Comparisons Between Baseball Stadiums and Other Sporting Venues

[Padday]

Let it be known from the off that this thread is not meant to be in defiance of the moderators or a kind of protest in relation to the ongoing discussion on the issue of stadiums from other sports appearing in this forum but rather an idea that was spawned from that discussion. If anything I'd consider this a comprimise.

This thread is a place for you to post stadiums or stadium designs you've seen and also for discussion on the similarities and differences between those stadiums and baseball stadiums and also how they influence your ideas on ballpark design and architecture, past and present.

Note: For the purposes of avoiding conflict with the moderators in relation to the baseball related content only rule, I would insist that any discussions keep baseball a part of that discussion.

[Padday]

I'll start with the volcano stadium.



Personally I didn't like this stadium but I did like the idea of a stadium which is integrated into the surrounding terrain and natural features of the area. An example given was Dodger stadium which is built into Chavez Ravine.

[metfan13]

Seems like a thinly veiled way to repost the same non-baseball stadiums.

But whatever. If the mods are ok, why should I care.

[doctor_gogol]

I've never seen an aerial photo of Dodger Stadium. Thats amazing!

[Gary Dunaier]

I was astounded when I first learned Madison Square Garden's "field" was actually on the fifth floor of the building. I just presumed it was on street level, yet I wondered why the arena did not seem as tall from the inside as it was from the outside.

Are there any ballparks where the field is significantly above or below street level?

[six4three]

I'll start with the volcano stadium.



Personally I didn't like this stadium but I did like the idea of a stadium which is integrated into the surrounding terrain and natural features of the area. An example given was Dodger stadium which is built into Chavez Ravine.


Dodger Stadium is in no way "integrated into the surrounding terrain and natural features of the area". It sits alone in the middle of a parking lot, completely divorced from the natural area around it.

[placount]

You can't be serious, we're now censoring individual posts? This is truly unbelievable. Why don't we change the permissions so every post requires moderator approval before it reaches the forum?

we brought this mod attention on to ourselves with all of our bickering.

[NYFan1stYankFan2nd]

we brought this mod attention on to ourselves with all of our bickering.

Yeah. We should relegate the "my team is better than yours" and "Your team's park is a dump" comments to sub-forums appropriate for that material.

But again, I think it's only fair to cross sport boundaries when one finds a feature of a ballpark or baseball stadium that might suit spectators of another sport, and vice versa. There might be also a feature or structural profile of a football(or futbol!) arena that one might find very conducive to watching baseball from. Nothing wrong with that!

Again, as long is the bickering/bragging/berating is avoided as much as possible here, "Ballparks, Stadiums & Green Diamonds" could be a haven for intelligent discussion of athletic venue architecture.

[Padday]

I've allways felt that ballpark design has been going backward in relation to stadium design in other sports. Whereas football (soccer) stadiums are pushing the envelope, baseball stadium design is stuck in a cycle of Camden Yards copies.

Allianz Arena, Munich, Germany (the exterior changes colour):


(Although I'm not a fan)
Birds Nest Olympic Stadium, Beijing


Oita 'Big Eye' Stadium, Oita, Japan

[Sean O]

Oita is one of my favorite stadiums, and one that could very easily have a baseball design modeled after. The roof is retractable while still letting ambient light in, while the "end zone" areas are open enough to also give a constant connection to outside.

If you combine the roof setup of Oita with the in-ground design of that weirdo Volcano stadium, you'd have a unique, inspiring setup that is monumental without dominating the landscape.

[Pelt]

(Although I'm not a fan)
Birds Nest Olympic Stadium, Beijing




Isn't this really the inspiration for that?



Although China's Olympic Stadium unique, I certainly hope that a baseball stadium doesn't copy it.

[Shadly]

Although China's Olympic Stadium unique, I certainly hope that a baseball stadium doesn't copy it.

Why??? :confused:

[Captain Cold Nose]

Why??? :confused:

It looks like a bedpan.

[Shadly]

It looks like a bedpan.

