Minute Maid Park [Archive]

Elvis

07-18-2005, 12:50 PM

Whats with the huge hill in center field?
Cant they get rid of it? :mad:

No they can't. They tried last season to get rid of it again but Tal's Hill put up such a fight that they just gave up and let it be. The families of the three workers killed in the attempted hill removal have filed a class action lawsuit against the demolotion company they worked for, claiming that they should have been provided fire-resistant suits, having prior knowledge that the hill was known to spew fire and brimstone at any attempt to remove it from the stadium.

The Astros claim that they have no knowledge of how the hill gained entry into the ballpark in the first place, but have not ruled out another brave attempt at removing the mysterious and deadly hill at a later date.

calhalo

07-18-2005, 09:11 PM

the hill was known to spew fire and brimstone at any attempt to remove it from the stadium.

The Babe, Huggins, and Gehrig dont like being moved from yet another in-play flagpole burial place*. That they are non-sensically buried in an Astros ballpark is one of the many secrets of legendary Minute Maid Park.

*...hey, the monuments looked like friggin tombstones.

tmorss9

07-19-2005, 06:23 AM

Win, I hope you don't mind the hazing going on here... Its a tribute to Duffy's Cliff in Boston, as well as CF in Crosley field. No, they will not consider getting rid of it.

Astros4Life

07-20-2005, 01:31 PM

that hill (even though i hate it) is a unique feature of the juice box just like the astros HR gas pump and the old train on the wall...so they will most likely keep it

lefty27

07-27-2005, 01:13 AM

Astros4Life

07-27-2005, 10:40 PM

Why dont they just put the wall in front of the hill? It would still be a good poke to get it out there. The bigger problem is the short porch in left field. No wonder Morgan Ensberg has 26 bombs.

PS-Is a mini-train hauling over-sized fake oranges back and forth really that spectacular?

at the baseball thing at the houston art museum they have amodel of the juice box and the train was originally going to be on texas ave according to the model...so we would have had a fake train hauling over sized fake oranges outside the stadium...why didnt they do that :confused:

burger eater

07-29-2005, 04:59 AM

The hill was actually improvised during the last minutes of construction so Craig Biggio would have something to trip on while helplessly chasing flyballs to deep center-field.

sfgiants29

07-21-2006, 01:37 PM

Couldn't they just move in the fence? 436 is too long for baseball nowadays. If you move in the fence in right front of the hill it would probably be around a 405 foot CF wall.

Seattle1

07-21-2006, 02:00 PM

Ehhhh, they should just get rid of the hill. And the flag pole. Get rid of the hill & put the wall just in front of the flag pole, that's my suggestion. (And get rid of the train too.)

JordanDL3891

07-21-2006, 02:48 PM

whats wrong with it? dont you like differences?

The guy that desgined the park wanted differences and he wanted a hill in CF.

Williamsburg2599

07-21-2006, 03:42 PM

Couldn't they just move in the fence? 436 is too long for baseball nowadays. If you move in the fence in right front of the hill it would probably be around a 405 foot CF wall.
For Nowadays? If anything the fences should me moved back for nowadays:rolleyes: Having a deep center makes up for the very short left field wall.

Elvis

07-21-2006, 03:58 PM

It's interesting to me how many people dislike the quirks that make different ballparks unique. I guess some people would just as soon have a mandate that all ballparks should have the same generic 330-375-400 dimensions.

Couldn't they just move in the fence? 436 is too long for baseball nowadays.

I disagree 100% with this as well. 436 should be the league minimum. There are too many bandbox parks nowadays. What is the league average ERA now, like 5? We need more pitchers parks. Pitchers parks mean more triples and inside-the-park-homeruns and I LOVE triples and inside-the-park-homers!:dance

Seattle1

07-21-2006, 04:15 PM

It's interesting to me how many people dislike the quirks that make different ballparks unique. I guess some people would just as soon have a mandate that all ballparks should have the same generic 330-375-400 dimensions.

Personally I don't dislike quirks per se, it's just that some of the quirks in Minute Maid Park seem a bit heavy-handed. I think they overdid it by having wacky quirks for the sake of having wacky quirks. (Sorry Astros fans, no offense.)

