New Ballpark Aesthetics

[riverfrontier]

Am I the only person who looks at places like Safeco and Miller Park and imagines what a 747 would look like with propellors and a multi-riveted exterior for the sake of nostalgia? Seeing a retractable roof and all it's state- of-the-art machinery on top of a brick facade and giant archways is seeing an ugly building. Will the zeitgeist of the era in which these places were built be forgotten as they attain landmark status, like most of Washington D.C. and it's faux Greek theme, or will people see them as a plaid blazer with striped pants?

Which of the new parks looks the most like Ty Cobb wearing Mizuno batting gloves, or Huck Finn showing Jim how to program an i-pod? Do tell, and feel free to use an inspiring simile (or two).

[PopTop]

You're probably not the only person who doesn't care for some of the architectural styles, just like I'm not the only person who feels most of the newer parks are pretty cool.

[Elvis]

I tend to agree with you, but only time will tell for sure. But most of these new stadiums use the term architecture quite loosely. Where is the forward thinking?

[DevilRays1969]

I agree but there is a reason for retractable roofs (try going to a game in Milwaukee in April or Houston in August and you'll get my point). As for architecture, alot of these new Camden Yards knockoffs are this era's multipurpose doughnut. Who was the pitcher who once said he could be standing on the mound and couldn't tell if he was in St. Louis, Pittsburgh or Cincinnati?

[riverfrontier]

There is a reason for a retractable roof. If you put one on the Coliseum in Rome, would it not look out of place? Would the Coliseum look the way it does if it were originally designed for a retractable roof?

I'm saying these places, fun as they may be, are ugly hybrids of past and present. Wanna build an old-timey ballpark? Don't put a roof on top. It ruins the mirage.

[Elysian Fields]

I think the new ballparks are great. They are SO much better than the cookie cutter late 60's parks. I totally disagree with all the "architects" here at Baseball Fever. I think the new stadiums are mostly dynamic and interesting.

Some them are better than others. Some teams (the Reds and the Brewers) built cheap and chose their location poorly, but others were more thoughtful and patient and built something cool as hell like PNC or SBC/Pac Bell.

[Ubiquitous]

There is a reason for a retractable roof. If you put one on the Coliseum in Rome, would it not look out of place? Would the Coliseum look the way it does if it were originally designed for a retractable roof?

I'm saying these places, fun as they may be, are ugly hybrids of past and present. Wanna build an old-timey ballpark? Don't put a roof on top. It ruins the mirage.


Except the Coliseum did have a retractable roof.

I can't speak for all of the retractable roof stadiums but I don't really see Miller Park as being ugly. Sure Miller Park and almost all parks belong in a neighborhood type setting instead surrounded by a lake of parking but the building itself from the outside isn't ugly to me.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/miller01.jpg

[Ubiquitous]

Some them are better than others. Some teams (the Reds and the Brewers) built cheap and chose their location poorly, but others were more thoughtful and patient and built something cool as hell like PNC or SBC/Pac Bell.


PNC has a great location in terms of views from inside the stadium, but I don't see a big difference between their actual stadium and say the Brewers or the Reds. I would the same thing for AT&T park. While I haven't visited it yet it does look a whole lot like Miller Park from the outside. Same color bricks, same brickwork, so on and so on. The only difference again being location.

[Elvis]

I think the new ballparks are great. They are SO much better than the cookie cutter late 60's parks. I totally disagree with all the "architects" here at Baseball Fever. I think the new stadiums are mostly dynamic and interesting.


1. A cold water flat is SO much better than a cardboard box in an alley.

2. What is exactly "dynamic and interesting" about the architecture and vision of these newer parks?

[ChrisLDuncan]

Ehh, Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, and Wrigley Field...those places and those places only should NEVER have a retractable roof. I mean think if you're planning a trip to Minute Maid Park, and it rains well they can just put up the Roof. See is what I can't stand is sitting in the nosebleed durring the summer, too damn hot...they need to put the roof up than so I can atleast get some shade.

