Classic stadium support post design

[Clash City Rocker]

For those people who saw games in old stadiums with stacked decks, what was the probability that a support post would screw with your enjoyment of the game? And was the tradeoff of having a close upperdeck and intimate surroundings worth it?

When I tend to do stadium designs they always are stacked decks because I think they have more 'personality'.

[sickle]

I must admit that I have no technical know-how, but I like your sketch. It DEFINITELY has personality and closeness to it. Good seats for all fans!

[Elvis]

I heartily agree with you, CCR. I've always felt that the upper deck is the best place to see a game, and am very dissapointed at HOK and other ballpark designers who give the short end of the stick to upper deck fans these days by pushing back the upper decks behind the lower bowl. I love the idea of a moder ballpark being designed with a limited nuimber of posts to give that "stacked deck" feeling.

Great design, by the way!

[Gjm130]

Looks like the Ballpark in Arlington...
Didn't they change the name of that ballpark???

[Yankeebiscuitfan]

To me it is more like a mixture of the intimate athmosphere of Ebbets Field and the stands of Tiger Stadium.

Good work man! :clapping

[tonypug]

For those people who saw games in old stadiums with stacked decks, what was the probability that a support post would screw with your enjoyment of the game? And was the tradeoff of having a close upperdeck and intimate surroundings worth it?

When I tend to do stadium designs they always are stacked decks because I think they have more 'personality'.


Actually the owners had more trouble with the support posts then us fans. They couldn't sell the seats without telling the fan, and the tickets said limited view on them, and were cheaper.If they were the only seats left you bought them and either found seats that people weren't using or stood up, but at least you were at the game. As a fan I don't think it was a big deal. That is a great drawing.

[sschirmer]

Ah, the age old arguement, to post or not to post.

[Southlake CubsFan]

For those people who saw games in old stadiums with stacked decks, what was the probability that a support post would screw with your enjoyment of the game? And was the tradeoff of having a close upperdeck and intimate surroundings worth it?

When I tend to do stadium designs they always are stacked decks because I think they have more 'personality'.


that looks VERY similar to Ballpark In Arlignton..and that is a very nice stadium

[Southlake CubsFan]

Looks like the Ballpark in Arlington...
Didn't they change the name of that ballpark???
Ameriquest Field In Arlington

[sschirmer]

Ameriquest Field In Arlington

I'm going on a corporate name strike, it will always be the Ballpark in Arlington to me.

[Clash City Rocker]

Looks like the Ballpark in Arlington...

Must be the corrugated RF roof? Actually its based on being half Tiger Stadium and Comiskey Park, with the goofyness of Griffith Stadium.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

I saw games at old comiskey park,tiger stadium and fenway park. i never had a problem with sitting by a post. all of the classic stadiums including my polo grounds had posts in them. i would love to sit in front of a post today at the polo grounds to see some games there.

[CAV]

Looks like the Ballpark in Arlington...
Didn't they change the name of that ballpark???

Yes, It is now Ameriquest Field. Maybe the Rangers can get some pitching to go with the bats now that the team has the extra money from the stadium sponsorship!

[riverfrontier]

I have seen 30 or so games at Tiger Stadium (including McGwire's first big league home run over the 440 mark in center in '86) and honestly, it was never the post seats that bothered me. You could still follow all the action by peering around it.The upper deck was great. A box seat put you right there. It was always the lower deck reserved seats that were too far back towards the concourse, under the upper deck. That was a bad seat. It was like being in a cave looking out towards the entrance. You had to follow every fly ball by tracking the outfielders, and you only had sight of the auxilliary scoreboards. But it was still the place to be for those big games in the mid 80s. My brother and I made it into the 87 Topps set as a backdrop for Dave Stapleton's Red Sox card, hanging by the visitor's dugout for the second game of the 86 season getting autographs and freezing our butts off. It actually snowed that day. Unbeatable memories. Getting threatened with arrest for vandalism for checking the ink in my sharpie pen on the wall while Earl Weaver laughed his head off. Best autograph park in the majors.
Nice stadium, by the way. The upper pressbox is definitely Tiger stadium, but the overall look is Comiskey.

