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

[rocketman_95046]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

That's interesting, thank you, but that still doesn't tell me what the "rights" mean, if anything. I really doubt people in some random suburb or going to root for one team or another based on some "rights" the team supposedly has over said area.

The rights simply mean that another team can't move into your area. i.e. I couldn't buy a team and move it next to Yankee stadium.

[urbanlife]

Originally Posted by CyberEric

That's interesting, thank you, but that still doesn't tell me what the "rights" mean, if anything. I really doubt people in some random suburb or going to root for one team or another based on some "rights" the team supposedly has over said area.

It is purely about marketing and media control.

blackout policy


Territorial rights have nothing to do with what teams fans support. Everyone in the Bay Area could love both teams equally, but teams care about making money and having control over specific areas is important in doing that.

[CyberEric]

Originally Posted by rocketman_95046

The rights simply mean that another team can't move into your area. i.e. I couldn't buy a team and move it next to Yankee stadium.

Okay thank you.

[Matthew]

I'm from a family divided between the Cubs and Yankees. I know much of the cubs history and the ballpark's history. I couldn't imagine the Cubs without Wrigley and the surrounding neighborhood. I also believe if Wrigley was replaced, after three years the Cubs would have win to sell-out the ballpark. At Wrigley, the Cubs can have the worst record in baseball and still sell-out the ballpark.

[OhioGuy]

As they push for state aid, the Cubs promise to upgrade Wrigley

By Blair Kamin
Chicago Tribune

As the Cubs continued their controversial push Tuesday for Illinois to float up to $200 million in bonds for Wrigley Field renovations, new wrinkles emerged in the team’s plans to revamp the 96-year-old ballpark.

Beyond the promise to shore up the structure of the ballpark, the second oldest in the major leagues, for another 50 years, the team is dangling the possibility of wider and maybe taller concourses (above), plus an in-stadium kitchen. Wrigley doesn’t have one now. That would allow a broader selection of food to be sold at concession stands.

ffices inside the ballpark could be moved outside Wrigley, freeing up space for baseball-related activities like batting cages and weight rooms. Currently, neither the Cubs nor the visiting team have batting cages near their dugouts.

The team also will study building the Cubs' clubhouse beneath left field in order to expand the clubhouse, which the team says is half the size of those in new stadiums (click on drawing to expand clubhouse renderings).

The changes would occur, the team insists, without altering aspects of Wrigley that are protected by city landmark law.

Some renderings:

[gtbassett]

I really hope the A's stay in Oakland. I grew up watching the Oakland A's, and while I would still root for the San Jose A's, it just wouldn't quite be the same. I would love for Lew Wolff to commit to Oakland, but he wants the Silicon Valley money, and from a business standpoint you can't blame him. It's really too bad for Oakland, it looks like they might lose the A's and the Raiders, at least they'll still have the Warriors.

[hammersklavier]

Would that the prodigal son return home...ah well...

Has anybody heard anything about the TB proposal?

I completely agree that there won't be many new stadiums built for the next half-century--after all, the stadiums the donuts replaced were largely baseball-only stadiums that were standing and in use for a half century or more.

Also, in Philly's case, the inane underlying zoning of the stadium district will be eliminated in the zoning code revamp, and a new stormwater tax taxes surface parking lots, so the city's clearly beginning to incentivizing changes to the built environment by disincentivizing the current built environment (i.e. all the parking lots).

[rocketman_95046]

All I can say is...

Put A's ballpark over Interstate 980

...A viable alternative is hiding in plain view. In the 1970s, a giant trench was dug through state land for Interstate 980 that cut off the economically challenged West Oakland neighborhood from downtown. If a ballpark were constructed on a deck above the freeway, the A's could find a new home and the city could reunite its neighborhoods...

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz15nQtQD5A

[plinko]

^Nice idea, but the structure alone would make it un-economical.