[Elysian Fields]

Ubiquitous is right, the Coliseum had a retractable roof. The Romans liked to be under the shade just as much as we do.

What I mean by "dynamic and interesting" is feng shui, better sight lines, and not just a round concrete thing a la Busch II, Riverfront, Three Rivers, and Olympic Stadium. HOK architects and others have put a lot of thought into where they should build a stadium, like where there is a back drop to the ball game or the park is downtown (except for Miller). That's cool. Seats in the stadium are turned towards the field. There are no sight obstructions like there are at Fenway or like there were at Tiger Stadium.

I don't think all of them are great. Miller and Great American bother me. Milwaukee should have built the thing downtown and it doesn't need a roof (is really hotter there than in Chicago?). GAB is plain for a new park. Citizens Bank is also poorly located.

Some of the more interesting parks are now in the Minor Leagues. So you also have to think about what the smaller teams are doing.

The reality is there isn't much you can do with a pallpark. It's a ballpark. It is going to have look more or less the same. You're going to have stands around the diamond. That is functionally what you have to have. Can't get around it.

[Seattle1]

I think the new ballparks are great. They are SO much better than the cookie cutter late 60's parks. I totally disagree with all the "architects" here at Baseball Fever. I think the new stadiums are mostly dynamic and interesting.

Some them are better than others. Some teams (the Reds and the Brewers) built cheap and chose their location poorly, but others were more thoughtful and patient and built something cool as hell like PNC or SBC/Pac Bell.

I pretty much agree with this. I don't know that much about Miller Park beyond what I see on tv, but the retractable roof at Safeco blends in just fine with the architecture, imo. You get the best of "both worlds" so to speak in that it's a very nice open-air stadium, yet you can still put an "umbrella" over it in the event of rain... and it's still an open air stadium (not a dome) with the roof overhead.

I don't love all of the new ballparks, but PNC and AT&T with their classic architure and urban waterfront locations are cool as heck. Not a fan of the Texas and Houston stadiums.

Some of the best "new" stadiums, imo:

1. Safeco
2. PNC
3. AT&T
4. Camden Yards
5. Citizens Bank
6. Comerica

(Of these I have personally been to Safeco, PNC, Citizens Bank, and Comerica.)

[DevilRays1969]

I don't think all of them are great. Miller and Great American bother me. Milwaukee should have built the thing downtown and it doesn't need a roof (is really hotter there than in Chicago?). GAB is plain for a new park. Citizens Bank is also poorly located.

Some of the more interesting parks are now in the Minor Leagues. So you also have to think about what the smaller teams are doing.


Miller Park belongs in the middle of a huge parking lot because tailgating is as much a tradition in Milwaukee (all of Wisconsin for that matter) as pre/postgame drinking in neighborhood bars is on the north side of Chicago or Boston.

As for the others, they all have their merits but some are a bit too gimmicky (i.e. Arlington). I could dissect each and every one but that would take forever. GABP is a very good ballpark--no the view of the river isn't as spectacular as Pittsburgh but it's unique. And I like the red seats. The only new ballpark I can find much fault in is Philly because yes, it's in the middle of a sea of parking lots. That ballpark would fit much better downtown but I guess the powers that be figured all the major sports facilities in the city had always been in that location since old JFK Stadium (remember it?) and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[PopTop]

2. What is exactly "dynamic and interesting" about the architecture and vision of these newer parks?What might be interesting to me could get just a shrug or even an up-turned nose from you. Plus I'm colorblind, so the 'aesthetics' from my angle are probably a lot different than your eyes. Also spent a bulk of my life within the engineering discipline, so I often look at things from that side instead of just if it's a pretty color or has some decorative detail that others find attractive.

I've walked inside Arthur Andersen Memorial Std in Houston, through just about every corridor that I could, as well as sneaking in for but a brief time while the park was being built. One facet that I find 'better' than Camden Yards is you can walk around the entire lower deck and see out onto the field. Can't do that in Baltimore. Is that 'aesthetics' or 'engineering?' Either way, I feel it's an improvement.

