Nationals Ballpark. Is it just me, or...

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Is this sort of 'Replicated Baseball'? It seemed rather artificial to me.

Even though this park is roomy, brand new and state-of-the-art and is a huge improvement over that ugly fucking useless abomination known as RFK Stadium, I just thought the whole thing was really kind of artificial and bland. Have any of you who've been there, thought the same thing?

I mean, I'm glad I went there, and I saw some good games, but there were just some little things I really couldn't stand - like that idiot Ryan Seacrest lookalike mugging it up on the scoreboard, the annoying tendency of the organist (assuming it was a live organist; like a lot of the things I saw in this place, it could have been prepackaged and prerecorded) to play Hava Nagila approximately once every .005 seconds, and the fact that the place appeared to be less than 50% populated (one of the biggest turnoffs of anything at all, let alone a baseball game, is when the crowd is that damn sparse).

This was a completely opposite experience to Fenway, which I'd been to earlier in the week. That was pure baseball through and through. None of this artificial bland manufactured bullshit I ran into at Nationals. One of the most fun times I'd ever had at a park, and I say this as a Yankee fan.

To use a food metaphor: If Fenway is a bowl of Chowdah(tm), Nationals is a Food Pill from those art deco sci-fi films from the 30's.

Anyone else have this reaction? Am I just being unfair to the Nationals because their ballpark, and the team itself for that matter, have both been around for only a short time, and thus haven't had the chance to build up a devoted following like the Sox have?

 

[Squiggy]

There's no live organist at Nationals Stadium.

 

[bigdaddy]

It's in D.C., they can't figure anything out.

It's very "cookie cutter", and in baseball the best thing is each stadium is different, no other sport is like that.* They needed to add a D.C. feel and I don't think they did that.

*Golf isn't a sport.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It's in D.C., they can't figure anything out.

It's very "cookie cutter", and in baseball the best thing is each stadium is different, no other sport is like that.* They needed to add a D.C. feel and I don't think they did that.

Oh no...Nationals Ballpark may be many things, but a cookie cutter stadium is definitely not one of them.

 

[bigdaddy]

It feels it to me, I haven't been, but I like stadiums and looked at the pictures and when you are sitting watching the game it has no character at all.

 

[Nerroth]

And yet, while they are happy to offload tons of money to have Nationals Park built, D.C. United continue to struggle to get much less money to build their own soccer-specific stadium at Poplar Point...

...maybe eleven trophies in twelve years is not enough to impress the District.

 

[RoJoHen]

I went to a Nats game at RFK, and I rather liked the simplicity of that stadium.

 

[nevermore]

...maybe eleven trophies in twelve years is not enough to impress the District.

Not if they're soccer trophies, no.

 

[Finn]

Yeah. I went there two games on the Memorial Day Weekend. One thing really stood out. The decor, schemes, all that reminded me of Cincinnati Reds' Great American Ballpark. At least they have the smokestacks in Cincinnati.

BTW. the park was packed both games.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I really loved Wrigley East, err.. I mean, Nationals Park. (I went for the Cubs series about a month ago, and the stadium was at least 30% Cubs fans.)

To me, it feels like an HOK stadium, which I think it is. By that, it feels like Camden Yards or the Durham Bulls Athletic Park. There wasn't anything that stood out to me as being nifty and unique, but I also enjoyed the ambiance of Nats Park. (Of course, it could be the Cubs contingent.)

The big problem they have is that they're not selling out the stadium, and there's no real home team vibe yet. They haven't built their fanbase, and to that end I think the Nationals need to do two things -- 1) lower ticket prices, and 2) day games. Prices for comparable seats at Camden Yards are at least fifty percent less than at Nats Park. And they've done away with day baseball at Nats Park except on Sundays; they don't want to overwhelm the Anacostia business district. (Of course, there's the problem that transportation to the ballpark is pretty bad. Thirty thousand fans breaking for the subway station a block from the stadium could be handled better.)

In short, it's got the growing pains from being a new stadium. But it's a lovely stadium, and I'm looking forward to seeing more games there in the future.

 

[bigdaddy]

...maybe eleven trophies in twelve years is not enough to impress the District.

Not if they're soccer trophies, no.

Exactly.

Why waste the money on a stadium that no one will ever go to? Baseball is America's past-time, and the only American about soccer is the name.

 

[Nerroth]

...maybe eleven trophies in twelve years is not enough to impress the District.

Not if they're soccer trophies, no.

