Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Trent Richardson Interviews Fellow Brown Brandon Weeden

Sounders GM Adrian Hanauer Elaborates On Exploration Of Installing Grass At Qwest Field

There's simply no getting around the fact that Qwest Field playing surface is not as good as it was when it was installed in 2009. Now the Seattle Sounders, Seahawks and First-and-Goal are exploring the possibility of replacing it. (Photo by Otto Greule Jr/Getty Images)

Thanks to Joshua Mayers' reporting, we know the possibility of installing grass at Qwest Field is formally being explored. To get a little more information about the situation, I talked to Sounders GM Adrian Hanauer.

First, a little background. The current FieldTurf was installed before the 2009 soccer season. Hanauer didn't say whether or not they were expecting it to hold up better than it has, but at this point there's little denying that the field has taken a bit of a beating since then. In addition to Sounders and Seahawks games, there have been various outdoor events such as concerts held at Qwest. What we are left with is a field that, while certainly not bad, is less-than-ideal for soccer.

"There’s no getting around the fact that as soon as you lay synthetic turf, it starts to deteriorate," Hanauer told Sounder at Heart. "For soccer at least, it’s just a reality, whether it’s the fields here at Starfire, which are only used for soccer, or at Qwest which is used for other events."

While installing a grass surface would be ideal from a Sounders point of view, it is not quite as simple as that. Hanauer was quick to point out that grass is not inherently better than FieldTurf.

"As long as it’s good grass, we want grass," he said. "We’ve played on some grass fields in the league and if you were going to give our guys the choice of some green sand and some blades of grass or FieldTurf, they’d choose FieldTurf."

Star-divide

Whatever solution is decided upon is going to have to work with the idea that more than one team is going to be using it and other events will probably be held there as well. While a perfect grass pitch is the clear preference of the Sounders, it's not as clear that the Seahawks would automatically prefer grass. Preferences aside, a grass pitch would also require some kind of special grow lights, which Hanauer estimated as costing about $1 million.

"A lot of variables will go into it," Hanauer said of the study. "The ultimate conclusion may be to just keep doing what we’re doing. But the story is that we’re all (the Sounders, Seahawks and First & Goal, which operates Qwest) communicating and it’s a good time to revisit it. Technology has changed for grass and synthetic and maybe there's something out there that we’re not aware of."

Among the variables that Hanauer did not seem particularly worried about was the University of Washington football team using Qwest next season. He said that accommodating their schedule should be easy enough just by having fewer non-football/soccer events next season.

"I think that if you’re talking about adding six more football games and that is it and that replaces a monster truck pull and a concert - it’s why we’re doing the study - but I wouldn’t imagine that that is going to make or break (the possibility of grass being put in)," Hanauer said.

As for the possible outcomes of the study, there are many beyond installing a permanent grass pitch. Hanauer mentioned the possibility of some kind of temporary grass turf that might only be used during soccer season that would be laid on top of a synthetic field. There are hyrbids out there that combine both grass and synthetic. Hanauer also pointed out that the study could reveal that FieldTurf really is the best option.

"Maybe in the end, FieldTurf is best and maybe it has to be replaced more often or we have FieldTurf and less other events," he said.

Although the Sounders will be importing a grass field for the Manchester United match and using it for a couple MLS matches, Hanauer said they weren't expecting those games to be any kind of trial run for a grass surface. In the past when grass has been brought in for one-time events like this, it's only designed to be used a few times and is only practical during the summer when there's enough sunlight for it to grow enough to take hold. It also costs about $150,000-200,000 to install, while replacing the current surface with new FieldTurf would cost about $500,000 if none of the infrastructure needed to be changed, Hanauer said.

Comment 20 comments  |  0 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

This is great they're exploring

but let’s be real here – the Seahawks hold most/all the cards in this I think. It’s great that the Sounders want grass, but ultimately I can’t imagine the Seahawks buying into that. This seems more like a dream that will never come true than anything to me.

by chrisperry1983 on Apr 13, 2011 3:53 PM PDT reply actions  

Why would the Seahawks object to grass?

for reasons that the Sounders would not

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Apr 13, 2011 4:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

I have anecdotally heard

that football players don’t mind turf nearly as much as soccer players, presumably because they don’t care about how the ball moves on the surface, because it almost never does.