Some people like contemporary or modern styles. Others like French Colonial and shop for antiques.

[Ubiquitous]

I don't think all of them are great. Miller and Great American bother me. Milwaukee should have built the thing downtown and it doesn't need a roof (is really hotter there than in Chicago?). GAB is plain for a new park. Citizens Bank is also poorly located.



Have you ever gone to a game in April in the North?

I've gone to three different cities opening days. Philadelphia, Chicago, and Milwaukee. One year in Philadelphia it was snowing. The first quarter of the schedule or so the weather is horrible for baseball having the dome makes it enjoyable to go to a game. Right now I live in an area where I can easily choose between Milwaukee and Chicago. The choice is a no brainer for me I go to Milwaukee in the spring time. Then when it gets later in the season and weather turns once again it is much much better to be under a dome.

As for Citizens bank it is not poorly located. Sure if you want to talk about nice back drop but in terms of actually getting to the game it is in an excellent spot. One of the biggest reasons I loved going to the Vet was because it was so easy to get to. I lived on the other side of Philly and it would only take me 10 to 15 minutes to get there.

Downtown locations are nice ideas and pretty and all but for the most part they are not realistic. It isn't like basketball where the land needed is much much smaller and the crowds being much much smaller. Baltimore comes the closest I think and I think they were able to do that because of the size of Baltimore.

[Elvis]

What I mean by "dynamic and interesting" is feng shui, better sight lines, and not just a round concrete thing a la Busch II, Riverfront, Three Rivers, and Olympic Stadium. HOK architects and others have put a lot of thought into where they should build a stadium, like where there is a back drop to the ball game or the park is downtown (except for Miller).

- The "feng shui" has nothing to do with architecture. It has to do with how things and furniture are arranged in the building.

- How exactly are the sightlines of the new Yankee Stadium for example, better than the sight lines of the current Yankee Stadium? How is pushing the upper decks higher and further from the playing field creating better sight lines? :noidea

- What in the heck leads you to believe that HOK determines where a ballpark is built? :noidea


The reality is there isn't much you can do with a pallpark. It's a ballpark. It is going to have look more or less the same.

Imagine an architect saying, "The reality is there isn't much you can do with an office building. It's a building - 4 walls and a roof. It is going to have look more or less the same as other office buildings". :noidea


You're going to have stands around the diamond. That is functionally what you have to have. Can't get around it.

It's exactly that kind of backward, stale thinking (no offense) that is why we keep seeing these generic, uninspired, copy-cat buildings.

[Ubiquitous]

There is a reason why office buildings look like office buildings and ballparks look like ballparks. In both cases because they are successful.

There was a scene in the movie Remote by Adam Sandler or whatever it was called in which he spends the weekend watching a video on Japanese architecture. His design calls for a stream to go through the lobby and a whole bunch of other doo-dads. When he listens in on the Japanese firms conversation he finds out they don't want any of that, they want office space.

Same thing here. Sure you can build a park in which the fans are right on top of the action and great sight lines and so forth but that stuff comes at a cost. And usually that cost is seats, those things that generate revenue. A park nowadays has to have luxury boxes and they have to have seats with unobstructed views. Those things cause sacrifices to be made. Does that mean all parks have to be built badly? nope, I think New Comiskey really screwed up their design. Camden Yards? I haven't sat in every spot in the park but I do think the vast majority of seats at Camden are good seats. Same thing with the Brewers though I imagine Camden probably does a better job then Miller. There are some seats at Miller that look to be terrible. Then again I think they are only charging like a dollar or something for those seats.

People are liking these stadiums, they are liking them a lot.

[Elvis]

There is a reason why office buildings look like office buildings and ballparks look like ballparks. In both cases because they are successful.

Successful in creating a single uniform design for all baseball stadiums. Urban housing projects also are very successful in this manner - a vision of uniformity and cloning a "successful design".

People are liking these stadiums, they are liking them a lot.

People love Jerry Springer a lot as well.

[Ubiquitous]

The average fan that attends a game at miller park will never see a game at GAB or at Citizens bank.