[sschirmer]

I would tend to agree with you on the Tiger/Comiskey point. I have to whole heartedly agree with you on the under the concourse seats. Just awful!

[MSUlaxer27]

Ok I have read the posts on this website with interest, humor and dissappointment but finally find it necessary to respond.

First off Polo Grounds 1957 - being that you live in MI and were born 2 years before the Pologrounds were knocked down - How is exactly is it "yours" and what is your connection to it? I loved going to games in Tiger satdium (including the last opening day game there) but I don't claim it as mine. I tend to think your comments about NY can be misguided but welcome them nontheless. (Don't mean that to sound snarky).

Second all these posts about poles not being a factor at games: This is the 21st century, why should we watch games in Stadiums using 19th century technology? Unless of course all of you would rather exchange these missives via Telegram. True-newer isn't always better...but I would rather watch a game in the Phillie's new stadium than the Baker Bowl (Ok one game for history's sake) etc. Went to see a game in Wrigley and Fenway just to say that I was there. Sat behind a pole at Wrigley and I would never willingly buy a seat in that location again. When I had season tickets in Shea in the Loge (blue seats for those who haven't been to Shea) the only thing they were good for was when it rained otherwise you couldn't see the whole stadium/field. The new stadiums are (Ranger's stadium being the exception and certain section of the Padres new place I think) designed so that the greatest amount of fans can view all the action on the field. The new Tiger's place is a great place to watch a game (designed like the Western Michigan Whitecaps stadium in Grand Rapids). IS it Tiger stadium? No it will never be, but it is a great place to watch a game even when the product on the field isn't so good. (a bad day of baseball is still better than a day at work afterall).

For those of you who live in the suburbs going to a game can be fun, but lets see how much fun it would be to reverse going to games in a city center and have 50,000 strangers walk/drive through your neighborhood (down your block) 3 or 4 nights a week. The era of just taking a subway or walking across the street is antiquated and does not match today's reality

Last, I live an work in Manhattan and play in a softball league. I play about 30 blocks south of where the PG stood. I have played nightgames up there and I tell you the only reason I feel safe going there is because I am carrying a softball bat to defend myself it necessary. I couldn't imagine it would be much better going to watch a game in the area.

I look forward to exchanging ideas with you all.

[Elvis]

Second all these posts about poles not being a factor at games: This is the 21st century, why should we watch games in Stadiums using 19th century technology? Unless of course all of you would rather exchange these missives via Telegram. True-newer isn't always better...

Welcome to BBF :waving

I can't speak for anyone else, but regarding the poles: IMO the absolute best place to watch a game is from the front section of the upper deck. However, in newer ballparks the upper deck is much higher up AND pushed further back than upper decks used to be. This is due to a) sandwiching as many club seats and suites between the upper and lower deck; b) using the unobstructed view cantilever design instead of poles.

The thing that bothers me is that you don't HAVE to design the upper decks pushed so high and far back as they're being currently designed, even with club seats and suites thrown in to the mix. RFK and Yankee Stadium's upper decks are damn near right on top of the field because they were designed using cable supported extended cantilevers, instead of the simple steel supported cantilevers used in most newer ballparks. The result? Fantastic sightlines ffrom the upper decks in those two stadiums WITHOUT poles.

Another thing that can be done today is to build a "stacked deck" design ballpark like Wrigley Field using many fewer poles than was nessesary when those old parks were first designed and built. A modern Wrigley could easily be constructed by using 10 posts instead of 30 as it currently has. Personally, I don't care about poles or no poles, what I DO care about is the slow and steady extiction of truly great upper box baseball seats.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Ok I have read the posts on this website with interest, humor and dissappointment but finally find it necessary to respond.

