[Matthew]

So you're competitors ballparks have concourses that allow you to see the game from anywhere. Your ballpark doesn't. Your competitors ballparks have found a way to allow you to watch the players on the field, while ordering your food (without TVs!). Your concessions are along the outer wall of the concourse and maybe part of those concession walls are load bearing? Maybe you want a party area behind the outfield wall, like competitors, but you don't have the room without closing the street and demolishing that entire section of the ballpark... within 5-6 months.

Changing seats with similar seats, maybe an upgraded videoboard, or new lights is something you can renovate easily. Renovations that are half the cost of a new ballpark on a facility that isn't historic can be seen as not worth it. Just as a ballpark built in 1974 was outdated and in need of replacement in 1991, an old ballpark, built in the early-to-mid 1990s that is among the league's oldest today can easily find itself in need of replacement. I think Turner Field was ahead of it's time in many ways, but the new ballpark will catch-up again with some very expensive upgrades. And as our cities change from the suburban 1990s to the we love our cities 2010s, our ballparks are changing to have access to transit and mixed-use development, as a big part of ballpark design. Abundant surface parking, maybe a suburban location like the Rangers have, or a site that must be near highway exits so fans can go the park and leave as soon as possible, without really taking in the city, could fade away into ballpark history books.

In a world where 20-25 years does seem to be the lifespan of a ballpark, it's amazing to see truly historic ballparks still in use. Though I'm sure they make expenditures on the old facilities that many would think are too extreme, if not for the history involved. However, if we don't allow a facility to connect with fans, we may never have another like that. I think Baltimore's can stay in use long enough to become one of those historic ballparks that see major upgrades near the half the cost of replacement, just to keep the history. Turner Field was looking at what... $200-250 million in renovations? That is around half the cost of replacement and I wouldn't doubt it if the Braves haven't already spent over $100 million on renovations already? Why not use Cobb County to get a good deal on a site near Olympic Park in Atlanta and build a new ballpark near attractions, transit, mixed-use development, and thousands of tourists. It's also a site fans have a better opinion of. I would say most fans don't like the location of Turner Field.

No need to build a mixed-use village around a ballpark that may not do well for 5-6 months of the year. No need to extend greater transit options to it. No concerns over trying to attract people to the ballpark before games and keep them there after the game. Transit, housing, hotels, parking, attractions, and people are already at the Olympic Park site.

As you can tell, I think the Braves are using Cobb County, just as the Falcons used DeKalb County and the Braves will locate near the Georgia Aquarium and College Football Hall of Fame, with a close and dramatic skyline view. You'll see the SkyView wheel and Westin Peachtree Center during commercial breaks. Tourists will have all of their attractions in one place, reducing traffic. The Ted is an example of how we (nationally) did things in the 1990s. Our cities are different today and the next wave of new ballparks will take advantage of all the changes our cities have made and our changing tastes.