Is the era of new MLB ballparks coming to an end?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by mthq

btw while I'm at it, here's Seattle's tranformation (as if nobody is aware...):

Seattle Kingdome (erect for less than 25 years)

source

its replacement:



source

and Seahawk Stadium nextdoor:

source
source

what a stark difference. is there even one person in seattle who shed a tear when that nasty old kingdome was imploded? good riddance to rotten trash. it's great that the mariners and seahawks now have proper venues to play in.

[brickell]

Marlins stadium update

Originally Posted by bobdreamz

pics by rmc523

[rocketman_95046]

Originally Posted by peanut gallery

The A's are waiting for MLB's blue ribbon committee to give its report. They are considering three options: a new location in Oakland's Jack London Square, Fremont and downtown San Jose. The last one will require changing the Giants' territorial rights, which is probably why the report has been delayed. My guess is there is a lot of back-room negotiation going on to open Santa Clara county to the A's, and once the compensation package for the Giants is agreed upon MLB will come out with their recommendation to move to SJ. Who knows when that will happen, though.

This is the A's SJ proposal. Right next to the Shark Tank and the Caltrain/Light Rail/future BART&CAHSR station.

And yes,, as with everything else in downtown SJ, right under the flightpath of SJC.

[Steely Dan]

^ i like it. and right next to such a huge multi-line transit node will be great!

but how will east bay feel about losing their team? will they keep away from San Jose A's games out of spite? or will the real fans stick with the team anyway, especially if they can get to the new ballpark on BART?



@ brickell: great updates on the marlin's new ballpark, it looks like they're well on their way to meeting the 2012 opening.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Real fans (I know way too many NorCal people as an Angels fan ) just want a better stadium than the Mausoleum. The debate's gone on for so long I don't think they care where it ends up, so long as it gets built.

[HooverDam]

If the A's moved to SJ is there talk of them changing their name to the "San Jose A's"? Or maybe "The California As"? I imagine the city of San Jose wouldn't want Oakland in their name anymore.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by HooverDam

If the A's moved to SJ is there talk of them changing their name to the "San Jose A's"? Or maybe "The California As"? I imagine the city of San Jose wouldn't want Oakland in their name anymore.

how about just simply going with "The Bay A's"? that way they can cover all their bases.

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

but how will east bay feel about losing their team? will they keep away from San Jose A's games out of spite? or will the real fans stick with the team anyway, especially if they can get to the new ballpark on BART?

Oakland residents will be rightfully upset, but fans further out don't have much of a connection to the city like they do the team.

Originally Posted by HooverDam

If the A's moved to SJ is there talk of them changing their name to the "San Jose A's"? Or maybe "The California As"? I imagine the city of San Jose wouldn't want Oakland in their name anymore.

It was assumed they'd change their name even if moving to Fremont several years ago.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

Oakland residents will be rightfully upset, but fans further out don't have much of a connection to the city like they do the team.

follow-up questions: does the allegiance of the general south bay area around san jose fall more towards the giants or the A's? or is it pretty evenly split? or are most people fans of both teams? or do most people down there just bandwagon onto whichever bay area ball club is doing better at the time?

is there a building excitement for the A's down in san jose at their potential move? would old time giants fans in the south bay area jump teams if the A's move down there? how strong are the psychological bonds between south bay residents and the teams they root for?

i'm just curious about the general attitudes, as they exist today, towards the two teams down around san jose.

[rantanamo]

Stadiums don't last that long. Think about it. Most of the cookie cutters only lasted about 30-40 years. This era of ballpark building started about 20 years ago and the most recent ones have different things that those built earlier in the era probably want. Some teams will build new in 10-15 years. Some will renovate and keep their stadiums for a long time. In other words, things will be pretty constant. The Ballpark in Arlington was built in 1994, 16 years ago. Turnpike(Arlington Stadium) was built/expanded for the Rangers in 71 and closed in 94. Some teams will rebuild or renovate soon. Wouldn't be surprised if the Rangers are one of those. I think we simply associate the 60/70/80s and think of the 90s/00s as another era, but 1990 was 20 years ago. There will be new talk believe it or not.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by rantanamo

Stadiums don't last that long. Think about it. Most of the cookie cutters only lasted about 30-40 years.

that's because they were ridiculously shitty places to watch a ball game. now that most teams have built proper baseball-only stadiums for themselves, i find it hard to believe that many of them are going to be clamoring for new facilities in the next several decades, not to mention the fact that the public has become increasingly antagonistic towards using public money to fund new sports stadiums.

i truly believe that marlins park, and whatever new stadiums might get built for the A's and Rays, will be the last new MLB stadiums to be built for quite some time, with the obvious exception of possible expansion teams.

[Cirrus]

Right. The concrete cookie cutter parks only lasted a couple of decades because they absolutely sucked. Fact is it's too expensive to go around rebuilding every stadium in the country every 30 years. Things will slow down drastically very shortly, as least as far as baseball is concerned.

