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

[Captain Ice]

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.

...

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...

Agreed. It's been ten years and a World Series win and I feel that the BoB (and the team) is only just now really hitting it's stride with the fans.

I think Dodger Stadium is another good example of this too. Two to three million people a year attend the games there.

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.)

As well it should. It even SOUNDS ghastly.

BTW - while the Rays are only ten years old, the Stadium is a lot closer to it's 25th birthday than it is to it's 10th. IIRC, it opened about '85. So, by the time it's replaced it will be only 5 to 6 years younger than the cookie cutters were when they started being replaced.

 

[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.)

As well it should. It even SOUNDS ghastly.

BTW - while the Rays are only ten years old, the Stadium is a lot closer to it's 25th birthday than it is to it's 10th. IIRC, it opened about '85.

Tropicana Field was finished in '90, but it didn't yet have any teams playing there. Linky

 

[DanCPA]

Nats park is a cookie cutter HOK stadium... When HOK started the "retro stadium" feel in Baltimore, it was revolutionary... Now, all the parks are molding into this and losing their charm in the process

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Nats park is a cookie cutter HOK stadium... When HOK started the "retro stadium" feel in Baltimore, it was revolutionary... Now, all the parks are molding into this and losing their charm in the process

Anything is better than those multipurpose monstrosities (which were, IMHO, the only ones that could legitimately be called 'cookie cutters').

I don't particularly care if the new ballparks have a lot of similarities. At least they're baseball-only. That's the primary goal, really.

 

[DanCPA]

They are better than the MPR's, but I think it's a huge mistake to allow HOK to design so many stadiums. They all become uniform on some level and lose their individuality

 

[Tom Servo]

I like HOK's designs, but I agree it is getting a bit overdone.

 

[DanCPA]

I know this is off topic, but there is a new stadium being built here in Tulsa... supposedly it was designed by the same people who designed the Staples Center in LA and has many of the "same design elements" as Staples. While Staples is a wonderful stadium, shouldn't Tulsa have a stadium of it's own, with a design that is part of our culture, our personality.

To me, this is even stronger in baseball! Baseball is rich in history, and to make cookie cutters, even if they are beautiful ones, denies the games heritage