Nos Audietis

by sidereal on Apr 13, 2011 4:31 PM PDT up reply actions  

Something that the two sports do share in common though

Is that there are more of those little nagging injuries sustained on field turf. Seahawks lineman Russell Okung missed a number of games due to ankle injuries, and there are some questions as to whether he would have sustained those on real grass.

by Agent_J on Apr 13, 2011 4:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Except that frequency of injury does not correlate with turf/grass

Type of injury does

I am not a Supporter | I am not a Fan | I am a Sounder
Sounder At Heart

by Dave Clark on Apr 13, 2011 5:05 PM PDT up reply actions  

fieldturf is a faster surface

you can change directions on it faster than on grass so it’s better for smaller, faster teams like the holmgren-era seahawks. i guess now that they’re (semi-)rebuilding, it’s a better time to talk about making the change, but it’s hard to imagine the seahawks fully committing to a more physical, bruising style of play.

by murmur000 on Apr 13, 2011 7:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

This.

NFL teams probably put a lot more weight into how a player would play on turf vs. grass when they draft them. The Seahawks are made up of more speed players and less bruisers. Change the surface and you might have to change up some players.

I don’t think that factors in nearly as much for soccer.

Just saying.

by soundersfcfanboy on Apr 13, 2011 9:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Maintenance and durability

especially with our wet weather. And the additional wear and tear of Seahawks/Sounders seasons overlapping.

by chrisperry1983 on Apr 13, 2011 9:48 PM PDT up reply actions  

Mike Holmgren made the call when he was in charge of the Seahawks

At first grass was going to be installed, but after the Seahawks played in husky stadium that had fieldturf, they decided fieldturf would hold up better over a long season with the weather we have in the northwest.

by Coug1990 on Apr 14, 2011 12:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

If I'm a 350-lb lineman...

…I would rather have sure footing on FieldTurf than trying to get some traction, any traction, in the trench of mud down the middle of the field. I know soccer in the rain can do a number on natural grass, but it’s not going to destroy the field the way a herd of NFL oafs can destroy the field.

by ubelmann on Apr 14, 2011 12:24 PM PDT up reply actions  

Paul Allen's

Original vision was to have real grass at Qwest. If they can find a system to support 30 events a year, they should be fine.

by Agent_J on Apr 13, 2011 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

Grow lights...

“Preferences aside, a grass pitch would also require some kind of special grow lights, which Hanauer estimating as costing about $1 million.”

I was wondering about that. Thanks for finding out, Jeremiah.

by nickj116 on Apr 13, 2011 5:40 PM PDT reply actions  

$1 million to install?

or to operate? Is that a one-time or a yearly expense? That makes a big difference.

by LoiteringWithIntent on Apr 14, 2011 8:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

He said install

I didn’t think to ask what the annual cost would be, but I can’t imagine it’s particularly expensive. I would imagine it’s comparable to any other lighting system. I think the bigger point is that the lighting system alone costs twice as much as installing new FieldTurf.

Editor/writer at Sounder at Heart, MLS editor SB Nation. Follow me on Twitter

by Jeremiah Oshan on Apr 14, 2011 9:21 AM PDT up reply actions  

True, and that's no guarantee that the grass would grow/hold up either

That $1M is just installation, or “sunk” costs (right Dave? hehe)

That’s no guarantee that the grass would take hold, continue to grow, or weather the 30+ events each year. If the grass cannot, it would cost quite a bit to continually re-sod the field each year, which would be in addition to the $1M.

I can see the hesitant attitude, but still wish they would have just built those growing lights into the stadium initially. $1M on it’s own seems ridiculous, but at the time of construction of the stadium it might have been easier to squeeze into the build budget.

by ABTsportsline on Apr 14, 2011 10:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

Even if they did built the growing lights as part of the orignal construction

the costs to install and Maintain the grass with how Qwest is being used will still be really expensive.