Nor is linking stadiums to housing projects going to prove anything. The same could be said for BMW or Calvin Klein or even Monet


People love Jerry Springer a lot as well

And yes how many people love a good French art house flick? Or a night at the ballet on PBS?

[Elvis]

The average fan that attends a game at miller park will never see a game at GAB or at Citizens bank. Nor is linking stadiums to housing projects going to prove anything. The same could be said for BMW or Calvin Klein or even Monet

I have nothing to "prove". The truth is what it is and the analogy is quite accurate. These modern ballparks are indeed clones.



And yes how many people love a good French art house flick? Or a night at the ballet on PBS?

So it either has to be a "French art house flick" or Jerry Springer? That's like saying if you don't like Taco Bell you must only like Tofu.

[Elvis]

And yes how many people love a good French art house flick? Or a night at the ballet on PBS?

How many people like the Chrysler Building, Frank Lloyd Wright's Falling Water, The Golden Gate Bridge, The Getty Center, Camden Yards, Union Station...?

If you want to make an argument, at least use the proper context. To paraphrase you, "Nor is linking the ballet to architecture going to prove anything"

[Ubiquitous]

Being surrounded by Frank Lloyd Wright buildings I can tell you that while they are very lovely they are very much impractical.

As for people liking these things that is more my point than proof of anything that you are arguing about. People like Camden Yards, so guess what? Cities all across the country have stadiums similar to Camden Yards. People like giant big suspension bridges, guess what. They are everywhere. The Golden Gate Bridge is not unique.

you want to make an argument, at least use the proper context. To paraphrase you, "Nor is linking the ballet to architecture going to prove anything

Actually I was. You used Jerry Springer as an example, so I choice media references.

[Elvis]

People like Camden Yards, so guess what? Cities all across the country have stadiums similar to Camden Yards. People like giant big suspension bridges, guess what. They are everywhere. The Golden Gate Bridge is not unique.

The Golden gate Bridge is the most photographed man-made structure in the world. Why is this? You claim it's not unique - just another big suspension bridge? :laugh

And Of course Camden Yards was lauded - IT WAS ORIGINAL AND VISIONARY. It wasn't a virtual carbon-copy of New Comiskey Park like HOK wanted it to be.

[Ubiquitous]

If you put the Golden Gate Bridge in Pittsburgh is it the most photographed structure in the world? Could it be the locale has something to do with the greatness of the bridge? I mean I am no expert but if that bridge was over some large quarry in the middle of the midwest nobody would be gushing about it.

[Elvis]

If you put the Golden Gate Bridge in Pittsburgh is it the most photographed structure in the world? Could it be the locale has something to do with the greatness of the bridge? I mean I am no expert but if that bridge was over some large quarry in the middle of the midwest nobody would be gushing about it.

I rest my case. :noidea

[Ubiquitous]

So what was your point? That teams when building a stadium should put it next to great scenery?

I though we were talking about the structures themselves.

[Elvis]

So what was your point? That teams when building a stadium should put it next to great scenery?

I though we were talking about the structures themselves.

Exactly. The Golden Gate Bridge for example, you remarked that it was just an ordinary suspension bridge - that it's location is essentially it's only remarkable characteristic. My point is that that is completely false.

Anyway this whole argument is lame - I'm not going to change your views and vice versa. I'm done. :)

[riverfrontier]

I wasn't saying the ballparks aren't more comfortable or user-friendly for the modern fan. It just seems to me the whole 'retro' feel the places are trying to conjure is nullified by the space-age stuff on top. If the idea of these places is to send you back to the 1930s in a visual sense, the illusion is immediately broken by the addition of the roof. If a roof is necessary, then why not make the building seem of its place and time? How believable would Civil War re-enactments be if they were held in a gymnasium?

[StanTheMan]

I wasn't saying the ballparks aren't more comfortable or user-friendly for the modern fan. It just seems to me the whole 'retro' feel the places are trying to conjure is nullified by the space-age stuff on top. If the idea of these places is to send you back to the 1930s in a visual sense, the illusion is immediately broken by the addition of the roof. If a roof is necessary, then why not make the building seem of its place and time? How believable would Civil War re-enactments be if they were held in a gymnasium?

