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

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Perhaps the era of spending public monies on billion-dollar playgrounds for millionaire athletes and billionnaire team owners is on the wane.

that probably plays a part in it, but even more significant to me is the fact that there just aren't too many teams left who don't already have a new stadium for themselves, and most of the teams left that still have old stadiums, have really nice and/or special facilities that will likely be around for a good long while (fenway, wrigley, dodger stadium, kauffmann, angel stadium).

other than the A's and the rays, who's left to complain about how they "need" a new stadium?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Alright, replace Tropicana with Chase Field. Its too big (a huge disadvantage given the Dbacks poor record this year and low attendance), doesn't really mesh with the surrounding area (abandoned warehouses and parking garages to the east, north and south, US Airways Center arena to the west), and has inspired relatively little new development around the area. We're not going to see a Wrigleyville-esque neighborhood or something like LoDo around BOB anytime soon.

The outfield stands at Oakland Coliseum are not-so-lovingly referred to as "Mt. Davis" in honor of the Raiders' batshit crazy owner.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

Alright, replace Tropicana with Chase Field.

no. tropicana is the worst, and i haven't even been to either of them, but i know this. any stadium where flyballs have to be played off of the catwalks overhead (tropicana) is the worst stadium in baseball. on this there can be no debate.

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

We're not going to see a Wrigleyville-esque neighborhood or something like LoDo around BOB anytime soon.

wrigelyvilles can't be created, they can only evolve over time. the neighborhood around wrigley has had nearly a century to grow and change with its ballpark through the decades. that kind of time-tested organic relationship is not something that can be automatically conjured up overnight with the aid of a community master plan.

[Strange Meat]

I really like Coors field, but more for how it fits into the neighborhood so well. Camden does this as well.

That's my biggest beef with the Bank is that it's so far away from downtown or any discernible neighborhood down in the sports complex, but it's still a fantastic venue.

I appreciate the history but I think that wrigley and fenway are shit holes, and not just for their fans, the majority of whom seem to be total cockwallets.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Snodrifter

I appreciate the history but I think that wrigley and fenway are shit holes, and not just for their fans, the majority of whom seem to be total cockwallets.

if you can't grasp the unequalled awesomeness of watching a ballgame in 2009 in the very same stadium that your great grandfather attended games at when he was a young man, then call me Mr. Cockwallet i guess.

when i was 8 years old in 1984, i attended the cubs 2nd playoff game against the padres at wrigley with my mom, my grandad, and my great-grandad. 4 generations of cubs fans united in one of the holiest places in the religion of baseball, the best religion yet devised, and the only one i pay any attention to. but no, you're totally right, wrigley is just a cockwallet-infested shithole. my great-grandad was a total cockwallet, the biggest fucking cockwallet you'd ever have met. my grandad too, mega-cockwallet. and my mom, oh you better believe it, major cockwalletage going on there as well. i come from one of the longest and proudest lineages of cockwallets you'll ever likely find.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

no. tropicana is the worst, and i haven't even been to either of them, but i know this. any stadium where flyballs have to be played off of the catwalks overhead (tropicana) is the worst stadium in baseball. on this there can be no debate.

I meant worst post-Camden per the guidelines given by Nowhereman1280. In the ultimate battle for "Worst Ballpark currently in use", my guess would be either Oakland/Alameda County Coliseum, or the Trop.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

wrigelyvilles can't be created, they can only evolve over time. the neighborhood around wrigley has had nearly a century to grow and change with its ballpark through the decades. that kind of time-tested organic relationship is not something that can be automatically conjured up overnight with the aid of a community master plan.

I don't expect anything like Wrigleyville to appear out of thin air, or even within a ten year span (Chase opened in 1998). Shortsighted Phoenix developers constantly touted the area surrounding Chase as a development hot spot (a lot of comparisons were being made to Denver's LoDo and Baltimore's Inner Harbor) that never really came into fruition. It seems like every year or two a new developer comes along with a grand idea to develop the warehouses west and south of Chase Field into a thriving neighborhood that's always more talk than action, citing the pedestrian foot traffic from the ballpark and arena as justification for such a development being built. The Jackson Street Entertainment District is the latest incarnation, but since the economy tanked, there's little possibility we'll ever see anything happen to the area in the near future.

What they fail to realize is that Chase is in a bad location relative to the rest of downtown. If it were built north and a little farther west of its current location (where, I don't know but lets look at it as a hypothetical here) in an area already containing some semblance of urbanity and street life, then the ballpark might've had a chance to serve as a development boon akin to what Coors Field did for LoDo or Camden Yards for the Inner Harbor (both of which, IIRC, were already showing signs of life by the time their respective ballparks opened)

I'm actually not all that thrilled about the Diamondbacks hosting the 2011 All Star Game. There's finally signs of life throughout Downtown Phoenix (lots more than, say, five years ago) after the 8-5 workers go home but the area was hit hard by the recession, there's relatively few amenities between the ballpark and arena (again, that's changing, but not enough to make any significant impact in less than two years), and of course, July in Phoenix is no picnic, no matter how powerful your car or house's air conditioning may be.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I meant worst post-Camden per the guidelines given.

oh ok, got it. i thought you were saying overall.

as for ballpark neighborhoods, there are certainly right and wrong ways to implement plans for the surrounding area. it's too bad phoenix appears to have made a lot of wrong choices, but then again ain't that kinda par for the course for most things urban in phoenix?