The shape doesn't work for baseball, but then again it is a multi sport venue. Baseball has individual needs. I have not to date heard a compelling argument why a building like this can be fashioned in a way to better incorporate a baseball game.

Do parks that resemble Ebbets Field make hot dogs taste better?

Do brick facades lower air density, makeing home run balls fly farther?

Would the latice steel structure of the Bird's Nest make baseballs decay at a faster rate than the winding steel structures of Citi Field?

What exactly? I'm curious... :noidea

[Padday]

The shape doesn't work for baseball, but then again it is a multi sport venue. Baseball has individual needs. I have not to date heard a compelling argument why a building like this can be fashioned in a way to better incorporate a baseball game.

Do parks that resemble Ebbets Field make hot dogs taste better?

Do brick facades lower air density, makeing home run balls fly farther?

Would the latice steel structure of the Bird's Nest make baseballs decay at a faster rate than the winding steel structures of Citi Field?

What exactly? I'm curious... :noidea

Baseball's owners think that people like the idea of the good old fashioned great american passtime, stars and stripes, Chevrolet, Grand Canyon, hotdogs, crackerjack, patriotic, the youth of today are all hooligans, yeehaw, 1912 overture baseball and that fans will refuse to accept it any other way. But the mere fact of the matter is that it hasn't been this way in years and the refusal on the part of the head honchos within the game to accept this is what I think is one of the biggest problems within the sport. Baseball is evolving and they should be embracing the cultural and technological changes that are occuring within the sports industry as a whole including stadium design.

[Padday]

Actually, every post made on this site is subject to deletion or editing (or may form the basis for other exercise of mod powers) for failure to follow the rules of the site. That's why spam posts don't last long with hopefully rare exceptions. If you curse or make personal attacks or post obscene photos or otherwise violate the rules, the mods will take appropriate steps to deal with the offense. If you adhere to the rules, we'll leave the posts and you alone. But remember, this thread and the posts in it only survive if they meet the "baseball only" requirement of the site--and a bald request for MSGs capacity comes nowhere near meeting that requirement, even though Yankee Stadium is mentioned, perhaps in an attempt to skirt the rule.

Could a mod delete this and all other similar posts then on this particular thread because it's these posts which are the most damaging to the integrity of the site and the biggest hindrance to intellectual discussion of baseball here. Please people, open your eyes and realise how stupid this is.

[Shadly]

Baseball's owners think that people like the idea of the good old fashioned great american passtime, stars and stripes, Chevrolet, Grand Canyon, hotdogs, crackerjack, patriotic, the youth of today are all hooligans, yeehaw, 1912 overture baseball and that fans will refuse to accept it any other way. But the mere fact of the matter is that it hasn't been this way in years and the refusal on the part of the head honchos within the game to accept this is what I think is one of the biggest problems within the sport. Baseball is evolving and they should be embracing the cultural and technological changes that are occuring within the sports industry as a whole including stadium design.

I think this is probably why jousting went out of style some time in the early 1600's. Everyone was hooked on that 1200 A.D. nostalgia of white and black nights facing off in a stone arena with rivets, that all they did was build more stone arenas with rivets. Meanwhile the taste and style of architecture at the time changed around them until the sport no longer connected with those of the 1600's. As a result it faded away from popularity.

This is what happens when an established institution (be it a sport or a message board) adheres too firmly to dogma. Eventually they are over passed by time, and those who were once interested in the institution find other sources of amusement.

[Dodgeboy]

Actually, I believe baseball is SLOWLY moving away from the 90's retro movement. The new New York stadiums don't count, since they directly remake Yankee Stadium and Ebbets Field, and thus couldn't really go out on a limb.

It started with GABP and National's Park stripping away most of the retro cues, leaving the basic structure without the "ginger-breading" of brick and green steel (paddle-wheeler not withstanding). Of course, a lot of people seem to not like them (having never been to either, I can't really say). They represent a "early transition" in design - not great, but a necessary first step.