Liked that post very much... :D ;) :crazy (supposed to add smileys, right?)

But when the Camden Yards of the world (rightly, IMO) became so popular and well received, anyone then building a stadia which required a roof, could NOT built a Metrodome as in Minnesota.... the had to build a "Camden" and put a roof on it. I don't see a problem with it, but my architectural expertise is solely based on having a Architecture Major as my neighbor in college for one year... therefore not much expertise at all.

One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that baseball will NOT allow another Wrigley (where I have been many times) or Fenway (where I have not) to be built again. One of the best features of these parks is that the lower deck at these parks is practically in the On-Deck Circle. Subsequent decks are also close to the field.

MLB will not allow that any longer.

In fact, the new Busch Stadium in St. Louis has the first row as close to home plate as MLB allows.

That fact, coupled with teams' desire to have as many high priced tickets(i.e. box seats in the lower deck) as possible, has pushed the second deck (and all other subsequent decks) back farther than in the past. The 2nd through top decks are now usually very shallow, and almost stacked on top of each other to avoid having the top deck about 3 miles from the field. With salaries the way they are now, I can't blame the teams for building this way.

It is what it is.

The new parks are great, IMO, but perhaps this is due to the strange list of parks I have been to.

Old Busch
New Busch
Wrigley
Yankee
Shea
Great American
Riverfront :ughh Worst of all time, IMO
The Vet
Fulton County
Kansas City
Camden Yards
New Comiskey, whatever you want to call it.
West Side Grounds (just kidding)
Old Cleveland Stadium

Lots of great "new" parks, and some of the worst of all time. No wonder I love the new places.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

One thing that has not been mentioned yet is that baseball will NOT allow another Wrigley (where I have been many times) or Fenway (where I have not) to be built again. One of the best features of these parks is that the lower deck at these parks is practically in the On-Deck Circle. Subsequent decks are also close to the field.

MLB will not allow that any longer.

In fact, the new Busch Stadium in St. Louis has the first row as close to home plate as MLB allows.


What do you mean by "MLB will not allow another Wrigley or Fenway to be built"?

As to the Upper deck thing, is that a written rule, or is it just "frowned upon"?

And to the Busch thing: What is that distance, and where is the rule written?

[Ubiquitous]

There are rules and regs for stadium construction but those rules are not inflexible. To break them you simply have to get permission from the Commissioner's office. PacBell and Enron I believe both got special permission for their layouts when they were being built.

[brewcrew4]

To the people questioning about Miller Park... We need a roof beacuse its not very enjoyable to watch a game with 4 layers of clothes on in April. Also someone was wondering why its not built in the city. Milwaukee has the best tailgating in the country and if it were to be built in the city there would be no room for the tradition that means so much to everyone.

http://www.minorleagueballparks.com/mill.jpg

If you look at that pic the Uecker Seats are one buck and behing the pillars behind home plate and in the upper decks.
Sorry if I repeated some stuf others said already, but I had to defend Miller.

[Elysian Fields]

Have you ever gone to a game in April in the North?

I've gone to three different cities opening days. Philadelphia, Chicago, and Milwaukee. One year in Philadelphia it was snowing. The first quarter of the schedule or so the weather is horrible for baseball having the dome makes it enjoyable to go to a game. Right now I live in an area where I can easily choose between Milwaukee and Chicago. The choice is a no brainer for me I go to Milwaukee in the spring time. Then when it gets later in the season and weather turns once again it is much much better to be under a dome.

As for Citizens bank it is not poorly located. Sure if you want to talk about nice back drop but in terms of actually getting to the game it is in an excellent spot. One of the biggest reasons I loved going to the Vet was because it was so easy to get to. I lived on the other side of Philly and it would only take me 10 to 15 minutes to get there.