[yankeesfan1000]

I stand corrected on the Wrigley issue, never been and didn't know they had that many luxury boxes, wish the Yanks had just renovated the old stadium.

The last I heard about the Rays was that they cancelled their proposed stadium on the St. Petersburg waterfront can't remember why, and they have a lease signed thru 2027 in their current stadium the Trop. Since canceling their proposed new stadium on the waterfront they've looked at other locations for a new stadium, one being in Carillon county, I don't know how far that is from where they play but apparently has twice as many people within like 30-40 min driving distance, and I remember hearing about them looking at sites in Tampa, but since they have that lease at the Trop signed through 2027 with the city or county of St. Petersburg since they are ones that own the stadium, St. Pete has said they won't allow the Rays to cancel that lease early to move into a new stadium unless the stadium is in St. Pete. I haven't been keeping up on that much, but I'm pretty sure thats what's going on with that.

It's a shame because I've heard the Trop is just an awful place to see a game, and they have a good team. I have a friend who lived in the area for a number of years and said the stadium was the main reason why people didn't go to games there. It's Florida, people want to be outside, can't blame em.

[Cirrus]

^Nice idea, but the structure alone would make it un-economical.

I doubt it. We have active air rights developments capping highways in DC right now, and the buildings can't be particularly large due to our height limit. A baseball stadium is a high-profit land use, so it ought to be able to pay the cost.

That having been said, it's only economical if there's not other nearby land available. In San Jose I suspect there is, which means to convince anybody to cap the highway you'd probably have to subsidize it.

[mhays]

It would certainly add a lot to the construction cost. But the benefits of a downtown locaton and the ability to avoid high land costs might make it worthwhile.

As freeway locations go, that one looks pretty easy. Based on that picture it looks like there's plenty of room to build several rows of columns in the middle of the freeway and ramps. This would mean shorter spans and less load transfer, meaning a cheaper base structure overall. The various medians on the freeway would also provide room for construction logistics.

That said, you'd need to build a massive structure over an active highway, which is extremely complex. Work would be limited not only during rush hours but presumably at night as well since it's a residential area. The base structure would probably need to be semi-terrorist-proof, meaning heavier with structural redundancies.

If you figure that a stadium and parking garage need about 15 acres (if a garage is planned), and land is $200/sf, then your land is $130,000,000, if you can find a suitable site. The $200/sf figure looks fairly typical based on some anecdotal findings online. I'm not an Estimator (neither is the architect/planner who wrote the article), but it seems plausible that the base structure would be much cheaper than the equivalent land value.

As with much of the development world, many things hinge on the price and availability of land.

[CyberEric]

Wow, that is an interesting proposition for the A's ballpark.

[peanut gallery]

I liked that idea when I first saw it many weeks ago, but Oakland has put all its eggs in the Victory Court basket. 980 isn't even under consideration. Somewhere along the line there was a closed-door vetting process that eliminated everything but VC (there were a couple other options as well). No public discussion or input. Just Victory Court or bust. It's a shame because the 980 idea would not only keep the A's in town, but it would literally and figuratively reconnect West Oakland to downtown.

That's all moot anyway if MLB opens San Jose to the A's.

[Steely Dan]

with the end of the baseball season in south florida, we can officially scratch joe robbie/pro player/dolphin/landshark/whatever they call it now stadium off the list of active MLB ballparks, which is a very good thing!

can't wait to see how marlins park turns out next spring, it should obviously prove to be a tremendous upgrade for the franchise and their fans. anyone got recent construction pics?

now, if only that other florida baseball team could get their act together and build a proper home for themselves.....



there are now only 8 pre-US Cellular Field ballparks left in MLB:

black = stadiums most likely safe for the time being
green = replacement stadiums already underway
red = stadiums BADLY in need of a replacement

1. 1912 - fenway - given its age, pieces of it may have to be rebuilt periodically, but fenway as a whole ain't going nowhere. a true cathedral of the religion of baseball.
   