Nor, perhaps, if it's soccer fans, either (D.C. United have a large and passionate following, who do their best with RFK, but deserve to have the kind of facilities that the LA Galaxy and Chivas USA have with the Home Depot Centre... or even that Toronto FC have with BMO Field, so long as the team didn't have to pay an extortionate level of rent for a place that DESEC doesn't seem to maintain properly anyway...) - but hopefully United won't be left in the lurch forever!

Exactly.

Why waste the money on a stadium that no one will ever go to? Baseball is America's past-time, and the only American about soccer is the name.

So I take it you've never seen the crowd at your average D.C. United game, then?

A shame.

But seriously, of all of the teams in MLS (the teams based in the United States, at least) you had to say that about the team with arguably the best fan support in the country - and who would be quite keen on packing into a stadium at Poplar Point.


(Plus, not only would Poplar Point be used for regular United games, it could host MLS Cup finals, MNT internationals, visiting European or Latin American teams and so forth - plus, if the owners hire out the facility the way the soccer-specific stadia in LA, Dallas, Toronto and Denver are, it could get year-round use for a number of sports and events, not just for soccer matches.)


Oh, and by the way, the richest soccer team in the Americas happens to have something 'American' about their name:

But I'm not quite sure what they, being based in Mexico City (and playing out of the 114,000-seater Azteca stadium, a home ground larger than that of any pro team in the US or Canada) have to do with the popularity of soccer in the District...

 

[Scout101]

I haven't seen the new ballpark, so can't make any judgements on it. It DOES take a little while to find its stride, though. Not just a new park, but the team has only been there a short while, so you don't have that die-hard fan base yet. If (one of these years) the team goes on a big run, makes the playoffs, then you might see a more permanant uptick.

It's also not fair to compare it to Fenway. Fenway is one of the jewels of baseball. Warts and all. It's the oldest park in the Majors, and also the smallest. Technically, the A's have a smaller capacity, but only because they blocked off the top tier completely. Their PARK is still a lot bigger. Everything is right on top of everything else in Fenway, which kinda sucks, but it's also one of the best things. You're not far away from the action, and the crowd is almost literally right there on the field with the team. Can be rough on the visitors. Add in a team with a LONG history, that's been in the same city forever, and throw in some knowledgable, passionate (and in some cases, heavily-intoxicated Irish) fanbase, with sellout crowds, and that's going to top just about any baseball experience you can find anywhere.

Sure, you can get more comfortable seats, better views, cheaper food, parking, and tickets, and some years you can see a better team (but not right now, arguably), but Fenway is one of those Shrines of Baseball. Wrigley would be another close example. In these kinds of places, it becomes more than just a game or a ballpark, it's something special...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

...maybe eleven trophies in twelve years is not enough to impress the District.

Not if they're soccer trophies, no.

Exactly.

Why waste the money on a stadium that no one will ever go to?

Because RFK Stadium is an ugly, obsolete piece of shit. Once Poplar Point Stadium gets built, they can tear that sumbitch down.

As for Nationals Park: I agree. It's brand new, and so is the team (almost), so I gotta give them time.

 

[Nerroth]

Oh, speaking of RFK - if a new stadium gets built on that site, is it likely that such a stadium will also be named after the late Bobby Kennedy?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Oh, speaking of RFK - if a new stadium gets built on that site, is it likely that such a stadium will also be named after the late Bobby Kennedy?

Probably not.

But why would they build a new stadium there anyway? Who would it be for? DC United is (hopefully) getting Poplar Point, the Nationals of course have their own park. What's left?

The Redskins have FedEx Field. Isn't that good enough for them? It's only 11 years old. How bad a shape could it possibly be in?

 

[Nerroth]

I heard word that the powers that be in the District wanted to have a 100,000-seater stadium built on that site, to try and lure the Redskins back to D.C. - but that would assume there is any traction in the idea that the owner would even want to move out of their current home in Maryland...

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

It would seem that whoever built places like FedEx Field and Tropicana Field has not done their homework, as both of those places are apparently so run down that they already need to be replaced, only about a decade after being built!

(Tropicana Field already is going away, as the Rays are planning to build a new ballpark.)

 

[Tom Servo]

Well HOK did do Tropicana field, as well as some awesome parks such as Petco, AT&T, and Camden Yards, so they have done some great designs. Its not so much that Tropicana is run down, but it just sucks...as do all domes.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Nationals Park definitely does not suck. I hope it lasts for decades. My attitude towards it has definitely eased up since I realized it would be impossible to compare it to places like Fenway. Although I still wish they'd get rid of that mugging idiot that always kept popping up on the viewscreen.

The only thing I'm still not happy about is the transit option - it's just too crowded on the Metro. But that's DC's fault, not the Nationals'.