I’ll be surprised if Seattle is going with grass.

by gstommylee on Apr 14, 2011 10:19 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hybrid mentioned

This comment I found very interesting:

Technology has changed for grass and synthetic and maybe there’s something out there that we’re not aware of.

It depends on how he worded this, but he could have been referring to the new fields that are mixed with real grass and synthetic. Mbombela Stadium, one of the venues in South Africa used for the World Cup had a hybrid field. Apparently similar hybrid fields are used by Arsenal and Liverpool.

In the end, I agree with Adrian that we want what’s best for those who use the field. If we switch to grass we don’t want it to be muddy and squishy because of poor drainage, or thin and weak because of poor sunlight. Field Turf would be better if those problems can’t be overcome. I think our Field Turf pitch is currently better than the natrual grass in RFK and in Robertson stadium anyway (remember the horrid pitch in the Houston ’09 playoff game?).

One other thing. I would think that what the Sounders want for the pitch should weigh a slightly more than what the Seahawks want. The Sounders have 18 guaranteed events each season compared to the Seahawks’ 10. The Sounders total regular season attendance in 2010 was slightly higher at 542,600 compared to the Seahawks’ 535,942. With 2 games having the whole stadium opened up this season, the Sounders number will go up. I know that Seahawks tickets cost more, but since the stadium is owned by the Public Stadium Authority, the focus would likely be on satisfying the largest number of tax payers over revenue leaders.

by K61 on Apr 13, 2011 7:05 PM PDT reply actions  

It'll be awhile before the Sounders should take precedence over the Seahawks

Making an appeal to the size of fan bases, the Seahawks would certainly win. Everyone watching at home would also care about the field conditions.
Plus, some taxpayers might care about which is the bigger money maker, not which has more butts in seats.
Fortunately, the Seahawks and Sounders seem to have a pretty good relationship, so pitting them against each other doesn’t seem to be in the cards.

by yuniform on Apr 14, 2011 11:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

Especially since part owner of the Stadium is Paul Allen

And Allen has ownership in both the Seahawks and Sounders

by Coug1990 on Apr 14, 2011 12:07 PM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Sounder at Heart is a blog about the Seattle Sounders FC, with occasional forays into Democracy in Sports, Roster Management, Soccer Statistics and Life in Puget Sound. We are not the actual Sounders blog.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Twitter-icon_small
Fredy Montero with magic at the death vs. the Whitecaps part 1 (animated)
Small
On "fake turf" in Seattle, 2012 edition

Recent FanPosts

2334846872_d5a0828b89_small
The Friendly Confines of the Clink
Small
Sounders go after Drogba, yes or no?
Img957001_small
Substitute +/- Ratings
Twitter-icon_small
Fredy Montero mesmerizes Whitecaps' Joe Cannon (animated)
Acerimmer_small
Eddie Johnson Scores on Michael Gspurning? Yes indeed!
Paraguay_small
Sounders #awaysupport
Small
Andy Rose!
Small
What's our line-up vs. Dallas?

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Sounder at Heart exists on Facebook - Like Us

Follow SounderAtHeart on Twitter

Sounder At Heart on Twitter

follow me on Twitter

Follow the rest of us on Twitter

Sounder At Heart (Site Feed)

Sidereal (MLS stats)

Jeremiah Oshan (top 10 soccer journalist on Twitter, Baby!)

Aaron Campeau (Villa, Mariners)

Dave Clark (beer, specfic, mideast)

Brian Floyd (all Seattle sports)

Nos Audietis (podcast stuff, snark)

Chris Coulter (photos, academy)


Managers

Tiny_dave_with_scarf_small Dave Clark

Oshan_small Jeremiah Oshan

Seattlesoccerscene_small sidereal

Nos Audietis Crew

Avatar_small Aaron Campeau

254350_1953423628277_767159_n_small dano_seattle

Authors

Img_0349_small malcontentjake

Devlin_small sum anon

Small dennyoffside

Ravelry_logo_small Abbott Smith

Special1tv_o_small Timm Higgins