MLB stadiums

[Scout101]

Nice in the pictures, but I'm thinking (hoping) the pictures don't do it justice. The way the upper deck seperates from the rest, the angles we get give off kind of a college stadium vibe. Can't explain it really, and sure it will look better as it goes, but just kinda off, somehow. Maybe it looks too open, kinda football-stadium-ish?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Maybe it looks too open, kinda football-stadium-ish?

now now, no need to be insulting.

After the Metrodump, as far as I'm concerned the Twins need something as open as possible.

Same goes for the Rays, although the stupid idiots in St. Pete aren't playing fair with them. Damn shame, too, 'cuz the new Rays ballpark looks really cool. linky

What I'm really interested in viz. Target Field is how heated it will be. Heated concourses, heated *field*, and possibly heated *seats* as well. God knows they'll need it.

 

[Scout101]

Maybe it looks too open, kinda football-stadium-ish?

now now, no need to be insulting.

After the Metrodump, as far as I'm concerned the Twins need something as open as possible.

Just because it's new doesn't mean it has to be universally loved, does it? I don't get that about you, honestly. Yes, the Metrodome is a shit-hole, but doesn't mean every aspect of Target field is beautiful. And given the shitty weather they can get there, might still end up being a bit more open than they wanted. Just because the dome was shitty doesn't mean you gotta go wide open next time. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and all that...

Trying to describe my criticisms, so here goes:

Looking at the photos, the outfield sections of the stands just seem kinda *minimal* somehow. Rather than helping envelop the field, it's jsut kinda lacking and disconnected.

The colors, as rendered in the photos and animated stuff, seem bland and washed out. Too much of just bland gray, especially in the upper decks. I think that's where some of the "college football stands" vibe was coming from. Silver bleacher color, and with the space between each section vertically, seems, again, disconnected.

I'm sure it'll be nice, and a big improvement over the old place, but I don't love the design. Seems more of a "miss" than a hit. Honestly, first of the new stadiums that I haven't really liked all that much. Well, other than Yankee Stadium, but that's because of Bias on my part, plus the Yankees having to stick to tradition rather than reinvent much. Was in the Mets' new place a couple weeks ago, and THAT is a beautiful park!

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Just because it's new doesn't mean it has to be universally loved, does it?

Perhaps not, but compared to the Metrodome, anything's an improvement. Target Field may not be universally *loved* but the dome is pretty much universally hated, so I call that even.

The colors, as rendered in the photos and animated stuff, seem bland and washed out. Too much of just bland gray, especially in the upper decks. I think that's where some of the "college football stands" vibe was coming from. Silver bleacher color, and with the space between each section vertically, seems, again, disconnected.

Well, that's only from a rendering you know. I'm sure the real thing will be a lot better.

 

[Pegaritaville]

I've only heard good things about the new Twins stadium. I guess after nearly 30 years in the Metrodrome, folks developed very low expectations. From what I've seen, I'm really looking forward to seeing games there. It may not look spectacular, but there's quite a few amenities that should make for an enjoyable experience (I heard there will even be a fire pit in one of the sections). And having a few more bars in the area (as opposed to the Metrodome, which only had Hubert's in walking distance) is an added bonus.

 

[bigdaddy]

Same goes for the Rays, although the stupid idiots in St. Pete aren't playing fair with them. Damn shame, too, 'cuz the new Rays ballpark looks really cool. linky

Maybe that's because The Rays have only been playing in their current stadium for 10 years. How often do they need to waste 500 million to a billion dollars on a stadium?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Same goes for the Rays, although the stupid idiots in St. Pete aren't playing fair with them. Damn shame, too, 'cuz the new Rays ballpark looks really cool. linky

Maybe that's because The Rays have only been playing in their current stadium for 10 years. How often do they need to waste 500 million to a billion dollars on a stadium?

Given that the Trop (which was built eight years before the Rays actually, technically, existed) obviously sucks, a new Rays stadium cannot, by definition, be a waste.

 

[Scout101]

OK, so 18 years is the high-water mark for how long a stadium should last before spending a billion to replace it, then? The catwalks are retarded, but it's still brand new...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Nobody says the Rays have to spend billions to replace the Trop. That was never the plan. The Rays are not as ambitious as the Yankees or the Cowboys - those are special cases.

And I'm sure the building could be used in other ways...it's not like they *have* to tear it down. It's just obviously unsuitable for baseball. As I said, the Rays did not even exist when the Trop was built. It had uses before baseball, it can have uses after it.

(Even so, 18 years is not brand new, by any means. Hell, there's already talk of replacing FedEx Field for the Redskins, and that stadium has only existed for TEN years.)

Also, only a relatively small part of the cost of the new Rays park was to have come from the public. Linky

Specifically:

in addition to the $150 million Stuart Sternberg was to provide, at least $70 million would have come from the sale of Tropicana Field. $100 million would have come from an extension of the one cent on the Pinellas County tourist development tax that was approved for Tropicana Field, which was to be extended 25 to 30 years. $75 million was to be redirected from the money the city of St. Petersburg currently pays on the debt owed for construction of Tropicana Field, with those payments extended 25 to 30 years; the debt on Tropicana Field would be assumed by the redevelopers, taking that burden off the city. The remaining $55 million would be from parking fee revenues, and guaranteed by Sternberg. Sternberg would pay any cost overruns.

