutting it awfully close. You almost want it to rain as the roof is closing. It validates your decision.”
Conversely, Jenkins has gone through some can’t-win situations when it appeared a storm was bearing down on the ballpark on an otherwise sunny day. The roof would close only to have the threatening weather take a “right-hand turn” and miss the stadium, he said.
“Then people look at you and say, ‘Why did you close the roof?’ It certainly adds some challenges at times, but it’s a great tool to have.”
The road to building a new retractable roof at Arthur Ashe Stadium had project officials questioning their sanity, one U.S. Tennis Association official says.
“I don’t think anyone was insane enough besides us … to consider putting a roof on an [open-air] stadium,” said Danny Zausner, chief operating officer for the USTA, governing body for the facility. “But we like to keep things interesting around here, so we’re doing it 15 years after the fact.”
Arthur Ashe Stadium (center in rendering) is set to have a roof by August 2016.
After more than a decade of studying the issue, the path is clear for a three-year, $150 million project to be completed in August 2016, in time for the U.S. Open.
Rain has interrupted play at the U.S. Open for the last five years, but officials have studied the roof issue since 2003, Zausner said. Early on, the high costs to put a roof over the 23,000-seat stadium were well beyond what the USTA could afford and did not fit with its mission.
“Each time, we were like, ‘OK, we’ve done our due diligence but we can’t make it work,’” Zausner said. “Now, we finally have a system that is aesthetically pleasing, and cost palatable. We get to open and close [the roof] in a time we consider to be satisfactory from a player perspective.”
Working with sports architect Rossetti, the original design firm, and structural engineer WSP, the tennis group found a solution for a lightweight roof that won’t put too much stress on the structure.
Hunt Construction Group, a firm with experience building retractable roofs in sports, is managing the construction.
The biggest challenge for project officials was tied to the fragile soil conditions at the USTA complex. At the turn of the 20th century, the land was a dumping ground for coal ash for all of Manhattan. Over time, the built-up ash caused long-term settlement issues at the site.
“They’re literally sitting on Jell-O,” said Matt Rossetti, a principal with Rossetti working on the roof project.
Adding to the lack of a strong foundation was the issue of New York’s footprint in a moderate seismic zone, said Ahmad Rahimian, a structural engineer with WSP. After taking several stabs at a solution, they came up with a structure that could support the roof on its own legs, completely separated from the existing structure, Rahimian said. In the end, the roof design basically mirrors the structural system of the original stadium.
“It’s very elegant and very simple,” Rossetti said. “It will have the look like it was all done at one time.”
The roof will move on giant wheels similar to those at major league stadiums. The roof itself is a rigid frame of steel covered with PTFE, a synthetic material with a Teflon-like coating to it. The roof will act like two sliding doors parting from the center, Rossetti said.
The roof sits about 15 feet above the stadium in part to get air flow through the building. When it rains, side panels drop down and cover those open spaces to protect the players and spectators, an interesting twist in the evolution of retractable roofs, Rossetti said.
“That’s something new, plus the center of the roof can lift up to allow ventilation,” he said.
The roof is designed to both open and close in five minutes under storm conditions. The USTA originally looked at a design that called for the roof to close in upward of 30 minutes, but officials did not feel it was in line with keeping its commitment to the players. The organization did not want players to have to leave the court for 30 minutes or more because of rain or the threat of rain, Zausner said.
The USTA is forming a policy for when to open and close the roof. As it stands, once the roof is closed during a match because of bad weather, it would not be reopened even if skies cleared, he said.
“Our goal is to still feel like you’re in an outdoor stadium even with this opening,” Zausner said. “We’re still under the impression that this roof will hardly ever be closed. With our luck, it probably won’t rain again for 10 years, and that would be fine.”
The San Francisco 49ers and San Jose Earthquakes have signed a five-year deal to co-promote soccer events at their two new stadiums, which sit five miles apart in the Bay Area.
The two teams struck a partnership that covers sharing the financial risk for booking international matches and U.S. men’s team events at Levi’s Stadium and Earthquakes Stadium, officials with both teams said.
The partners will look to bring soccer events to the new Levi’s Stadium (above) and Earthquakes Stadium, under construction.
Photo by:TERRELL LLOYD
Officials think two new facilities with grass fields in the same vicinity will be unmatched in terms of their amenities for international clubs and the fans attending those events.
“In the past, we didn’t have the
Photo:COURTESY OF SAN JOSE EARTHQUAKES
The 49ers and Earthquakes are also pushing the region’s great weather and luxury accommodations in their pitch to land events, 49ers President Paraag Marathe said. One example they can point to is the decision by the U.S. men’s team to train and prepare at Stanford University in nearby Palo Alto for World Cup competition, Marathe said.
The joint soccer deal came about through conversations between the two teams as they developed their new stadiums. Marathe and Kaval have a close relationship dating to their days as Stanford business school classmates, and those talks initially resulted in a deal for the Earthquakes to play the Seattle Sounders in an MLS game Aug. 2 as the first official event at Levi’s Stadium. As they continued those discussions, the executives decided to expand the relationship to cover additional events at both stadiums.
Both officials said they will be principally involved in negotiations to bring soccer matches to their respective buildings.
Events pitting higher-profile teams such as FC Barcelona and Manchester United will most likely be targeted for Levi’s Stadium, Kaval said. Conversely, CONCACAF Gold Cup and some U.S. men’s team events would be perfect for the Earthquakes’ facility. “The key is having both venues with different capacities and strengths,” he said.
Circuit of the Americas is splitting its sales and marketing divisions and bringing on its first full-time chief marketing officer.
The Austin, Texas, motorsports facility and concert venue has tapped former Procter & Gamble marketer Dominic Iacono as chief marketer. He will take on responsibility for all of the facility’s marketing and communication efforts.
COTA Chief Revenue Officer Geoff Moore, who formerly also oversaw COTA’s marketing division, will oversee ticket, hospitality and sponsorship sales.
Both executives will report to COTA Chief Executive Officer Jason Dial.
“We not only have our Circuit of the Americas brand to build but also the brands we host,” said Dial, who formerly worked as chief marketer for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and spent 12 years in marketing for P&G. “The skill set for building awareness, trial and, over time, loyalty is different from the skill set for sales, CRMs and closure rates. We saw splitting those roles work really well at the Bucs, and I think it’s even more important here.”
Dial worked with Iacono at P&G where Dial oversaw sports marketing. Iacono most recently served as global brand director for Duracell at the Ohio-based consumer packaged goods company.
At COTA, he will be promoting the more than 20 concerts and six sports events the facility hosts annually, including Formula One and Summer X Games.
“We have to create a relationship of trust with customers and build on what Circuit of the Americas stands for and the role it can play in peoples’ lives,” Dial said. “Dominic is the type of leader who understands how to manage a portfolio of brands. He’s extremely capable in the areas we need to address.”