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

oh ok, got it. i thought you were saying overall.

as for ballpark neighborhoods, there are certainly right and wrong ways to implement plans for the surrounding area. it's too bad phoenix appears to have made a lot of wrong choices, but then again ain't that kinda par for the course for most things urban in phoenix?

The best way I can interpret it is "Eyes bigger than their stomachs." Grand plans come along all the time, but rampant NIMBYism and a poor economy more or less leaves most projects stuck on the drawing board.

There's a few positives, though: Light rail, First Fridays, and ASU's Downtown Campus, all of which should/will pay off in the long run, but right now don't have a whole lot to show in terms of progress.

[Buckeye Native 001]

And for what it's worth, Wrigley's the only ballpark I've ever been to where I became overstimulated by the atmosphere. Helps that they were playing the archrival Cards (whom I personally hate) and won.

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Perhaps the era of spending public monies on billion-dollar playgrounds for millionaire athletes and billionnaire team owners is on the wane.

Yeah, damn those rich people and all the money, jobs, opportunity and wealth they create!

Steely, i'm surprised your comments were less than favorable about Rogers Centre because I have only ever heard good things about it. In fact the only negative comment i've ever heard about Skydome/Rogers Centre are the prices of the food and beer.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Steely, i'm surprised your comments were less than favorable about Rogers Centre in Toronto because I have only ever heard good things about it. In fact the only negative comment i've ever heard about Skydome/Rogers Centre are the prices of the food and beer.

my comments weren't less than favorable, as i've never attended a game there, i was merely curious as to how the blue jays and their fans felt about the place because it is one of the few remaining multi-use ballparks still around, and multi-use facilities are clearly no longer in vogue. it appears though that rogers centre is perhaps the best of the multi-use facilites.

[plinko]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

The best way I can interpret it is "Eyes bigger than their stomachs." Grand plans come along all the time, but rampant NIMBYism and a poor economy more or less leaves most projects stuck on the drawing board.

There's a few positives, though: Light rail, First Fridays, and ASU's Downtown Campus, all of which should/will pay off in the long run, but right now don't have a whole lot to show in terms of progress.

I disagree that downtown Phoenix has any real NIMBY'ism (there just aren't alot of residents down there), and I also disagree that the location of Chase Field is wrong. The way to fix it (aside from the cheesy facade design) is to better interact it with the street. While alot of disdain is put towards the 'Garage Mahal' to the north, I actually think the older parking structure that sits between Chase and USAC is far more damaging in terms of the urban environment. Image a decent public space between the two facilities. It (along with maybe a re-vamped W Hotel proposal) would do wonders for how well the ballpark and the arena interface with Collier Center, Cityscape, and most importantly, Jackson Street. The convention center (whatever it's called now) will always be a hindrance to anything interesting to the north. The south side of the ballpark will always be the ass end thanks to the railroad tracks, which is why I also think that those lots would be the prime locations for any big box retail that might serve downtown sometime in the future.

Wrigleyville it aint, will never be. But hopefully Jackson Street can grow organically and the city can make some smart decisions about better linking some of the more disparate parts of downtown Phoenix.

But I digress, this thread is about new ballparks.

Petco is great place to see a game, particularly if you stay in the Omni or Marriott hotels, you can look right down on the game. And the interaction with the Gaslamp Quarter is really good.

Oakland is a miserable place to see a game. Anybody ever go to a game at Cleveland Muni? I put Oakland currently up there with that one.

I'm currently trying to bribe my fiance into seeing a game at the new Yankee Stadium while we are in NYC in late September. You never know!

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Yeah, damn those rich people and all the money, jobs, opportunity and wealth they create!

There you go, thinking outside of that box again.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by plinko

I'm currently trying to bribe my fiance into seeing a game at the new Yankee Stadium while we are in NYC in late September. You never know!

The new Yankee Stadium is nice. One thing that I like about it is that it has just the right amount of being closed in and being open, at least in my opinion. A good example of a stadium that was too closed in was the old Veterans Stadium. When you were inside, you were so isolated from the rest of Philadelphia that you might as well have been out in the middle of the ocean. There was no access or connection to what was going on outside fo the stadium unless you were walking along the outer edges of the concourse. On the other hand, some new stadiums feel too open to me. Camden Yards is the best example that comes to mind. It feels like the stadium isn't attached to itself, if that makes any sense. It feels almost like you're leaving the stadium when you are there.

Citizens Bank Park has a great blend of being closed in and being open. The stadium is automatically partially closed in because the lower bowl was dug into the ground; the main concourse at the top of the lower section is at street level. The stadium is open enough to give you a sweeping panorama view of the city, and also lets you sneak away from the game into a hidden corner to see the world.