Symetrical parks like Dodger Stadium and New Comiskey are fine, but so are parks with irregular dimensions like PNC and Safeco, imho. Then there's the grand daddy of all irregular dimension parks, Fenway! :laugh But I doubt they built the Green Monster for the sake of having a quirky stadium.

redlegsfan21

07-21-2006, 07:42 PM

I like the hill. That of course coming from a Reds fan who likes Crosley Field and sees his team play there 8 times.

Elvis

07-21-2006, 08:08 PM

Personally I don't dislike quirks per se, it's just that some of the quirks in Minute Maid Park seem a bit heavy-handed. I think they overdid it by having wacky quirks for the sake of having wacky quirks. (Sorry Astros fans, no offense.)

Symetrical parks like Dodger Stadium and New Comiskey are fine, but so are parks with irregular dimensions like PNC and Safeco, imho. Then there's the grand daddy of all irregular dimension parks, Fenway! :laugh But I doubt they built the Green Monster for the sake of having a quirky stadium.

The problem is that the parks of the past that had quirks/asymmetry had them out of necessity of due to limited space/money. Modern parks are not hindered with most of these constraints. So you're faced with two choices: Build every park symetrical - copying a standard dimension "mold" or, invent quirks for the sake of having quirks. I tend to think of designing ballparks as combinations of function, form, and creativity. Without the creativity you wind up with "clone" parks which are best exemplified by the cookie-cutters of the 60s and 70s, AND the "retro brick" parks of recent times.

So really ALL new ballparks have "forced" quirks. But that's just the creativity part of it. Sure, MM Park could eliminate Tal's hill and be just like every other stadium, but maybe they don't WANT to be like every other stadium. And I admire that.

sfgiants29

07-21-2006, 10:03 PM

Williamsburg2599

07-22-2006, 09:59 AM

Well, it's not just about the demensions, someone can get hurt running unexpectedly on hills. I've seen many sprains and a few torn up knees by people who have ran onto bullpen mounds in foul territory chasing fly balls. That should be an issue that should be discussed more.
You can get out of bed and sprain your ankle. Show me a park that doesn't have some dangerous hazard to fielders.

But I doubt they built the Green Monster for the sake of having a quirky stadium.
They didn't. It was originally built to keep balls in the park(there used to be a stands infront of the wall) and not hitting the street or buildings behind Fenway.

Seattle1

07-22-2006, 05:53 PM

Well, it's not just about the demensions, someone can get hurt running unexpectedly on hills. I've seen many sprains and a few torn up knees by people who have ran onto bullpen mounds in foul territory chasing fly balls. That should be an issue that should be discussed more.

I think that really is a good point. Sure, all stadiums have hazards that players can get hurt on, like rolled up tarps or T.V. camera wells. However, why deliberately build a potential hazard (hill, flag pole) in the middle of center field? It won't seem so quaint the minute a multi-million-dollar center fielder blows his knee out tripping out there and/or running into the flag pole.

Elvis

07-22-2006, 06:09 PM

I think that really is a good point. Sure, all stadiums have hazards that players can get hurt on, like rolled up tarps or T.V. camera wells. However, why deliberately build a potential hazard (hill, flag pole) in the middle of center field? It won't seem so quaint the minute a multi-million-dollar center fielder blows his knee out tripping out there and/or running into the flag pole.

Bear with me...

Why deliberately store tarps on the field? Why deliberately have bullpens on the field? Why deliberately have low fences that players can fall over? Why have players bat without facemasks? Why have players and pitchers play in the field without helmets where they can get hit with batted balls? Why deliberately expose fans to flying bats and balls that could cause serious injury? Why deliberately build outfield walls that aren't injury-proof when you could use softer, thicker padding? Why arent all players required to wear protective arm and leg armor when batting?

The odds of someone getting hurt on that hill or flagpole is around a million to one, as opposed to the much higher risks of the things I just mentioned. It seems you're worrying about the wrong risks. :)

Yankeebiscuitfan

07-22-2006, 06:17 PM

Here some additional information about Tal's Hill

http://www.digitalballparks.com/National/Astros10.html

Seattle1

07-22-2006, 06:21 PM

Bear with me...

