MLB stadiums

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Sorry for the bump, but I'm watching the Yankees/Mariners game and I have a question:

Why does Safeco Field have a tarp, when it also has a retractable roof?

 

[SVD]

Why does Safeco Field have a tarp, when it also has a retractable roof?

More than likely because they can get the tarp deployed quicker than they can get the roof over the place.

Whilst this thread's bumped, two cents:

1) I thought that, of all the cookie cutters, Busch II was the best looking of them all, and should have stayed as a relic of the era.

2) The disparate dimesions of the outfields at the various ballparks annoys my grandfather to no end. Of course, he's not realy a sports fan of any kind, I'm the only one in the family (3 generations worth) that is a sports fan of any kind. He's got the blasfamous notion that all the ballparks shopuld have the exact same dimensions, taking away the effects of places like ATT's 421 ft "Death Valley/Triples Alley" that kill home runs.

 

[Captain Ice]

^They've already done that. The cookie cutters were basically that way and we saw how well that worked.

Sorry for the bump, but I'm watching the Yankees/Mariners game and I have a question:

Why does Safeco Field have a tarp, when it also has a retractable roof?

IIRC, the rain in Seattle comes in sideways at times. SAFECO field is essentially a regular, open air park with a totally separate retractable roof and there is a good amount of space between the top of the walls of the stadium and the edges of the roof.

 

[Hober Mallow]

^They've already done that. The cookie cutters were basically that way and we saw how well that worked.

Sorry for the bump, but I'm watching the Yankees/Mariners game and I have a question:

Why does Safeco Field have a tarp, when it also has a retractable roof?

IIRC, the rain in Seattle comes in sideways at times. SAFECO field is essentially a regular, open air park with a totally separate retractable roof and there is a good amount of space between the top of the walls of the stadium and the edges of the roof.

To illustrate:

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

1) I thought that, of all the cookie cutters, Busch II was the best looking of them all, and should have stayed as a relic of the era.

That's not saying much. IMHO, Shea Stadium was the only cookie cutter that didn't look totally ass-ugly, and that was only because Shea was open at one end. I mean, I went to many games at Busch II when I lived in St. Louis, and there were some great moments there, but as a ballpark, it sucked. Just like all other cookiecutters. Busch III is so much better.

Cookie cutter stadiums were an experiment that failed. I don't miss them at all. Baseball and football are just too different - if you try to build one stadium for both sports, you get something that's not suitable for either one, because the sight lines are not anywhere near the same. And you end up with cheap crap that has no style, which is what the cookie cutters were.

(God help the D.C. United, who still have to play in one - RFK Stadium. Ironic that such a great man like Bobby Kennedy had to have a shit pile of a stadium named after him! )

The disparate dimesions of the outfields at the various ballparks annoys my grandfather to no end. Of course, he's not realy a sports fan of any kind, I'm the only one in the family (3 generations worth) that is a sports fan of any kind. He's got the blasfamous notion that all the ballparks shopuld have the exact same dimensions

That IS blasphemy.

As for Safeco: If they really do need a tarp (because of the 'sideways' rain) then how much good does the roof really do?

 

[SVD]

1) I thought that, of all the cookie cutters, Busch II was the best looking of them all, and should have stayed as a relic of the era.

That's not saying much. IMHO, Shea Stadium was the only cookie cutter that didn't look totally ass-ugly, and that was only because Shea was open at one end. I mean, I went to many games at Busch II when I lived in St. Louis, and there were some great moments there, but as a ballpark, it sucked. Just like all other cookiecutters. Busch III is so much better.

It looked good on TV anyway, I cant speak for the actual experience. The archways on the crown were a nice touch.

The disparate dimesions of the outfields at the various ballparks annoys my grandfather to no end. Of course, he's not realy a sports fan of any kind, I'm the only one in the family (3 generations worth) that is a sports fan of any kind. He's got the blasfamous notion that all the ballparks shopuld have the exact same dimensions

That IS blasphemy.

RIGHT! If they done that, it'd be cookie cutters all over again! A little asymmetry works wonders for adding soul to a park if there is nothing architecturally interesting about the it.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I always wondered how they got Busch III built so quickly. They had to wait until the end of the 2005 season before they could demolish Busch II and build the rest of III. They did all that - demolish the old and finish the new - in a very short amount of time. They built nearly half of Busch III in just a few months! They must have had construction crews on that round-the-clock.