Next in the evolution of design, we have the new Twin's ballpark, last year's Ray's proposal, and Miami's upcoming field. These have gone completely away from any "olde timie" feel, opting instead for more Modern and International styles. The new Twin's field has a moderne, 1950's futuristic vibe to it, with some deconstructionist elements tossed in, almost trying to be a truly urban Dodger Stadium. Tampa Bay's would've looked more like a marina that a brick ballpark, complete with a large fabric sail for a retractable roof (thank you soccer fields, etc). And hopefully, Miami's design will be more "forward leaning" with some Art-Deco" flair.

[Sean O]

It started with GABP and National's Park stripping away most of the retro cues, leaving the basic structure without the "ginger-breading" of brick and green steel (paddle-wheeler not withstanding).

To be fair, GABP (ironically) is perhaps the most retro of them all due to its exterior elements. It never gets any press, but there are large murals and carvings like those found at Rockefeller Center on exterior buildings, which are also very much early Bauhaus in their origins. Plus, the concourses go for a wiz-bang retro-futurism feel ala Fritz Lang's Metropolis. It's a damn shame the interior is such a boring mess.



The new Twin's field has a moderne, 1950's futuristic vibe to it, with some deconstructionist elements tossed in, almost trying to be a truly urban Dodger Stadium.

If the Twins Stadium really wanted to go nuts, they would've done the following on the exterior:





Carve stylized representations of MN figures and Twins / Senators ballplayers directly into the limestone, standing watch over the club? It'd be perfect.


And hopefully, Miami's design will be more "forward leaning" with some Art-Deco" flair.

Agreed, a designer who cares about the project could do wonders. ...They'll screw it up.

[Captain Cold Nose]

To be fair, GABP (ironically) is perhaps the most retro of them all due to its exterior elements. It never gets any press, but there are large murals and carvings like those found at Rockefeller Center on exterior buildings, which are also very much early Bauhaus in their origins. Plus, the concourses go for a wiz-bang retro-futurism feel ala Fritz Lang's Metropolis. It's a damn shame the interior is such a boring mess.



If the Twins Stadium really wanted to go nuts, they would've done the following on the exterior:





Carve stylized representations of MN figures and Twins / Senators ballplayers directly into the limestone, standing watch over the club? It'd be perfect.


Agreed, a designer who cares about the project could do wonders. ...They'll screw it up.

I don't know if it served as direct inspiration, and I have no pictures, but the Potter Stewart Supreme Court Building a few blocks from GABP has a similar exterior.

Bauhaus is ok but I do prefer Love and Rockets.

[Dodgeboy]

Twins players I could see, but Senators? The fact is that the Twins think and act as though their existence began in 1961. Washington? what's a "Senator?"

This is an original AL franchise moving into it's own stadium just in time for it's "Fiftieth Season" - in 2010. It didn't win a World Series until 1987 - 1924 was someone else. :shhh:

The Twins haven't acknowledged their past since Griffith sold the team. I believe it's because Minnesotans are sensitive about franchise relocations (see Northstars, Lakers) The bill to build the new stadium even included a provision that if the Twins ever leave, the name, records, colors, etc become property of the state.

[Shadly]

And hopefully, Miami's design will be more "forward leaning" with some Art-Deco" flair.

I really hope the Marlin's don't get gun shy. They are really in a position to set a standard of creativity the sport could follow for hundred's of years. The Retro appeal really caught on because 80% of the ball fields in this country were replaced at roughly the same time, leading to a group mentality when it came to what a stadium should look like. Over the next few years though, there will be far fewer parks being built. I think this could lead to a pretty interesting period. But it all hinges on the Marlins, and the Rays to a lesser degree. The worst thing these teams could do for the evolution of baseball is build another old timey retro park.

Baseball needs something that approaches this:



Not the shape obviously. We've had enough with donuts, but the design choices.

[Pelt]

Why??? :confused:

I applaud the innovation of the 'Bird's nest', I just think that the rubber band ball look would be ugly for a baseball venue.

[Shadly]

I applaud the innovation of the 'Bird's nest', I just think that the rubber band ball look would be ugly for a baseball venue.

There's no empirical data on that. Why is it that Baseball fields are held to a narrower criteria when it comes to the shape and style of their venues? Football and hockey have been around for almost as long as Baseball, yet "retro" and "nostalgia" rule the day in baseball. What is inherent in Baseball that is not inherent in Football or Hockey or other sports that rule out innovation in architecture?