Downtown locations are nice ideas and pretty and all but for the most part they are not realistic. It isn't like basketball where the land needed is much much smaller and the crowds being much much smaller. Baltimore comes the closest I think and I think they were able to do that because of the size of Baltimore.

So because April is cold, you build a roof? Like baseball is played in Wrigley and Fenway in the cold, then it warms up for 90% of the season. Down South the bulk of the season is in ridiculously hot and humid weather.

Minnesota is not even building a roof. Both Chicago parks don't have roofs. Cleveland and Detroit don't have roofs. Boston doesn't have a roof. So I don't see why Miller should have one. April is cold, so what.

[Elysian Fields]

- The "feng shui" has nothing to do with architecture. It has to do with how things and furniture are arranged in the building.

- How exactly are the sightlines of the new Yankee Stadium for example, better than the sight lines of the current Yankee Stadium? How is pushing the upper decks higher and further from the playing field creating better sight lines? :noidea

- What in the heck leads you to believe that HOK determines where a ballpark is built? :noidea



Imagine an architect saying, "The reality is there isn't much you can do with an office building. It's a building - 4 walls and a roof. It is going to have look more or less the same as other office buildings". :noidea



It's exactly that kind of backward, stale thinking (no offense) that is why we keep seeing these generic, uninspired, copy-cat buildings.

Elvis,

feng shui also has to do with LOCATION, i.e., the building site. does the building "fit" where it is built? feng shui isn't just for interior design. if you read up on Asian architecture you'll see people debating this stuff all the time.

furthermore, a baseball park is a baseball park. it has to be a diamond shaped field with stands around it. there is nothing no architect can do about this. it doesn't matter if they build an upperdeck that is on top of the field or not. there still has to be stands around a diamond and that isn't going to be much different from all previous stadiums. at least today they're building baseball only stadiums, like back in the early 20th century.

[Ubiquitous]

So because April is cold, you build a roof? Like baseball is played in Wrigley and Fenway in the cold, then it warms up for 90% of the season. Down South the bulk of the season is in ridiculously hot and humid weather.

Minnesota is not even building a roof. Both Chicago parks don't have roofs. Cleveland and Detroit don't have roofs. Boston doesn't have a roof. So I don't see why Miller should have one. April is cold, so what.


The so what part is I'm not going to a game in April out in the cold. that is the so what. Look at attendance figures all across this nation in April. When the weather is not good people do not come out compared to when the weather is good. That is a fact. Having a roof eliminates that variable. Minnesota is not building a roof, well good luck with that

[The Kid]

I rest my case. :noidea

What do you mean?

[Ubiquitous]

He is saying that he views my comments as so obviously wrong that he no longer has to argue the point. I've made his point for him.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

So because April is cold, you build a roof? Like baseball is played in Wrigley and Fenway in the cold, then it warms up for 90% of the season. Down South the bulk of the season is in ridiculously hot and humid weather.

Minnesota is not even building a roof. Both Chicago parks don't have roofs. Cleveland and Detroit don't have roofs. Boston doesn't have a roof. So I don't see why Miller should have one. April is cold, so what.

It snowed in Toronto on opening day in 1977. Wanna tell me that Toronto doesn't need a roof either?

Blue Jays or snow birds?
(http://archives.cbc.ca/400d.asp?id=1-41-611-3277)

[Ubiquitous]

I'll give you another example. A couple of years back I had tickets to go see a Cubs game at Wrigley. I took my dad and it promised to be a memorable game. Greg Maddux pitching and it was practically a sure thing he would get his 3,000th strikeout. Guess what happens. It starts to rain about an hour before game time. The night is already cold and the game goes on about a 2 hour or so rain delay. My Dad has suffered at least 3 heart attacks in the last 10 years and has fought off various other ailments that have required surgery over the same time span. I had to make a decision do we wait out the rain storm and possibly hurt my dad or do we eat it and leave. I ended up choosing to leave. Now if you want to look past my dads health that is fine, nothing wrong with doing that. But the larger point is that with a dome no decision needed to be made. It is raining? Who cares? We'll go anyway the place has a roof. So what do I do now? Well since that day and also that years opening day I haven't bought another ticket to Wrigley Field, nor do I plan too. Not with Miller Park being so convenient and reliable. Why should I buy a ticket to go to Wrigley when I can go to Miller regardless of weather? Is it cold? who cares? Is it raining? Who cares? Is it hot? Who cares? The Brewers because of their roof receive my dollars. Wrigley because they don't have a roof do not receive my dollars.

