Response to U.S.T.A. Renovations: Where's the Roof? After the United States Tennis Association revealed a renovation plan to the Billie Jean King National Tennis Center that will include a new Louis Armstrong Stadium, a new Grandstand court, improved pedestrian walkways and a two-story viewing platform that will make it easier to watch players practice, the reaction focused on what the project does not include: a roof. The absence of a roof on Arthur Ashe Stadium has been a pressing topic for the past few years as rain delays have created havoc in the United States Open schedule. The men's final has been played on a Monday for four years in a row, and player complaints about the handling of those delays reached a peak at last year's event. The United States Open is the only major tennis tournament that does not have a roof, or plans for a roof, on its showcase court. The U.S.T.A. has insisted that it continues to research ways to place a roof over Ashe, which is by far the largest of the main courts among the Grand Slam events, seating more than 23,000. The problem seems to be architectural and technological. The land on which Ashe sits, the U.S.T.A. said, cannot support the weight of a roof. There are no plans to put a roof on the new Armstrong stadium, though it could support one. The new Louis Armstrong Stadium, with a capacity of 15,000, would hold roughly the same number of fans as Rod Laver Arena at Melbourne Park, Philippe Chatrier Court at Roland Garros and Centre Court at Wimbledon. Daniel Zausner, managing director of the tennis center, told The Times's Richard Sandomir: "The tournament does not function with a single roof being anywhere but the main stadium. You can't tell 23,700 people to move to Louis, which will have 15,000 seats. Courtney Nguyen of SI.com's Beyond the Baseline lamented the loss of the Grandstand's charm and the addition of spectators, but pointed out, "The tough reality for the U.S.T.A. is that no amount of bells and whistles will distract anyone from the glaring absence of a roof." Tennis writers on Twitter were certainly not distracted: Stephanie Myles of The Montreal Gazette was more sympathetic, saying: Would you have them just raze the behemoth they're still paying for to the ground, just to build another one on which it will be possible to build a roof? Not exactly a realistic notion, even if recent history with the weather has indeed turned things upside down with the event. Seriously, if they could, wouldn't they? They're making this substantial investment in the event's future. If the roof were doable (and I have no doubt they've looked at every possible avenue), they would do it. Peter Bodo, writing on Tennis.com, said the U.S.T.A. chose "the wiser if less popular road" by becoming less Ashe-centric. He noted that the renovation plans would improve traffic flow and relieve congested areas, and praised the viewing platform for the practice courts. "Those of you who have attended tennis events in person know how staking out the practice courts has become a wildly popular fan pastime, even though the practice courts are usually located in the least crowd- and traffic-friendly areas of a venue," Boda wrote. Ultimately, Boda said, the only thing that will make the roof issue go away is "two or three years of finals weekends uninterrupted by rain." Roof or not, the changes at the tennis center will accomplish what building Ashe did in 1997: allow more people to attend to Open. Your turn: What do you think of the U.S.T.A."s plans for the tennis center? Aside from the roof issue, how do you feel about the new stadiums and the layout? Share your thoughts in the comments section below.