As for the A's, how about the San Francisco Bay Area A's of San Jose!

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

follow-up questions: does the allegiance of the general south bay area around san jose fall more towards the giants or the A's? or is it pretty evenly split? or are most people fans of both teams? or do most people down there just bandwagon onto whichever bay area ball club is doing better at the time?

is there a building excitement for the A's down in san jose at their potential move? would old time giants fans in the south bay area jump teams if the A's move down there? how strong are the psychological bonds between south bay residents and the teams they root for?

i'm just curious about the general attitudes, as they exist today, towards the two teams down around san jose.

Allegiance across Northern/Central California and Nevada leans way more toward San Francisco teams than Oakland, but the South Bay seems to be split somewhat down the middle, as if the bay continued south-southeast in a straight line. There are far more A's and Raiders logos visible in east San Jose than the west valley.

As for the bandwagon effect, it was stronger when I was young. The Bash Brothers era brought in a lot more people than the spunky, young moneyballers from earlier this decade. Also, the Giants have a relatively miserable history in the region but still generate more interest. The two-team dynamic has shifted since Pac Bell Park opened ten years ago. It used to be the successful A's and the loser Giants, but now it's the rich Giants and the poor A's. Those identities seem to matter more than on-field results nowadays. The A's have walk-up tickets available in the playoffs and the Giants pack their stadium for a team that can't even hit.

I think there would be a switch by some people, especially younger ones, to the A's if they moved. Some Giants fans have a "soft" spot" for the A's, so I think attendance would not be predicated on 100% Athletics fans. That's the mature, experienced baseball fan who really likes going to the park and taking in a game.

I've met a few who said they'd remain staunchly loyal to the Giants but they tend to be arrogant dicks who will go off about how they're better because more people like the Giants (pretty self-fulfilling). This is more the young, chest-thumping crowd who use sports allegiances as a suburb-safe analogue to gang affiliation. I personally haven't followed baseball in five or six years because I was raised a Giants fan (first 21 years of life) and those people really turned me off. I still follow this story only because of the urban development aspect.

[future29]

I would argue that the Skydome in Toronto needs to be replaced as well. I remember when it was built and all the rage in the early 90's. now it is sorely out-dated. Toronto should build the Jays their own place and have a shared stadium for the Argonauts and Toronto FC (use Qwest Field as a model). And if the Bills end up moving in a few years, thats all the more reason to do it.

Baseball should never be played on artificial turf again. period. so Tropicana and Rogers need to go ASAP!

But overall, MLB stadiums are almost complete and I agree with the statement in the thread title. In a perfect scenario, Chicago and Boston should go the route of the Yankees and build modern stadiums, with all amenities, that replicate their old parks, but thats not gonna happen. And to me, Dodger Stadium is a dump... worst fan experience around and I live in so cal.

Needs replacement
Oakland
Tampa
Toronto

Oudated but "classics"
Wrigley
Fenway
Dodger Stadium

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by future29

In a perfect scenario, Chicago and Boston should go the route of the Yankees and build modern stadiums, with all amenities, that replicate their old parks, but thats not gonna happen.

thank god that's never gonna happen. wrigley and fenway are the two great cathedrals of our national sport. they ABSOLUTELY MUST be preserved for posterity and for future generations of baseball fans to get an idea of what 20th century baseball was really like. just because something is old, that's no reason to replace it. and who cares about "amenties"? the only "amenities" i need when i go to wrigley are a hot dog and a cold beer. what else do you need beyond the game itself?

may wrigley and fenway proudly stand forever!

[Cirrus]

I might have some sympathy for the plight of the Red Sox having a small stadium if they weren't one of the wealthiest teams in all of sporting. Obviously the small stadium is not hurting them.

[Flamesrule]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what a stark difference. is there even one person in seattle who shed a tear when that nasty old kingdome was imploded? good riddance to rotten trash. it's great that the mariners and seahawks now have proper venues to play in.

Yes just like the Washington Capitals arena. along with the basketball team.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Obviously the small stadium is not hurting them.

ditto for the cubs. and the cubs don't even win the way the red sox have been.

the stadiums may be old and small, but they're cash cows for the two organizations that own them because they're the only two MLB stadiums left in the universe that can provide an authentic old time baseball experience.

[Cirrus]

Also, Yankee Stadium was a shit hole. The 1970s renovation ruined any historic value it may have had. Losing it wasn't anything like the tragedy losing Wrigley or Fenway would be.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

what a stark difference. is there even one person in seattle who shed a tear when that nasty old kingdome was imploded? good riddance to rotten trash. it's great that the mariners and seahawks now have proper venues to play in.

Huge improvements for Seattle. One question, did they implode the King Dome on Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! ?

As a kid growing up in Vancouver I remember being so stoked for commercials about the Monster Jam monster truck show in the Seattle King Dome. I never went but for a long time that was all I really know about Seattle.