Why deliberately store tarps on the field? Why deliberately have bullpens on the field? Why deliberately have low fences that players can fall over? Why have players bat without facemasks? Why have players and pitchers play in the field without helmets where they can get hit with batted balls? Why deliberately expose fans to flying bats and balls that could cause serious injury? Why deliberately build outfield walls that aren't injury-proof when you could use softer, thicker padding? Why arent all players required to wear protective arm and leg armor when batting?

The odds of someone getting hurt on that hill or flagpole is around a million to one, as opposed to the much higher risks of the things I just mentioned. It seems you're worrying about the wrong risks. :)

I doubt it because players and fans are already used to all of the potential hazards you mention, it's all part of baseball that people are accustomed to. The hill/flagpole are unusual hazards that players aren't used to encountering their whole career going back to little league. Why build a pointless obstacle course in the middle of the outfield? I bet someone gets hurt out there one day, probably a player on a visiting team who hasn't played much at MMP.

redlegsfan21

07-22-2006, 06:39 PM

Next to my house and my tiny ballfield where I throw a ball up in the air and catch it, there is a upward hill. I remember that I tried to catch a ball going up that hill and I did catch it and I fell flat on my face. Of course I thought of it as Crosley but the amount of times I've gone up that hill to catch a ball, I have never hurt anything except my face. I must say that the incline is close to that of MMP.

redbuck

07-23-2006, 03:06 PM

The hill is interesting, but is another completely unoriginal idea in a modern park. There is nothing new or really interesting about it. It affects play almost never and it is certainly not an original idea. Perhaps it would make sense in Cincinnati or Boston but not in Houston.

Here is what Eric Pastore, webmaster of digitalballparks.com, told me in an interview last summer and I have to agree with him:

"It's funny, when you look at new places like Erie Pennsylvania's Jerry
Uht Park and Bellsouth Park in Chattanooga. These are ballparks that had to
be retrofit in small confined areas. These ballparks are fantastic because
of it.

Why? Because the architect was forced to give up his typical blueprints
and use some type of imagination to figure out how to make these
ballparks fit.

Imagination is exactly what's missing from these new ballparks. It was
that same imagination that created Fenway Park. Having to be fit into a
small square area, huge fences (the green monster) had to be erected to
keep cheap homeruns in the park.

That's what all of these ballpark architects are missing... imagination.

Do something different.
Be daring
take a leap...
make me excited!
It won't happen though because, HOK and HNTB now just seem to keep
sticking with what they know.

Houston tried... it's not a bad park. It's still that contrived look that doesn't seem to offer a real ballpark feel, but at least it doesn't look
like everything else. It's a step in the right direction. It's still
better than these apathetically sterile facilites that we see today."

Elvis

07-23-2006, 03:27 PM

That's what all of these ballpark architects are missing... imagination.

Do something different.
Be daring
take a leap...
make me excited!
It won't happen though because, HOK and HNTB now just seem to keep
sticking with what they know.

Houston tried... it's not a bad park. It's still that contrived look that doesn't seem to offer a real ballpark feel, but at least it doesn't look
like everything else. It's a step in the right direction. It's still
better than these apathetically sterile facilites that we see today."[/I]

I could not agree more.

1995hoo

07-28-2006, 02:13 PM

Frank Robinson reportedly tried to get the Orioles to install a sloped warning track in Camden Yards because he liked the one in Crosley Field from his days there. The team didn't do it, of course.

Based on what I've read, the Crosley Field slope was more gentle of an incline than Tal's Hill.

Elvis

07-28-2006, 03:56 PM

Padday

07-28-2006, 04:47 PM

I love that bump and I agree that what ballparks need is a bit of imagination. Richie Sexson (as far as i know) is the only player to have hit the flagpole on the hill. The hit (which surely would have been a homerun) hit the top of the flagpole and he only got a double for his troubles. You're never going to see something like that in an ordinary ballpark.

CandlestickBum

08-04-2006, 02:42 PM

Initially liked the quirks of the new retro parks, but Enron Park pushed me over the edge. Don't like bandboxes in the first place, and that hill! OMG, I can't say how much that forced bit of quirkiness grates.

And then hating that hill caused me to really look harder at my own home park and start disliking it's forced quirkiness as well. And it's all that hills fault!

Darn you Enron/MinuteMaid, darn you to hell for all eternity, or the end of the Bonds steroid story, whichever comes first.