[Sean O]

There's no empirical data on that. Why is it that Baseball fields are held to a narrower criteria when it comes to the shape and style of their venues? Football and hockey have been around for almost as long as Baseball, yet "retro" and "nostalgia" rule the day in baseball. What is inherent in Baseball that is not inherent in Football or Hockey or other sports that rule out innovation in architecture?

Well, I agree that innovation is key, but let's hope the Bird's Nest is a one-off type of design. It was unique(ish), it fit exactly what Beijing wanted, and let's hope we never see it again.

I'm always looking towards the past for clues of where to go next. I'll always be an early Modernist at heart, so I can only hope the bombastic '20s styling gets merged with cutting edge technology to blow us away.

I love Shakhtar, but I wouldn't necessarily want it here.

[Padday]

Well, I agree that innovation is key, but let's hope the Bird's Nest is a one-off type of design. It was unique(ish), it fit exactly what Beijing wanted, and let's hope we never see it again.

I'm always looking towards the past for clues of where to go next. I'll always be an early Modernist at heart, so I can only hope the bombastic '20s styling gets merged with cutting edge technology to blow us away.

I love Shakhtar, but I wouldn't necessarily want it here.

It's a nice stadium (Shakhtar) and you could see how it would work as a baseball stadium.

Shakhtar Stadium, Ukraine:


While we're in Ukraine, I'm afraid somebody is already defying your never another Bird's Nest plea:

Olympic Stadium in Kiev:

[Lions/Tigers@Cubs.OhMy!]

The thing about going too far out is that at some point the stadium just looks like the World of Tomorrow at Disney.... you know, where the World of Tomorrow is now here and it looks nothing like that, matter of fact, that looks quite dated. To some extent I think that the Olympic Stadium and Rodgers Center both have that feel... especially the inside of the Rodgers Center. When that place opened it was an amazing spectacle (albeit I was like 8-9 years old) now it looks like a very '80's era attempt at futurism...

I think it could be done, but the designers would have to be awfully creative and the design would almost exclusively have to fit into it's asthetic enviroment. When they renovated Soldier Field it looked insane and was just horrible... yet as they add other buildings and asthetic features to that area of Chicago that are influenced by the stadium and the giant bean at Milinneum Park, it's starting to fit in more (now they just need to remove the old roman pillars.

[Pelt]

I applaud the innovation of the 'Bird's nest', I just think that the rubber band ball look would be ugly for a baseball venue.


There's no empirical data on that.

On what? My opinion of the look of a stadium? I don't need data for that.


Why is it that Baseball fields are held to a narrower criteria when it comes to the shape and style of their venues? Football and hockey have been around for almost as long as Baseball, yet "retro" and "nostalgia" rule the day in baseball. What is inherent in Baseball that is not inherent in Football or Hockey or other sports that rule out innovation in architecture?

I agree 100% with you here - generally speaking. Specifically speaking, I'm of the opinion that the "Bird's nest" style would make for an ugly baseball park.

[NYFan1stYankFan2nd]

It looks like a bedpan.

OOOHHHhhhh NOOOOOOoooooo!!! :rofl: LMAO!! :rofl:

[The Prowling Cat]

The thing about going too far out is that at some point the stadium just looks like the World of Tomorrow at Disney.... you know, where the World of Tomorrow is now here and it looks nothing like that, matter of fact, that looks quite dated. To some extent I think that the Olympic Stadium and Rodgers Center both have that feel... especially the inside of the Rodgers Center. When that place opened it was an amazing spectacle (albeit I was like 8-9 years old) now it looks like a very '80's era attempt at futurism...

This thinking I would guess is why we have the basic designs in stadiums we keep getting. How would you like to be the city that goes with one of these designs only to learn that it didn't work as planned and your futuristic stadium is a joke seven years later. Fans come out looking at the stadium saying it looked good when it first opened but now they just aren't sure. Each failed attempt keeps pushing things down the path stadiums are currently on. With no team willing to be the one that strays from the classic look being used today.