And now the question is, will Ballpark Village ever be built...

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Fourth, back to politics, is that the people of Portland are confused. They think sports are bad because competing is hostile, or something. It is very irritating talking to some of them. When you mention baseball, all they can do is talk about A-Rod's pay and ask if anyone deserves that much money for swinging a bat. It's beyond the pale, really. They wouldn't ask if U2 deserved their pay, or if Peter Jackson deserved his royalties, but for some reason they can't accept the amount that Seattle will pay Ichiro Suzuki. And then they throw in how we are stealing from the babies, as if the school budgets are going to be smaller because we build a stadium! It's nuts. They can't grasp that schools are paid from property taxes and stadiums are built with bonds. They just keep saying it's all money from taxes and to them that means it is all the same money. Bonds are bought by rich people from municiplaities and paid back with interest over a 20 year period. It's the paying back that they think means it is their money, even though an MLB team brings taxable income into the state. It is useless trying to explain it. And when you mention quality of life, they say if you have to build a stadium with my kids lunch money then you have a sad defnition of the word quality.

I was in Portland recently. We were on a cross-country road trip and Portland was the next stop between the Sea Lion Caves & Mt. St. Helens. While we were there, we went to the giant used book store, Powell's. (Working at a much smaller used book store in Arizona, I would often hear stories about the glory of Powell's. I thought they were just tall tales until I saw it for myself.) That was a really scary neighborhood. It was very upscale but every single street corner was manned by a crazed liberal college student flown in from Vermont to badger me into donating to some vague humanitarian organization (Haiti earthquake relief, Gulf oil spill clean up, etc.). I hate those people that will not take a polite "No" for an answer. And they were on EVERY FREAKING CORNER, not just every intersection, but all 4 corners of each intersection!

But on the subject of publicly funded stadiums, I agree that they are a bad thing. These aren't like public parks that everyone can enjoy. Even after my tax dollars pay for the building, I still have to buy a ticket to attend an event there, even though I think I am legitimately a part-owner (granted an extremely tiny part). Baseball teams are privately owned, for-profit businesses. They should cover their own operating expenses, and that includes paying for their own venue.

^ Most teams pick ONE damn sponsor and stick with it.

Besides, don't most naming rights deals last years? I find it hard to believe that Land Shark only wanted their name on the place for a year (possibly less).

Agreed, it's very strange. Here in Phoenix, both of the older corporate-named venues changed names recently, but that was because the company that they were named after changed its name. America West Arena became US Airways Center when America West Airlines bought US Airways and took their name. Bank One Ballpark became Chase Field when Chase Bank bought Bank One. (I'm not happy with either of these changes. I liked America West Arena because it didn't necessarily sound like it was named after a corporation. Chase Field just sounds like it portends bad defense, with lots of errors and missed grounders.)

But while Chase Field is a very nice, state-of-the-art ballpark, I would trade it in a heartbeat for something with the character & history of Fenway Park or Wrigley Field.

 

[Scout101]

Go the other way with the issue. You ARE enjoying them, just not the way you're thinking. They bring in TONS in taxes, they bring in other businesses that pay taxes. People come to see the game, then grab a cab, or stay in a hotel, go out to eat, etc. You're not getting a free park to go play catch, but you're investing money to build up your city and getting more money in return than you put in.

 

[SmoothieX]

^What he said. It's a boon for local businesses. Parking, restaurants, bars, lodging, souvenier shops, etc.

That's why Cleveland is shitting a brick right now over the LeBron thing. And I don't mean the ass climbing toilet drinker sports talk radio caller ranting about loyalty and dumb stuff like that. But the businesses that surround the arena. I watched a bit on this on TV. People are going to lose jobs and businesses are going to lose money when there are less people around because the team is irrelevant.

Yeah, public funding may increase your taxes half a point, but they have the potential to generate lots of revenue. Imagine if your team up and moved instead.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But while Chase Field is a very nice, state-of-the-art ballpark, I would trade it in a heartbeat for something with the character & history of Fenway Park or Wrigley Field.

Well, since Chase is the first ballpark the Diamondbacks have ever had, I'm not sure what else they could do.

As much as I like to talk about how much I love new stadiums, I'm not against places like Fenway or Wrigley (although even they will one day be replaced - nothing lasts forever). I had a great time at Fenway in '08, only problem was that I nearly got trampled to death trying to get into the subway (but that's the MBTA's fault, not the Sox's ). And I hope to see Wrigley one day, too.

