Portland Diamond Project picks land for potential MLB team stadium

[Vegan Knight]

The Rangers had a retractable roof and cost $1.1 billion. Now Vegas is over $2 billion and will be smaller. The costs of building anything has skyrocketed. St Louis's proposed open air stadium for the Rams was about $1 billion the new Bills Stadium will be $1.7 billion. The new Flames arena is much more than twice the Oilers arena, etc.

Everything I've seen in articles puts the stadium at 1.5 billion. Maybe I haven't kept up with the latest though.

I agree though, costs have gone through the roof in a short time. The Vegas stadium wouldn't have any trouble filling other dates, though. Most of the businesses in Vegas have been saying they need another big venue because they turn things away with no place for them to go as is.

 

[aqib]

Everything I've seen in articles puts the stadium at 1.5 billion. Maybe I haven't kept up with the latest though.

I agree though, costs have gone through the roof in a short time. The Vegas stadium wouldn't have any trouble filling other dates, though. Most of the businesses in Vegas have been saying they need another big venue because they turn things away with no place for them to go as is.

My point wasn't about Vegas specifically just why cities are less enthused about applying for teams. When stadiums cost under a billion and the cost of franchises was lower enabling owners to contribute more it was a lot more plausible for cities to bid.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

Everything I've seen in articles puts the stadium at 1.5 billion. Maybe I haven't kept up with the latest though.

I agree though, costs have gone through the roof in a short time. The Vegas stadium wouldn't have any trouble filling other dates, though. Most of the businesses in Vegas have been saying they need another big venue because they turn things away with no place for them to go as is.

Yup, it'll be banged out all year like Allegiant

 

[KevFu]

Oh, of course the cost goes up; but it's not double or triple.

You need to make an apples to apples comparison. Different projects are just different.

The same project separated by only time is going to be more expensive, but comparing a $675m place with no roof and no AC to a $1.1 billion place with a roof and AC makes no sense because they're just totally different.

 

[The Marquis]

Oh, of course the cost goes up; but it's not double or triple.

You need to make an apples to apples comparison. Different projects are just different.

The same project separated by only time is going to be more expensive, but comparing a $675m place with no roof and no AC to a $1.1 billion place with a roof and AC makes no sense because they're just totally different.

Portland would almost certainly need a roof, but definitely no HVAC. Could be open on the sides like T-Mobile. It rains as much as it does in Seattle, who close the roof for 22% of games in a season on average and all of them because of rain. I can't imagine Portland would want to postpone 22% of its games. It's not like other places, when it rains in the PNW, it rains all damn day. Doesn't matter though. 0% chance this becomes a reality.

 

[KevFu]

Portland would almost certainly need a roof, but definitely no HVAC. Could be open on the sides like T-Mobile. It rains as much as it does in Seattle, who close the roof for 22% of games in a season on average and all of them because of rain. I can't imagine Portland would want to postpone 22% of its games. It's not like other places, when it rains in the PNW, it rains all damn day. Doesn't matter though. 0% chance this becomes a reality.

Fun fact: Out of 28 MLB Cities, a study showed Seattle ranked 22nd in rainfall (by inches) during baseball season. Study is really old (2012) but... (domes in bold)

Also, I think the methodology is a little suspect. Accumulation is a mix of "how hard" and "how often." Are you getting an inch of rain on gameday 20 times, or are you getting four inches of rain on five game days? It adds up to the same amount but one team needs a roof 5x more than the other.

 

[Big McLargehuge]

Fun fact: Out of 28 MLB Cities, a study showed Seattle ranked 22nd in rainfall (by inches) during baseball season. Study is really old (2012) but... (domes in bold)

Also, I think the methodology is a little suspect. Accumulation is a mix of "how hard" and "how often." Are you getting an inch of rain on gameday 20 times, or are you getting four inches of rain on five game days? It adds up to the same amount but one team needs a roof 5x more than the other.

The how hard and how often parts are really, really important. Pittsburgh gets more rain than either Seattle or Portland over the course of a year, it just tends to come hard and fast in storm cells rather than be a moderate rain for hours on end like the PNW tends to get.

It was mildly surprising to see how little rainfall Seattle has during the heart of the MLB season, though...and Portland's rainfall tends to follow very similar patterns with rain being far more common from October-May than the heart of the MLB season. Definitely more delays than a team would like if they didn't have a roof, and likely a number of games where it'd just mist throughout the entire game, but it's still a far cry from being a situation like Tampa where a roof is an outright requirement. A hell of a lot less lightning, too.

 

[The Marquis]

The how hard and how often parts are really, really important. Pittsburgh gets more rain than either Seattle or Portland over the course of a year, it just tends to come hard and fast in storm cells rather than be a moderate rain for hours on end like the PNW tends to get.

It was mildly surprising to see how little rainfall Seattle has during the heart of the MLB season, though...and Portland's rainfall tends to follow very similar patterns with rain being far more common from October-May than the heart of the MLB season. Definitely more delays than a team would like if they didn't have a roof, and likely a number of games where it'd just mist throughout the entire game, but it's still a far cry from being a situation like Tampa where a roof is an outright requirement. A hell of a lot less lightning, too.

The problem is the delays are guaranteed postponements because the rain falls all day when it does. Not hard but consistent and all day. It’s not like other places. It’s rarely hard rain, it’s just relentless for days on end light rain.

 

[PCSPounder]

I see you guys taking advantage of my vacation and having a weather convo about Portland without me.

If I accurately describe Portland summers, a million natives will beat me up… at best. Those million natives wanted Portland all for themselves, hate the growth, etc.

April, May, early June, and (insert PLAYOFFS? meme here)… you want that dome. Eh, people who are California transplants don’t want 50° nights more than anything. Thing is, the normal Portland rain strikes me as the kind of rain that MLB usually plays through, save for the occasional “atmospheric river” that happens maybe once a year during the season (2-3 a year overall).

By the way, thunder and lightning probably only happens in Portland 1.5 times a year. That should point to the low intensity of the storms we usually see in Portland.

 

[KevFu]

To me the roof argument is less about data than it is just simple common sense.

"Data" in this regard is like "if a roof means you avoid four rainouts per season does the revenue of 120 games and X number of winter events hosted by the venue add up to more than the cost of the roof?" If yes, build a roof. If no, no roof.

The reality is more common sense: you don't build your plans around outdoor activities when there's a chance of rain. And if there's a 20% chance of rain every day, you're losing ticket sales every day. (Or in the case of someone like Las Vegas or the Texas Rangers, 95+ degree heat). It's not about the four games canceled; It's about the 10,000 people per game from April to September who don't think being outside today sounds like fun.