To get this new age in stadiums going the architect has to some how blend in with the surrounding area and not be too far out there. Making the stadium blend will keep the stadium from being an eye sore in later years. If the first architect fails we end up with it being decades again before anyone will be willing or able to go away from the norm again.

[Sean O]

New stadiums shouldn't try to create their own language off the bat, especially if there is going to be a gradual adjustment period from retro to revolutionary. That's why we should go back to what has always worked in design, and make it new for the future. None of the existing retro parks borrow from the greater architectural language, instead ripping off elements from previously existing retro parks.

We need to use the basis of older architecture with new textures and technology of the present. There's no reason to create a new Bird's Nest, when we can create an iconic, beautiful, timeless, permanent stadium that will never age.

[Dodgeboy]

I remember the first Twins game I ever went to at the Dome- summer of '88. As a ten-year-old from a small town up north, the place was huge and cool! Now, I despise the dump. I don't even like it for football, so baseball is WAAAY out there. What once seemed futuristic is now cramped and dark concourses, sterile architecture, and boring.

As to risk-taking and designing large civic buildings, most architects believe "Better safe than sorry" and "design" accordingly.

"A doctor can always bury his mistakes. An architect can only advise his client to plant vines." -Frank Lloyd Wright

[JT7]

Dodger Stadium is in no way "integrated into the surrounding terrain and natural features of the area". It sits alone in the middle of a parking lot, completely divorced from the natural area around it.


Well, some of that is true. However if you do a google earth of Dodger Stadium you will see the hills of former Chavez Ravine surrounding Dodger Stadium. As well, Dodger Stadium was not built on a flat piece of land. It was built into the hill. Hence why Dodger Stadium does not have a "main entrance" like most stadiums do, and why the Stadium has parking lots for every level.

[Shadly]

"A doctor can always bury his mistakes. An architect can only advise his client to plant vines." -Frank Lloyd Wright

Despite this, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't design his buildings as tributes to the last one he had built.

[Sean O]

Despite this, Frank Lloyd Wright didn't design his buildings as tributes to the last one he had built.

No, Wright only designed buildings in tribute to his own monumental feeling of self-worth. Few architects in history have created structures that were so universally unpleasant to live or work in.

So, I guess HOK and Wright do have something in common.

[Kentucky Bomber]

Twins players I could see, but Senators? The fact is that the Twins think and act as though their existence began in 1961. Washington? what's a "Senator?"

This is an original AL franchise moving into it's own stadium just in time for it's "Fiftieth Season" - in 2010. It didn't win a World Series until 1987 - 1924 was someone else. :shhh:

The Twins haven't acknowledged their past since Griffith sold the team. I believe it's because Minnesotans are sensitive about franchise relocations (see Northstars, Lakers) The bill to build the new stadium even included a provision that if the Twins ever leave, the name, records, colors, etc become property of the state.

From what I've seen the Nationals have taken the baseball history of DC (Senators I, Senators II) as their own anyway. Which means they've pretty much abandoned their own Montreal ancestors.

[nymdan]

Unless I'm seeing this wrong, it looks like some seats at the new Meadowlands Stadium will inexplicably be obstructed by support beams.




How is that possible in this day and age? Lucas Oil Stadium also has some seats obstructed by support beams.


Luckily, it seems that the new baseball stadiums have been spared from oversights like this, other than the Ballpark at Arlington, where the support beams were put there intentionally to evoke old ballpark designs.

[MattD1972]

To be fair, GABP (ironically) is perhaps the most retro of them all due to its exterior elements. It never gets any press, but there are large murals and carvings like those found at Rockefeller Center on exterior buildings, which are also very much early Bauhaus in their origins. Plus, the concourses go for a wiz-bang retro-futurism feel ala Fritz Lang's Metropolis. It's a damn shame the interior is such a boring mess.



If the Twins Stadium really wanted to go nuts, they would've done the following on the exterior:





Carve stylized representations of MN figures and Twins / Senators ballplayers directly into the limestone, standing watch over the club? It'd be perfect.


