RandBall: Retractable roof for Twins? Still a bad idea
- Blog Post by: Michael Rand
- April 18, 2013 - 10:07 AM
This is the most miserable April, weather-wise, that we can remember. Those that have been around here longer than us say it is the worst in 40 years. From rain to snow to general gloom, it has been dismal.
Naturally, the awful weather has brought up an old debate for some Twins fans: Should Target Field have a retractable roof to deal with the elements?
Despite some cold games and a couple of weather postponements, we are here to say, without a doubt, no it should not.
Target Field would not be the gem it is if it had a retractable roof. There are six retractable roof ballparks out there right now: Chase Field, Marlins Park, Miller Park, Minute Maid Park, Rogers Centre and Safeco Field. We have been to all but Marlins Park. And -- open or closed -- we have experienced nothing but mediocrity from all the other places except one: Safeco Field. That is the one retractable roof ballpark that gets it right. The rest feel like cavernous warehouses ... a nice place to store an airplane, but not watch a ballgame. And there's this: Safeco takes up nearly 1.2 million square feet. Target Field is 1 million. A Safeco replica wouldn't have worked on the Target Field site, which uses every square inch of available space.
The beauty and charm of Target Field -- and similarly intimate and great newer ballparks like the ones in San Francisco and Pittsburgh -- would be eradicated with a roof.
Would you rather trade many of the things you love about the Target Field experience for the guarantee that you wouldn't miss a small handful of games a year because of weather or have to brave the elements in a handful of others?
Hopefully you didn't say yes. Because that would mean you want mediocrity all of the time instead of greatness most of the time. And that's just no way to live.
If you love Target Field, the weather is just something you have to deal with, good or bad. You can't have it both ways.
© 2013 Star Tribune