The new Yankee Stadium has this same feel. You can see the outside world beyond the outfield, so you have some interaction with the city, and while the outside world behind your seat is kept away from you, it isn't too hard to escape from the game and get a dose of the rest of civilization. Both the new Yankee Stadium and Citizens Bank Park make it convenient to concentrate from the game while in your seat by blocking out outside distractions, but make it easy to focus on the distractions if you want to.

[DHLawrence]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

my comments weren't less than favorable, as i've never attended a game there, i was merely curious as to how the blue jays and their fans felt about the place because it is one of the few remaining multi-use ballparks still around, and multi-use facilities are clearly no longer in vogue. it appears though that rogers centre is perhaps the best of the multi-use facilites.

It's the only stadium I've been to, so I can't really compare it to other purpose-built ballparks. All I can say is that it's a very loooong walk to get anywhere. If you're on one of the upper levels (200 level and up, really), there isn't as much connection to the game as there is in the closer seats. The Jumbotron and retractable roof are welcome additions--particularly the latter when you consider the first Blue Jays game was played in the snow--but it's still rather bland. Wouldn't give it up, though!

[jtk1519]

Best pre-Camden: Fenway Park (though Wrigley might as well be 1B)


http://philip.greenspun.com/images/2...way-park-1.tcl

http://www.pbase.com/dellybean/image/35699275

Worst pre-Camden: Tropicana Field (It was built in the late 80s and built for baseball, so it is pre-Camden)


http://www.stpete.org/pics.asp

http://www.710properties.com/ExploreTampaBay.html

Best post-Camden: PETCO Park (both modern and retro in a great location with the best outfield/view in baseball)


http://www.filminglocations.com/Show...ETCO-Park.aspx

http://mybt.budgettravel.com/_Petco-...568/21864.html

Worst post-Camden: Miller Park (There's nothing I like about this place from the bad location to the horribly obtrusive roof and everything in between)


http://www.filminglocations.com/Show...ller-Park.aspx

http://www.baseballpilgrimages.com/n...milwaukee.html

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Phil McAvity

Yeah, damn those rich people and all the money, jobs, opportunity and wealth they create!

Create? It's a zero-sum game, except for dollars brought in from elsewhere.

When a local buys a ticket, that's money they won't spend elsewhere. The "elsewhere" might be supporting small businesses for example.

I go to an occasional Mariner's game, but I know enough about economics to know that I'm not "adding" to the economy.

In fact, much of major league salaries goes to wherever else the players live.

That's not to say a team has no economic benefit to its region. If it draws people from elsewhere would would otherwise come, that's new money (though still zero sum if you include money they're not spending elsewhere). And there's nothing wrong with the PR value a team brings.

But those things are small potatoes compared to the cost of a stadium or arena. I'm usually a yes-voter for such things, but not because of economic benefit.

[ls1z28chris]

Originally Posted by Burgh15

It definitely appears to be nearing the end. The same could be said with NFL stadiums as well. There are not many teams that will still be in the market for a new stadium. The only way that one of these buildings gets replaced in the next 20 years is if an owner is looking for the next "bigger and better" thing. There are some true gems, though, that should last for a long, long time.

I haven't gone through all the pages of this thread yet, so I don't know if someone has beaten me to the punch, but Arthur Blank has been shopping around for a possible new location for the Falcons. As far as I'm concerned, the Georgia Dome is just fine, but it appears they're seriously considering getting the ball rolling on a new stadium.

On the subject of expansion teams to the MLB, I read something in 2007 about the possibility. Apparently there are really no cities that can sustain teams. A lot of the teams from the last expansion can't even fill stadiums for playoff games. New Jersey was mentioned as a place that could sustain a team, but not feasible considering the proximity to Yankee-ville.

[mhays]

Portland thinks it can, but I'm skeptical. A two-million metro is automatically a small-market team. They've talked about an open stadium...despite the Northwest being less rainy than people think, that means a lot of games either in drizzle, delayed, and uncertain due to potential drizzle. That would cut down on the number of tickets. Also, Portland lacks the corporate presence of some other cities.

That said, it would be nice to have a nearby rival, even if it was in the hard-to-watch NL.

[plinko]

^Portland, Sacramento and Charlotte seem to be the most likely candidates for some future expansion (Las Vegas has other problems).

Portland was covered by Mhays.
Sacramento I could only see getting a team if it's either the A's, or the A's move somewhere and Sacramento gets another team (the latter being VERY unlikely)
Charlotte makes an interesting case. Good sized metro, already has 2 pro teams in other sports, lots of corporate sponsors, and it's a long way from either the DC or Atlanta markets. Also, there are something like 10 million people in a 4 hour radius from Charlotte.

The study that came out in 2006 or 2007 on sports and cities that showed who could support what came to the obvious conclusion that baseball is the hardest of all sports to support due to the number of games. IIRC, the only markets that could support a new baseball team were Metro NYC and Los Angeles (both of which consistently draw 3+ million fans each to their two teams each season). Amongst cities without a baseball team, Portland was #1 and I think Sacramento was #2.

I would think it was pretty cool if there was a team in Long Beach or Newark/Brooklyn.