[Elvis]

furthermore, a baseball park is a baseball park. it has to be a diamond shaped field with stands around it. there is nothing no architect can do about this. it doesn't matter if they build an upperdeck that is on top of the field or not. there still has to be stands around a diamond and that isn't going to be much different from all previous stadiums.

:) Well,

furthermore, an office building is an office building . it has to be a building with offices. there is nothing no architect can do about this. ...and that isn't going to be much different from all previous office buildings.


furthermore, a library is a library. it has to be a place with books and walls and a roof. there is nothing no architect can do about this. ...and that isn't going to be much different from all previous libraries.


furthermore, a museum is a museum. it has to be a building with exibits. there is nothing no architect can do about this. ...and that isn't going to be much different from all previous museums....



Sorry, EF, I just can't get this "in the box" way of thinking - That there's really no place nor reason for original thought, innovation and Inspiration in designing new buildings, including sports stadiums.

-

[west coast orange and black]

seattle1: PNC and AT&T with their classic architure and urban waterfront locations are cool as heck

the architects and planners had to figure out how best to use a very small space; the size and location of that very small parcel of land greatly contributed to what giantsland would look like: more than one-fourth of the ballpark is actually built over the water, on pilings.
the quirky and troublesome right field follows the natural water's edge.
it is a fun place to watch a game, for sure.

[west coast orange and black]

elvis: a house is a house
this is an invitation to come over and visit

an office building is an office building
been to shanghai lately?

a library is a library
check out the new one in san francisco some time

a museum is a museum
the perforated copper sheeting of the year-old de young museum in san francisco's golden gate park was inspired by filtered sunlight shining through a canopy of trees. from one angle, the building appears to be perfectly vertical; in another, it appears ready to collapse, it is "leaning" so dramatically. then there is the interior of the place.

there's really no place nor reason for original thought, innovation and Inspiration in designing new buildings, including sports stadiums
ouch.

[west coast orange and black]

1. soldier field
2. oakland coliseum
3. lambeau field
4. houston astrodome
5. none of the above

[Elvis]

elvis: a house is a house
this is an invitation to come over and visit

an office building is an office building
been to shanghai lately?

a library is a library
check out the new one in san francisco some time

a museum is a museum
the perforated copper sheeting of the year-old de young museum in san francisco's golden gate park was inspired by filtered sunlight shining through a canopy of trees. from one angle, the building appears to be perfectly vertical; in another, it appears ready to collapse, it is "leaning" so dramatically. then there is the interior of the place.

there's really no place nor reason for original thought, innovation and Inspiration in designing new buildings, including sports stadiums
ouch.


:laugh .............................

[Elvis]

1. soldier field
2. oakland coliseum
3. lambeau field
4. houston astrodome
5. none of the above

That's the Phone Booth/Pac Bell/SBC/Yahoo/Coca Cola Stadium. I say none of the above. :D

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

Yup, None of the above. I love the look of Right field. I wish it was in Toronto!

[mrow1927]

Basically it depends on what kind of architect you get. Each has an idea of what he or she wants and sells it to you. There are a lot of good arcitects out their but it seems that many of the baseball owners are using one or two designers. That is bad because how many times can you beat a dead horse. That is what is happening now. In the 60s and 70s we had all purpose stadiums popping up left and right. Now it's retro-styling. Which was great with Camden Yards but is now growing old. HOK has a one track mind. The outer structure may look nice but the inside is the same. Many of the stadiums they build virtually have the same seating arrangements. They never deviate from a set plan and what makes it worse is that the owners are buying their crap. Let's just hope when or if a new Fenway and Wrigley have to be built, they won't use HOK or their equivalent.