Williamsburg2599

08-04-2006, 03:37 PM

PopTop

08-04-2006, 03:49 PM

Yeah, god forbid that teams build on nice full sites that won't impede designs. Forced 'quarkiness' to some; unique designs to others. But the 'just another grassy knole' comment only displays ignorance. Would be like me saying that 'quarkiness' and 'knole' are just two more examples of that fine education one receives in New England :rolleyes:

Seattle1

08-04-2006, 04:04 PM

Elvis

08-04-2006, 04:24 PM

I'd rather have the forced quirks as opposed to the generic "330-375-400" that all the 60s and 70s cookie-cutters used.

CandlestickBum

08-04-2006, 04:30 PM

I'd rather have the forced quirks as opposed to the generic "330-375-400" that all the 60s and 70s cookie-cutters used.

Sure, but not all quirks are created equal. and IMNSHO that hill with the pole ranks as the worst of the worst.

At what point does quirkiness for it's own sake become too much if that one isn't?

How many Croix de Candlestick's do you have on your hat?

PopTop

08-04-2006, 06:05 PM

I'd rather have the forced quirks as opposed to the generic "330-375-400" that all the 60s and 70s cookie-cutters used.:clapping Thank you, to quote another.

Hell, Elvis, after looking at your model park, I'd definitely hire you to design a stadium.

At what point does quirkiness for it's own sake become too much if that one isn't? I'm not sure there is a single answer to that question. You could start with counting the different people who have posted in this thread and be able to say there were at least that many definitions for how a stadium should or shouldn't be laid out and built. People that don't like Arthur Andersen Memorial in Houston, more power to them as far as I'm concerned. Of the few 'new retros' that I've been lucky enough to go to, I really like PNC in Pittsburgh. Small, intimate, great setting & view, and in the heart of a great city (my opinion, again) for both the locals and visitors. If it had been my call alone for the new park in Houston, a whole lot of it would've resembled Tiger Stadium since that was my favorite, hands down.

If Tal's Hill in Houston is your lowest ranked 'forced quirk' in the newer parks, what is your favorite?

Elvis

08-04-2006, 06:11 PM

At what point does quirkiness for it's own sake become too much if that one isn't?

It's all subjective, isn't it? And also an interesting question: What is the difference between a design element and a quirk?

Padday

08-04-2006, 06:19 PM

And also an interesting question: What is the difference between a design element and a quirk?

A quirk is a design element. It is an element of the design for the stadium.

Elvis

08-04-2006, 06:26 PM

A quirk is a design element. It is an element of the design for the stadium.

Exactly. So a forced quirk is simply a design element that someone doesn't like. The Yankee Stadium facade could be considered a quirk, as well as the fountains in KC, the zig-zag roof at Dodger Stadium, Wrigley Field's ivy and PNC park's rotundas.

CandlestickBum

08-04-2006, 06:59 PM

Exactly. So a forced quirk is simply a design element that someone doesn't like. The Yankee Stadium facade could be considered a quirk, as well as the fountains in KC, the zig-zag roof at Dodger Stadium, Wrigley Field's ivy and PNC park's rotundas.

But those aren't on the field of play. The quirks I thought we were discussing are those that effect play. All those windows and brick a brack in right field at PacBell (I know, I know) meant to create odd bounces or the angle in deep right center.

Or the pole on a hill in center field of a certain park.

Padday

08-04-2006, 07:10 PM

But those aren't on the field of play.
The Wrigley Field Ivory is in play.

Elvis

08-04-2006, 08:18 PM

The Wrigley Field Ivory is in play.

Good point, the ivy is definitely an in-play "forced quirk". Hmm, how about PNC Park having the left-field walls only 5 ft high? Or any of the modern parks having bullpens on the field instead of behind the fences? Also any asymmetry in a moden park is forced really.

Seattle1

08-05-2006, 11:13 AM

Also any asymmetry in a moden park is forced really.

That is certainly true of parks built out in the middle of a big parking lot like Citizens Bank Park. But I think the asymetry of Safeco Field is actually a result of it's downtown location and surrounding city streets, and trying to fit both the stadium itself and the infrasructure needed to the immediate east to accomodate the big rolling roof into its city block location.

PopTop

08-05-2006, 11:54 AM

So they forced the asymmetry by not acquiring enough property, is that what you're saying?