Fun fact: The next oldest ballpark of any kind in the U.S., after those two parks, is Rosenblatt Stadium - in Omaha (where I live). A lot of people are pissed off that Rosenblatt's going away, but I'm not. It's too big for the O-Royals (who are also getting a new ballpark). And the parking is awful down there - expensive *and* rare. Plus Rosenblatt is kind of a dump anyway. And I think everyone in my city would much rather have the College World Series stay here - even if it takes a new stadium to do it.

Which it would. The NCAA basically said, either you build a new stadium, or we take the CWS somewhere else. And Omaha can't afford to lose the tourism dollars. Plus, the area where the new stadium is being built is a HUGE growth area for the city. There'll be so much to do down there, it'll make Rosenblatt look like a fucking ghost town. It'll put our economy into overdrive during the CWS alone.

 

[SmoothieX]

Fun fact: The next oldest ballpark of any kind in the U.S., after those two parks, is Rosenblatt Stadium - in Omaha (where I live). A lot of people are pissed off that Rosenblatt's going away, but I'm not. It's too big for the O-Royals (who are also getting a new ballpark). And the parking is awful down there - expensive *and* rare.

Doesn't it share a parking lot with the zoo? Awesome zoo by the way.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Yep. And the zoo desperately needs the parking. But it will build new zoo exhibits and a Rosenblatt tribute once the old stadium is gone.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Target Field rocks!

 

[tomalak301]

Target Field rocks!

That's a place I really want to go to, but I want to go to PNC first. I'm glad the weather has really turned out to be pretty good for an outdoor Minnesota stadium, because going into the year my concern was how many games are going to be rained out because they didn't have a retractable roof.

 

[Captain Ice]

But while Chase Field is a very nice, state-of-the-art ballpark, I would trade it in a heartbeat for something with the character & history of Fenway Park or Wrigley Field.

Agreed. However, let's compare apples to apples here. Neither of these stadiums would have as much character as they do if they had a roof. Would you trade Chase Field for the Astrodome or the Kingdome? I don't think so.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Just got back from three days in Minneapolis. Target Field is *awesome*. Nice field, good seating, great food, (relatively) cheap beer, easy transit access, that weird "Jungle Love"-like song they sing when the team takes the field ...

Got myself a "Well Played Mauer" T-shirt as well. (They showed that bit from the PS3 ad on the stadium's screen but it was only there for a few seconds and I didn't have my camera. )

Oh, and the Twins won all three games we saw. That last game was pretty cool. Apparently the Whitesox's center fielder forgot how to throw in the bottom of the 9th.

 

[Pegaritaville]

Glad you liked Target Field. I like it as well, but I still like Kansas City better. I've been to Target Field 3 times now (the last time being part of a family reunion from hell), and the more I go there, the more I nit pick it. I keep comparing it to Kauffmam Stadium, which I aboslutely love. For me Target Field's only an hour away and Kauffman's a six hour drive, but I'd rather go to K.C. Maybe I should have taken that job offer in Ames: I'd be halfway between the team I love and the stadium I love.

The beer at Target is (relatively) cheap, though: 50 cents less.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ I have the opposite problem re: distance. The K is three hours away from here; Target Field is more like seven.

And as much as I love both ballparks, I gotta mention the ONE bad experience I had at Target Field: Trying to order shrimp on a stick. It took about 15 minutes to get (not 15 minutes of standing in line, but rather standing at the counter waiting for the total dickwads who took my order to actually get around to making it), and I got maybe two ounces of total food volume.

Oh well. I'll just stick with the steak sandwiches next time, which were DEEElish.

(About the beer...50 cents less than what? I pay TEN BUCKS for a beer at Yankee Stadium. At Target Field, it was only 7!)

And what the hell is that song, anyway? I'm not kidding, it really did sound like "Jungle Love".

 

[Pegaritaville]

The song? Are you thinking of "We're Gonna Win Twins..." ?
Over the loud speakers, I can kind of see that sounding a bit like "Jungle Love" (after a few cocktails anyway).

When I said 50 cents cheaper, I was comparing it to K.C. ($7.50). In New York, I'd pretty much expect to pay bigger bucks. I haven't been to a game there since beer was less that 5 bucks.

Were the beef sandwiches you had from Murray's? They are great.