Stadiums use to have a soul and have a deep connection with the team and fans. Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, Tiger Stadium, Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds, Shea Stadium and etc have deep roots with fans and team. That goes for all sports but especially baseball. As good as it is to have luxury boxes and all the perks that the new ballparks come with, they lack that intangible. You go to a game, see a game and go home. That's it. I never been to Fenway or Wrigley but I can feel the excitement when I see them play there. I feel that way with Yankee Stadium. I get goose bumps every time I go there. Those stadiums you feel the sights, sounds and the atmosphere.

That intangible can't be created with just a new stadium. It has to be felt.

[Ubiquitous]

If you were to build Wrigley today you wouldn't have that either. You cannot build intangibles. Wrigley Field or Fenway is a classic because of the era they were built in and the era we are in now.

[mrow1927]

If you were to build Wrigley today you wouldn't have that either. You cannot build intangibles. Wrigley Field or Fenway is a classic because of the era they were built in and the era we are in now.

I'm not saying that you can build intangibles. I'm just saying that certain stadiums depending where their built or time when they opened. You can feel like something special is going to happen here. I bet the first game at Yankee Stadium in 1923 the fans felt something magical was going to happen which it did. The first game at Fenway or Wrigley probably had the same effect. Whether its good or bad but you felt something. When the Dodgers moved to L.A. into Dodger Stadium for the first time I bet the fans were looking around saying how beautiful the stadium is and felt excitement for the Dodgers. The same thing can be said for the Mets when they moved into Shea.

I know you can't build intangibles but fans can feel something that could happen there. If somehow you can feel a connection between fan, team and park you have that intangible that will make that park special for a long time.

We have three legendary parks that prove that now.

[Elysian Fields]

:) Well,

furthermore, an office building is an office building . it has to be a building with offices. there is nothing no architect can do about this. ...and that isn't going to be much different from all previous office buildings.


furthermore, a library is a library. it has to be a place with books and walls and a roof. there is nothing no architect can do about this. ...and that isn't going to be much different from all previous libraries.


furthermore, a museum is a museum. it has to be a building with exibits. there is nothing no architect can do about this. ...and that isn't going to be much different from all previous museums....



Sorry, EF, I just can't get this "in the box" way of thinking - That there's really no place nor reason for original thought, innovation and Inspiration in designing new buildings, including sports stadiums.

-


Do you not understand that a baseball field is a diamond? A house can be built however anyone wants it built. There is no routine floorplan for a museum. An office building could be in whatever shape a company wants it.

A baseball field has to always be a diamond, and then there has to be some stands around it for the fans to sit in. What the heck do you think Wrigley Field is?

Also... Colorado doesn't have a roof either. And it likes snows there in April.

[Elvis]

Do you not understand that a baseball field is a diamond? A house can be built however anyone wants it built. There is no routine floorplan for a museum. An office building could be in whatever shape a company wants it.

A baseball field has to always be a diamond, and then there has to be some stands around it for the fans to sit in. What the heck do you think Wrigley Field is?


A baseball stadium can be any shape, size and style of architecture. Give me a baseball diamond and I am not limited by its universal shape to be inspired to create something new, dynamic and functional around it. A stadium is not just "some seats around a diamond". There is a building that contains said seats, and the design of that building (or more acurately, sets of buildings) is not limited by anything but the imagination and inspiration of its creator.

:)

-

[bigtime39]

A few points:
There was a 1968-vintage plan for a baseball stadium at Camden Yards with a retractable roof!
When the Orioles started the work that resulted in the current Oriole Park at Camden Yards, they were going to base it on Kaufman Stadium in KC.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the wake of the new Nationals Stadium in DC...and even more interesting to see if there is any spill into baseball from the spaceship the Cowboys are building!
Success will always breed copycats.

[west coast orange and black]

:laugh

see you next saturday, then. :D

[west coast orange and black]

elvis: That's the Phone Booth/Pac Bell/SBC/Yahoo/Coca Cola Stadium. I say none of the above. :D

you are absolutely correct! :lookitup