Oh well. I didn't *expect* the Rays to get approval for a new park, but I'm still pissed that they haven't yet. Give them time, though. After 2012, we will only have two obviously shitty stadiums left - the Trop, and the Oakland Coliseum. That's a damn sight better than the 70's and 80's, when almost every team in the majors had to deal with crappy cookie cutters. If all of those teams can manage to build new parks, then surely the A's and Rays can too. And if not? I'm sure there's lots of cities without MLB franchises that will be happy to take them.

 

[Pegaritaville]

The Rays' stadium is kind of shitty, but trying to get a new stadium that quickly is a tough sell.

I know it's not the same as MLB, but a stat that came up during the Gophers football game kind of took me by surprise: MN's new stadium is the first Big Ten stadium to be built since 1960. Apparently, they all knew how to build stadiums that'll last.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I know it's not the same as MLB, but a stat that came up during the Gophers football game kind of took me by surprise: MN's new stadium is the first Big Ten stadium to be built since 1960. Apparently, they all knew how to build stadiums that'll last.

You mean TCF Bank Stadium? That actually looks pretty cool.

But it only proves my point: Multipurpose stadiums always suck*. Whether it be baseball, football, soccer, or whatever, a sport must have a stadium built only for it, or else it is likely to be a cheap piece of crap that will need to be replaced. Why do you think the cookie cutters from the 60's and 70's have all gone away? (Except for the Oakland Coliseum...and I dare you to tell me to my face that that eyesore doesn't need to come down right now.)

The Trop also needs to be replaced, but for a different reason: because it's indoors only, and as we all know, baseball is obviously not meant to be played indoors. (Ballparks with retractable roofs are different - at least then, the roof can be rolled away.)

People say that I am too excited about new ballparks. This is true, but only when they're obviously needed. You don't see me complaining about Fenway Park or Wrigley Field, do you? That's because those are great parks - historic, universally loved by fans, and most of all, baseball-only - and don't obviously NEED replacement. (Although one day they will be anyway, of course. No building lasts forever.)

*Except for Rogers Centre. That actually seems to have been done right. But after Exhibition Stadium, anything would have been an improvement...

 

[SmoothieX]

I love the new parks that are going up for the most part too. I've got some issues with Citi Field, but I like it far better than Shea.

And I absolutely love going to football games here at Gillette Stadium, which is about 10 years old. There ain't a bad seat in the place.

 

[mimic]

MN's new stadium is the first Big Ten stadium to be built since 1960. Apparently, they all knew how to build stadiums that'll last.

We renovate a lot. In 1960 Beaver Stadium capacity was just over 46,000 and now it's 107,000+ so I don't know if you can consider that the same structure, really.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

MN's new stadium is the first Big Ten stadium to be built since 1960. Apparently, they all knew how to build stadiums that'll last.

We renovate a lot. In 1960 Beaver Stadium capacity was just over 46,000 and now it's 107,000+ so I don't know if you can consider that the same structure, really.

Do you miss the view of Mt. Nittany that was blocked when the upper section was added?

Although that doesn't seem anywhere near as bad as Mount Davis, which pretty much ruined the Oakland Coliseum. Prior to that, the Coliseum was actually a fairly decent place for the A's to play. If it was still like that, I would just as soon have left it alone...oh well. I'm sure Portland, for example, would love to build a decent ballpark for the A's.

 

[Mallory]

I don't think so. Portland can't even find a place to build a park to keep their Triple-A team.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I don't think so. Portland can't even find a place to build a park to keep their Triple-A team.

Believe it or not, it was (and possibly still is) being considered. Linky

 

[Mallory]

Well, considering all those properties were considered as possible locations for the Beavers, and that they were all rejected by the city council even with the team owner picking up most of the tab I'm not optimistic. PGE Park is being converted to a soccer/football only venue. The US Postal Service has refused to surrender it's property and Portland Public Schools will only surrender Lincoln High School for what could be considered extortion under other circumstances.

I don't expect to see PCL baseball in Portland next season.

 

[mimic]

MN's new stadium is the first Big Ten stadium to be built since 1960. Apparently, they all knew how to build stadiums that'll last.

We renovate a lot. In 1960 Beaver Stadium capacity was just over 46,000 and now it's 107,000+ so I don't know if you can consider that the same structure, really.

Do you miss the view of Mt. Nittany that was blocked when the upper section was added?

I got to Penn State in 2004. That was added in 2001 so no, I didn't miss it.

You can see Mt. Nittany from plenty of other places.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Was just thinking of Target Field again...I wonder if the Golden Gophers baseball team will play there? I'd hate to think that they would still ever have to play in the Metrodump (they hold some early season contests there).

 

[Scout101]

Early season outdoors in Minnesotta doesn't sound like fun...