First off Polo Grounds 1957 - being that you live in MI and were born 2 years before the Pologrounds were knocked down - How is exactly is it "yours" and what is your connection to it? I loved going to games in Tiger satdium (including the last opening day game there) but I don't claim it as mine. I tend to think your comments about NY can be misguided but welcome them nontheless. (Don't mean that to sound snarky).







.For starters welcome to the board.in the time that i have been posting here on this forum i have never stated that i was ever at the polo grounds. i was 3 years old when they tore her down starting on 4-10-1964. and anyone can see my birthday in my profile.i was born in toronto canada and moved to detroit in late 1969.back then there was no baseball in toronto and it was the expos first year in the majors.when we moved to detroit i became a tigers and reds fan.as time went on i read up on the history of baseball and the old parks. from the first time i saw a photo of the polo grounds i fell in love with the place.that was back in the early 1970s.over the years i collected giants and mets items from the polo grounds years.i also have a couple of polo grounds websites on yahoo. and i have alot of mets and giants games on audio that i listen to at least once a year.
i will always stick up for the polo grounds which i still feel to this day out of the three classic new york stadiums still does not get the respect that it should.i went to new york in 1987 and saw both the polo grounds site and ebbets field site.granted i was never there in person but i still believe that you can learn alot from looking at photos and film of the ballpark.the polo grounds was never a perfect ballpark but neither was the other classic ballparks of that era as they all had posts. alot of people that i know tell me that i should right a book about the polo grounds. maybe one day i will.
As far as the tigers new stadium i have been told by alot of people that it is not a great ballpark. i hate the place with a passion just like i hate shea stadium. to me tiger stadium will always be the home of the tigers. and you will never see me going to a tigers game again unless they move back to tiger stadium.

And in closing nobody should judge me about my comments on the polo grounds just because i dont live in new york. and before anyone asks me about why i hate shea stadium so much.its the building of that dump the reason why the polo grounds was torn down and why i will never have a chance to see my favorite old time stadium in person. Again welcome to the board.

[Bob Hannah]

RFK and Yankee Stadium's upper decks are damn near right on top of the field because they were designed using cable supported extended cantilevers, instead of the simple steel supported cantilevers used in most newer ballparks. The result? Fantastic sightlines ffrom the upper decks in those two stadiums WITHOUT poles.

Our seats last year at RFK were behind the plate, section 517, third row. Of course thats upper reserve in the upper deck. We saw the whole field and you are right, elvis, compared with newer parks we were close to the field. The view was great.

The problem with the outfield seats is you lose view of the outfield near the fences. The higher you sit, the more you lose. If sitting in center, you can see whats happening in right and left but not center, RCF, and LCF.

[riverfrontier]

I wholeheartedly agree with elvis about the modern day upper deck seat. If you've been to any post 1990 park and sat in the upper deck, it's like being in a seperate zip code. The upper deck at new Comiskey is extremely ridiculous. Even though it's sloped so severely that it's quite frankly dangerous if you happen to take a misstep, it's still 9 mile from the action. You might as well be in a different
park. I know there's nothing that can be done about this now, but the ticket prices for these seats are way out of line.

[Elvis]

I wholeheartedly agree with elvis about the modern day upper deck seat. If you've been to any post 1990 park and sat in the upper deck, it's like being in a seperate zip code. The upper deck at new Comiskey is extremely ridiculous. Even though it's sloped so severely that it's quite frankly dangerous if you happen to take a misstep, it's still 9 mile from the action. You might as well be in a different
park. I know there's nothing that can be done about this now, but the ticket prices for these seats are way out of line.

If you sat in the very back row of the upper deck at old Comiskey Park, you were still closer to the diamond than you are in the very FIRST row at US Cell. :noidea

Why not put the suites ABOVE the upper deck instead of below? Most of those guys aren't really into the game anyway.