Seattle1

08-05-2006, 02:20 PM

I'd rather have the forced quirks as opposed to the generic "330-375-400" that all the 60s and 70s cookie-cutters used.

:clapping Thank you, to quote another.

I hardly think the choice is between having a pointless hill in the middle of the outfield or having a 70's style dual-purpose bowl stadium. They just overdid it with the cheesy quirks there, but it can still be saved or at least improved. Get rid of the hill & flagpole in the playing field, and the choo-choo train, and it's a immediately a much better stadium by far.

PopTop

08-05-2006, 02:39 PM

The choo-choo train?! How does getting rid of that make it a better stadium? Do you even know anything about the site that park is built on?

Seattle1

08-05-2006, 02:47 PM

So they forced the asymmetry by not acquiring enough property, is that what you're saying?

I'm saying the asymmetry was not forced, due to the limited amount of space they had to fit a stadium with 45,000+ seats, a rolling roof, a place to put the roof when not in use, etc. Go to Google Earth type in Safeco Field and zoom in, you'll see what I mean. It's all shoehorned in to a space the size of two city blocks. They couldn't exactly move 1st or 4th Ave to make room. Similarly, they sure couldn't move San Francisco Bay or the Allegheny River out of the way when they were building AT&T or PNC Parks. Those three new stadiums, at least, it's safe to say their asymmetry is not contrived due to real space limitations. Maybe they could have had symmetrical dimensions if they had made that priority #1, but maybe then that would have meant sacrificing some of the seating, shops, or other features they wanted to include. And since MLB rules don't require symmetrical dimensions, there was no need. They had the leeway not to make them symmetrical to incorporate other features with those parks.

Now with Ameriquest Field or Citizens Bank Park, the difference is they're both out in the middle of nowhere with lots of space to work with. No reason they couldn't be symmetrical ballparks. They’re just asymmetrical for the sake of being asymmetrical.

Seattle1

08-05-2006, 02:49 PM

The choo-choo train?! How does getting rid of that make it a better stadium? Do you even know anything about the site that park is built on?

Yes it's on or near an old train station site or something, I get it. But it's a little cheesy for my taste. In the same way I don't like plastic Christmas trees, or fake ornamental non-functional shutters on a house. Stuff like that.

Elvis

08-05-2006, 03:08 PM

Yes it's on or near an old train station site or something, I get it. But it's a little cheesy for my taste. In the same way I don't like plastic Christmas trees, or fake ornamental non-functional shutters on a house. Stuff like that.

What's wrong with pink aluminium christmas trees???!!! You take that back! :D

Padday

08-05-2006, 03:43 PM

What's wrong with pink aluminium christmas trees???!!! You take that back! :D
Amen to that. Maybe the Astros should think about putting one of those on the hill instead of a flagpole.:laugh

JordanDL3891

08-05-2006, 06:35 PM

I really like that site, (digitalballparks.com)

I like check it almost every day to see if theres anything new, I got it from google years ago, anyways...

Look at the cubs park, they have brick walls in the outfield! not padded!

then at Twins, you can't see the ball with the white roof!

Seattle1

08-05-2006, 08:37 PM

What's wrong with pink aluminium christmas trees???!!! You take that back! :D

Ahhh, pink aluminum Christmas trees, bell-bottoms, and fondu. Ah, the 1970s..

:laugh ;)

PopTop

08-06-2006, 09:07 AM

They couldn't exactly move 1st or 4th Ave to make room. What happened to 2nd and 3rd Avenues? Were they ever there or did they not get gobbled up by the stadium in some manner?

Houston found a space for their retractable roof in downtown without much problem. Built a park with plenty of space for fans/pedestrians around the stadium, incorporated the old train station into the design to provide office space, and built a park that had both contemporary and traditional/historical designs. Like I sad before, it's not exactly the park that I would've built if it was my call. There are parts of other stadiums that I don't really care for as well. How many games have you been to at MMP, by the way?

Seattle1

08-06-2006, 06:25 PM

2nd and 3rd Avenues exist but further north. They stop north of Qwest Field (approx. where the Kingdome used to be).

Never been to MMP personally. Only been to Texas once in my life. Well twice if you count driving through on I-40 in one day. Maybe if the Mariners and Astros play in the World Series some day. :)