Agreed, a designer who cares about the project could do wonders. ...They'll screw it up.

I know it's an entire architectural style, but that building (any any stadium that tried to emulate it) still looks too much like Albert Speer had a hand in designing it. Leave it to the Nazis to ruin Art Deco for everybody.

[Shadly]

Few architects in history have created structures that were so universally unpleasant to live or work in.

Falling Water is one of the most spiritually soothing locations to be in on the planet as far as I'm concerned. It's in a forest, and on top of a water fall, but it was designed fit to that environment rather than impose upon it. The passageways and entrances to the house meld into the forest as if they sprung up naturally.

His prairie houses are much the same.

The fact of the matter is that there is a new movement of architecture in most major cities across the globe. Structures aren't being designed along the guise of "form equals function" anymore. Much more thought is being put into aesthetics than in years past. More and more, people want to live and work in something that is novel, and stimulating beyond what is expected. Baseball can't really claim to be a part of this movement, because they build the same stadium where ever they go.

When I look at Citi Field, NYS, etc., the response isn't, "Oh, isn't that neat. I've never seen anything like it," but rather, "yeah, that's what I expected it to look like. That's what a that's is 'supposed' to look like."

[Pelt]

How is that possible in this day and age? Lucas Oil Stadium also has some seats obstructed by support beams.




That area of Lucas Oil (Behind the supports) will be suites someday. Probably in time for when Indy hosts the Super Bowl. For now, to keep the project close to budget, they couldn't afford to put in those suites just yet and so they didn't.

Why the New Meadowlands has obstructions, I have no idea.

[Sean O]

Falling Water is one of the most spiritually soothing locations to be in on the planet as far as I'm concerned. It's in a forest, and on top of a water fall, but it was designed fit to that environment rather than impose upon it. The passageways and entrances to the house meld into the forest as if they sprung up naturally.


That's all well and good, but when the owner and inhabitant of the house calls it "rising mildew" and a "seven bucket house" because of the extensive leaks, and when the structure immediately started sagging upon completion, you have a major failing by the architect.

Aesthetics are always going to be important in a structure, but first it must be livable/functional. Gehry and the other deconstructivists have no concern for those who have to deal with their abominations on a daily basis, and in fact are quite antipathetic towards them.

I don't care how a ballpark looks if it doesn't nail sightlines and crowd flow properly. It's 2008, any architect capable of landing a major commission better be able to handle both without fault.

[Shadly]

Aesthetics are always going to be important in a structure, but first it must be livable/functional. Gehry and the other deconstructivists have no concern for those who have to deal with their abominations on a daily basis, and in fact are quite antipathetic towards them.

You have a point there. Even the Vatican complained that Michaelangelo's "David" was a little too "big". It's the price you pay for beauty. I'd like to think that deconstructivists have a little more available in terms of engineering these days. Leaky roof technology has advanced since then.

[Sean O]

You have a point there. Even the Vatican complained that Michaelangelo's "David" was a little too "big". It's the price you pay for beauty. I'd like to think that deconstructivists have a little more available in terms of engineering these days. Leaky roof technology has advanced since then.

Well, Gehry's hideous Stata Center has had countless complaints from users, from the organizational (Gehry ignored requests from longtime MIT faculty who asked for meeting areas and specific layouts of departments) to security (glass walls on supposedly high-security rooms) to purely functional (terrible wiring arrangements and wafting fumes). When you create a building to be a sculpture first and livable second, you're not going to care what happens inside. Academic architects fail miserably at functionality almost all the time.

[jalbright]

Let's not forget that ballparks are not meant to be art palaces, but a) places for people to watch a sport played, and b) a means for the stadium owners/lessors to make money (probably not in that order). I doubt any city or ballclub would pay a Michaelangelo to spend the kind of time needed for the Sistine Chapel, let alone wait for him to do so, foregoing the revenue while paying the financing charges.