   
2. 1914 - wrigley - given its age, pieces of it may have to be rebuilt periodically, but wrigley as a whole ain't going nowhere. a true cathedral of the religion of baseball.
   
   
3. 1962 - dodger stadium - perhaps the best of the post-war era stadiums, aw hell, it is the best, now the 3rd oldest in the big leagues and a bonafide classic. with the millions they've spent on recent renovations, dodger stadium ain't going nowhere.
   
   
4. 1966 - angel stadium - another one of the better post-war parks, and with major renovations in the 90s, they transformed it into a really nice stadium. it probably ain't going anywhere for a while.
   
   
5. 1966 - oakland coliseum - now here's a team that needs a new home. this stadium, one of the last multi-uses left, has been so monkeyed around with over the years that it cannot be called a classic ballpark. hopefully the deal for a new ballpark in downtown san jose can be worked out.
   
   
6. 1973 - kauffman stadium - another classic of its era, and with millions in recent renovations, kauffman will hopefully be around for generations of royals fans.
   
   
7. 1989 - rogers center - it's multi-use, and that alone makes it less than ideal, but as the first retractable dome stadium, and the cost of its construction, i don't see the jays getting a new home anytime soon.
   
   
8. 1990 - tropicanna field - everyone agrees, this multi-use dome is the worst stadium in MLB. its replacement cannot come soon enough.

[brickell]

They've posted a lot over at SSC, I'll copy them over when i get a chance. There's a lot about the new team and stadium that I don't like (that a lot of fans don't like), but it'll definitely be a new beginning. We may not have the history of the Cubs or even the Padres but damn it, it's our history. We all lived it. Loria seems a little too eager to just chuck it all overboard (so to speak). Sorry for the rant.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by brickell;

There's a lot about the new team and stadium that I don't like

i'd be interested to hear your specific criticisms of the new stadium. do you not agree that it's going to be a TREMENDOUS upgrade from "pro robbie land-dolphin life stadium"?

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'd be interested to hear your specific criticisms of the new stadium. do you not agree that it's going to be a TREMENDOUS upgrade from "pro robbie land-dolphin life stadium"?

Of course its going to be a huge upgrade but they built it in a bit of a goofy location that the team itself didn't even want. They, like everyone else, preferred a downtown location. It was built where it was built solely because with UM moving to Dolphin stadium, the (City owned) Orange Bowl land became available. Its a mile to the nearest metrorail stop and accessed by crammed minor roads in a largely lower-class residential area.

Basically they built it in a location that can only really be conveniently accessed by car...only that area's infrastructure makes it so you can't really conveniently get there by car.

[bobdreamz]

Here you go Steely Dan :



^ as you can see this ballpark is a behemonth compared to the old Orange Bowl as you can see by the residential buildings on the left.









^ these blue windows face east and gives a panaromic view of the downtown skyline about a mile away. I also believe they can be opened when the weather is nice.











^ these are two of the four garages that surround the ballpark and will have ground level retail. There will be no surface parking since thiere is no room for it & they wanted to integrate it with the dense neighborhood of Little Havana.
Also there are two Metrorail stops about a mile away & there will shuttle buses from the stations to the ballpark on game days. Something that was sorely lacking at the Dolphins stadium.

all pics by rmc523

[brickell]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

i'd be interested to hear your specific criticisms of the new stadium. do you not agree that it's going to be a TREMENDOUS upgrade from "pro robbie land-dolphin life stadium"?

The new logo, thew new team colors, the poor design of said garages, the fact that they've been advertising that the roof will basically be closed for every game... plus some personal stuff means I won't be able see many if any games at the new stadium, puts a bit of sour grapes onto it. I'm sure the stadium will turn out great and hopefully the team will follow suit, but if I know Miami it won't make a difference in the long term economics of the Marlins...

Also just for you I got this picture during a quick lunchtime shopping trip. Sorry for the camera phone quality