[Dodgeboy]

Well, Gehry's hideous Stata Center has had countless complaints from users, from the organizational (Gehry ignored requests from longtime MIT faculty who asked for meeting areas and specific layouts of departments) to security (glass walls on supposedly high-security rooms) to purely functional (terrible wiring arrangements and wafting fumes). When you create a building to be a sculpture first and livable second, you're not going to care what happens inside. Academic architects fail miserably at functionality almost all the time.

As someone who (unfortunately) got an architecture degree from Minnesota, I know all about this. In school, we were taught NOTHING about usability, or even structural engineering. Everything was vague topics like "transparency" or "mass". Absolutely not a thing about REAL WORLD function.

No wonder I can't find a (real) job.

[Shadly]

Let's not forget that ballparks are not meant to be art palaces, but a) places for people to watch a sport played, and b) a means for the stadium owners/lessors to make money (probably not in that order). I doubt any city or ballclub would pay a Michaelangelo to spend the kind of time needed for the Sistine Chapel, let alone wait for him to do so, foregoing the revenue while paying the financing charges.

There are low tech ways to make a statement, and I don't think a lot of these have been considered as viable for a baseball stadium. The fact is is that Ebbets Field clones rule the day right now, much like large donut muni stadiums ruled the day 40 years ago. Any architect that wants a job now a days can't forgo functionality for aesthetics, that goes without saying. But I reject the statement that a "art palace", or at least something a little more unique than the status quo, can't apply to a sports venue. There's nothing in Frank Gehry's thesis that states you can't build something like that with good site lines. That's Frank Gehry that makes that choice, not his buildings.

Site lines and open concourses are not rocket science. I doubt Frank Lloyd Wright was ever contacted about designing the Saturn V rocket in the fifties. But I'm sure there are talented architects out there that understand the physics of what makes a good ball park.

[Shadly]

Lucas Oil Stadium also has some seats obstructed by support beams.


Luckily, it seems that the new baseball stadiums have been spared from oversights like this, other than the Ballpark at Arlington, where the support beams were put there intentionally to evoke old ballpark designs.

Lucas Oil is a perfect example of what everyone takes issue with. They built a standard "warehouse" stadium - nothing too avante garde or innovative here. Yet they still managed to screw it. Bad stadiums aren't always the best looking ones, and vice versa, good stadiums don't have to look a certain way.

[Pelt]

Lucas Oil is a perfect example of what everyone takes issue with. They built a standard "warehouse" stadium - nothing too avante garde or innovative here. Yet they still managed to screw it...

And you're wrong. And for the 15th time I'll explain it: That area of Lucas Oil (Behind the supports) will be suites someday. Probably in time for when Indy hosts the Super Bowl. For now, to keep the project close to budget, they couldn't afford to put in those suites just yet and so they didn't. When they have the money for it, there will be suites in those areas, and no obstructed views.

It isn't a design "screw up". It is a temporary fix, due to lack of money.

[Shadly]

And you're wrong. And for the 15th time I'll explain it: That area of Lucas Oil (Behind the supports) will be suites someday. Probably in time for when Indy hosts the Super Bowl. For now, to keep the project close to budget, they couldn't afford to put in those suites just yet and so they didn't. When they have the money for it, there will be suites in those areas, and no obstructed views.

It isn't a design "screw up". It is a temporary fix, due to lack of money.

My point is still valid.

[Yoda]

:rofl:
It looks like a bedpan.

:rofl::rofl:

[Pelt]

My point is still valid.

Just not in regards to Lucas Oil Stadium. :)

[Shadly]

Just not in regards to Lucas Oil Stadium. :)

No, but in regards to New Yankee Stadium (Restaurant sight line debaucle), Arlington Stadium (not talking about the choice of the beams), and several other "retro" parks.

Modern Architecture does not equal bad sight lines.

[Pelt]

By the time The Ballpark at Arlington came around, I was done with the 'retro' ballparks. The sightlines in that stadium, especially in the right field corner, are terrible - and it was completely unnecessary, given that the place was built in the middle of vast nothingness.

[Shadly]

The sightlines in that stadium, especially in the right field corner, are terrible

If that's not the defining characteristic anymore, we can finally build one of these:

[Pelt]

As long as they get rid of the obstructions in the upper deck: