Goodbye Teflon Sky
The warehouse fits in nicely with the neighboring buildings in the Gaslamp Quarter and is one of the main entrances from the street to the ballpark.forced inclusion of the Camdenesque warehouse
Padres Park might look somewhat bland on TV or in pictures, but the sandstone and warehouse really do compliment the Gaslamp Quarter. Unlike most newer parks, San Diego's doesn't force too many 'quirks.'
Registered User
In tv and pictures, to me, petco looks like bland concrete, ala the Vet. The warehouse seems completely out of place with the rest of the park, the one (ironic) place where a traditional retro park probably would've made sense. As I mentioned above, the right field bleacher / upper deck area is just a design nightmare, filled with everything bad about HoK. They just seem confused about the center field, without the beauty or relevance of Ashburn Alley. Just plopping down a batter's eye isn't the best in aesthetics.Originally Posted by Lafferty Daniel
The towers breaking up the upper deck don't make a lick of sense to me, and seem like another excuse to find a place for luxury boxes. They also break whatever hope for a steady line for the top of the park, especially when they split towards the top.
Mainly, I see a total lack of color. If there's no color, there has to be form or line. Petco, in all its glory, doesn't appear to have anything. Externally you have the strict vertical and horizontal lines of the sandstone, then it's blown to hell by the overly visible diagonal crossbracing of the white steel. If we learned anything from New Comiskey, or the Denver Airport, it's that white steel doesn't work.
Goodbye Teflon Sky
The section in center field has bench row seats with sand on the ground past the chainlink fence where you can watch the game at field level.They just seem confused about the center field
I've sat up there and thought they were good seats for what we paid. I had a great view of the entire park, the city, and still felt like I was right on top of the action. I understand that many people don't like how HOK pushes the upper decks back to create more room for luxury boxes and what not, but honestly I didn't feel it was a problem where we sat in right field.the right field bleacher / upper deck area is just a design nightmare, filled with everything bad about HoK
I hope you can make a trip to San Diego one of these days to at least check it out in person Sean O. Padres Park really does fit in nicely with the neighborhood and the city of San Diego. You're right though, improvements could be made.
peace
Birds and Fish
As bad as some of the flaws you point out--and I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you as to the existance of those flaws, if not maybe to the extent you claim--you'd be hard up claiming the Nationals are going to be worse off after coming from RFK Stadium.
It's all a matter of perspective, and while I agree the Nationals could have done better, it sure beats where they are at right now.
Registered User
First time poster here and I didn't really think of the New Comiskey reference until I read it here. Excellent analysis.
Anyway, as someone who actually started covering the Yankees this season – I am an editor for a sports magazine here in New York – and never a Yankee fan, I can tell you there is a thrill walking through that tunnel into the dugout and even though, I am only on the field during batting practice, there is a certain massive intimidation with the stands so close and standing so high. It must be tough for an opposing team to be in front of a wall of people like that.
All of it will be gone.
That being said, here’s the problem. Dealing with the two baseball teams in NY, is like having two small children. When one gets something, the other wants it or will cry until something is done. The Yankees start YES, so the Mets go and start SNY. The Mets need a new park, since Shea is vastly outdated and the Yankees then want their own new park.
That’s the problem. There was a plan five years ago to renovate the current Stadium and give George his luxury boxes by taking out the mezzanine. That fell through. So now we get this.
I actually told my son’s mother yesterday [my boy is 3] I am going to take him to a game in the Bronx – although the Bleachers will probably be out - before the end of ’08, so at least he will be able to say he saw a game at Yankee Stadium.
Registered User
Here's the deal. You see only the inside of the park on TV. I'll get to that issue in a bit.
First of all the Western Metals building, there's no way they could have torn it down, its one of the first buildings of its kind built in downtown San Diego. I thought the solution they came up with was pretty creative. Also its probably one of the best places to watch the game from inside the park. Of course its a taste issue, but I like the melding of the old with the new. Also, the B&O warehouse at Camden isn't actually a part of the playing field, the Western Metals building actually is the foul pole. I think thats pretty damn cool. The building itself matches the area and several of the buildings that have been saved within the ballpark area itself. In the adjacent park area (another cool unique feature if you ask me) there are 3 other historical buildings that have been preserved and remodeled and another one that has been rebuilt completely to its former splendor. All of this sort of mixes with the more modern office and condo buildings in the area (which are now more or less complete by the way, greatly improving the ambiance from what it was like when the park opened in 2004) giving the whole area a really cool, eclectic vibe.
The ballpark itself is beautiful from the outside, with its unique architecture designed by renowned architect Antoine Predock to its melding of garden and plant life with the building itself and its open concourses with the office and team buildings set apart from the seating struucture itself and connected by a series of catwalks. Its something you really have to walk through to appreciate if you have been to other ballparks to really compare the differences.
The towers are actually a part of the outer team buildings part of the architecture and was the one element that was brought into the seating bowl to tie it together with the rest of the structure. It also breaks up the monotony of "one straight line" going from foul pole to foul pole of just seats.
So as far as the plainness is concerned, I do agree with you. In the seating bowl there is entirely too much exposed concrete. I feel that a combination of bringing in more plant life, like you would see in the concourses, maybe some paint and even some of the sandstone tiles that adorn much of the exterior of the park could do wonders for bringing more warmth to the seating bowl and also make it look better on TV. One thing you will notice though is that the inside of the park really sparkles during a day game when you can better see the park in its surroundings, it all starts to make sense when you are there, its a sunny day, 78 degrees and you can see the park, the grassy area beyond centerfield and then the city surrounding you. I reccomend that if you go, you take in a day game. Of course these are problems that can be worked on going forward and are fixable.
You really forget one of the best aspects of the park though, and thats the outfield park area. Not only have they taken a former city street (the way the ballpark fits in with the downtown city grid is one of its best aspects) and made it basiclly pedestrian only for 3 blocks. This street devides the ballpark proper and the grassy hill park area beyond it. One of the things I actually appreciate about this area is its not an over hyped up, "created ambiance" type pedestrian area like Ashburn Alley, but more organic and allowed to be whatever people make of it, did I also mention that when there are no games going on that this entire area is open to the public?
But I think what Petco was brought up in this thread for was the aggressive cantilevering that the park features. I have to say that of the handful of parks I have been to, none of them have tried to get the seats as close to the field. In the upper deck it feels as if you are right on top of the field. It also gives the park a somewhat strange look on tv because the field sections of seats are shorter than most other parks because of it.
Tucker Max is God
is anyone ever gonna post pictures again? I really wanna see how far they've got. I'm definately gonna take some pics once I get there. I'm gonna try to get tix for July 4th.
Registered User
go to stadiumpage.com, they have updates from two weesk ago.
^
Personally, I believe Duke put it the best way when talking about this, the two children analogy. This is overall a good read.
Let me just say that Yankee Stadium II is not going to match expectations, nor is it going to be in the top 10 of the best new ballparks at any time. I don't care if it's $1 billion being spent on this, it is a huge waste of money and time for something that HOK can clearly do better with. HOK chooses to sacrifice upper decks for the sake of making owners happy with their press boxes and suites. So, this is fan friendly? Oh, the irony. And there is no upper deck to talk about in DC at all. the Nationals' new ballpark is going to be dreadful. Absolutely terrble. Probably one of worst ballparks of all-time.
It's all a matter of perspective, and while I agree that the Nationals could have done better with this, it sure beats what they have now.
Eventually, I do start questioning something like this being said. I'm willing to say that there are/were a few cookie cutter ballparks that are even better than HOK parks, not all of them of course, but I'd take the best cookie cutter ballpark over the worst HOK ballpark any day of the week. This has to be your feeling on YSII as well. HOK can't do squat. It's getting to the point where even Elvis can do better, I can do better, you guys can do better, etc.
Last edited by Knick9; 06-06-2007 at 07:54 AM.
Registered User
I'd take a renovated RFK over the new HoK mess any day of the week. RFK is interesting, with a beautiful roofline, that with about 50m worth of renovations would be a tremendous place to see baseball. Cover the outside with a new glass enclosure instead of that ugly concrete, either put seating, luxury boxes or a garden beyond the fences, and suddenly you have one of the best parks in the league.
Or, if you want to go crazy, rip out 80% of the outfield seating and make it open. Wouldn't that do wonders?
Registered User
The new park for the Nationals will definitely qualify as the GREEDIEST park in baseball. I thought the Jake was bad with it's wall o' suites, but this place takes the cake:
I'm amazed they bothered with an upper deck at all. Do you suppose they'll have things like bathrooms in the upper deck concourse?
I couldn't agree more. I definitely feel that will be the case in DC, and I think it 's already happened in Cincinnati. Riverfront looked pretty good once they gave i a grass field and opened it up (ironically to support construction of the disaster that is GABP). Give RFK the same treatment and I think it would be a winner.I'm willing to say that there are/were a few cookie cutter ballparks that are even better than HOK parks, not all of them of course, but I'd take the best cookie cutter ballpark over the worst HOK ballpark any day of the week.
I also would have liked to see a game in the renovated Busch Stadium II...
Birds and Fish
A renovated RFK Stadium where the upper deck outfield seats are removed and it is opened up (a la Angels Stadium) might be interesting. The problem is, the mezzanine decks at RFK are not structurally designed to accommodate luxury boxes (RFK was built without luxury boxes). Unfortunately, with that seeming to be the major motivation in modern sports stadia these days, I don't think the Nationals ownership would have gone for it.
Last edited by PeteU; 06-06-2007 at 12:56 PM.
Registered User
problem with rfk is that the nationals are not the only tennants, i know they are planning on building a new football(soccer) stadium for dcu but until then they have to share
Tucker Max is God
DAMN how close to the subway station are they gonna build? How much closer can you get?
Moderator
The current stadium is just as close
Registered User
I haven't seen this angle before:
Just... wow. So you briefly think that the stadium was built with the weight and magnitude of the original park, but then you see the big theme park Yankee Stadium lettering behind it to prove that it really doesn't mean anything.
Shouldn't Yankee Stadium mean something? is there anything different from this to any other HoK park? I mean, simply splitting up the upper deck makes the park lose any power it might otherwise convey.
It should have magnitude and force like Toyota Stadium Nagoya or Sendai Stadium in Miyagi, let alone the original. What a waste of money.
Moderator
The lettering does look strange from that angle, but from this angle it looks ok...I haven't seen this angle before:
Just... wow. So you briefly think that the stadium was built with the weight and magnitude of the original park, but then you see the big theme park Yankee Stadium lettering behind it to prove that it really doesn't mean anything.
Shouldn't Yankee Stadium mean something? is there anything different from this to any other HoK park? I mean, simply splitting up the upper deck makes the park lose any power it might otherwise convey.
It should have magnitude and force like Toyota Stadium Nagoya or Sendai Stadium in Miyagi, let alone the original. What a waste of money.
How is that any different than this on the current stadium?
Anyway, I understand the criticism about the upper deck and all the fundamental aspects of the stadium that people take issue with, but the lettering, really? Seems like nitpicking. If they built a stadium you liked and put that lettering on, you probably wouldn't even notice.
Registered User
Personally, I'm getting tired of the HOK parks. I think its time to move the architecture of parks in a different direction.
1903 1912 1915 1916 1918 2004 2007
1904 1946 1967 1975 1986
1975 1986 1988 1990 1995 2007
Registered User
Well, 1, the problem is it isn't any different from the current stadium. HOK decided that the horrible post-75 version is what Yankee Stadium had always been, and always should be, but it's a joke. It has none of the power of the original exterior.
This is an interesting ballpark, while the post-75 version is horrid. Now, HOK decides that the new stadium not only would mimic the 70s version, but wouldn't even be the real exterior to the park. It's a hollywood facade, and has all the same value as a theme park attraction. It's not architecture, it's a theatrical set.
Honestly, I'm looking forward to the major renovations that will be necessary in about 10-15 years to all of these ballparks to try to make them unique. If we rip out the entire outfield seating for the cookie cutters, maybe then we can actually create an interesting field. Dumping all the red brick would make me endlessly happy.
Former OYS Vendor 1971-83
In actual fact, the "new" lettering replicates the font style that was on the original Gate 4 from 1923 (the other Gates 2 (LF) and 6 (RF) were extentions added in 1928 and 1932).The lettering does look strange from that angle, but from this angle it looks ok...
How is that any different than this on the current stadium?
Anyway, I understand the criticism about the upper deck and all the fundamental aspects of the stadium that people take issue with, but the lettering, really? Seems like nitpicking. If they built a stadium you liked and put that lettering on, you probably wouldn't even notice.
The exterior lettering of the present Stadium was put up in 1957 in white and then in royal blue in 1967.
Its kind of pointless to have an exterior sign simply because with the new monstrosity being built much further away from the Major Deegan (for those from out-of-town, that is the major thoroughfare that passes outside the current ballpark's home plate area), no one driving on the Deegan would be able to see it without craning their necks and taking their eyes off the road.
Like just about everything else I have seen in at least the exterior design of the park, it serves more as an ornamental rather than serve as a functional element (as in those tall iconic arched windows that no one will really be able to gaze out of because the are part a wall that that has no physical connection to the concourses, save for the entry level).
Dennis
BrooklynDodger14
Mariners Fever
The old Lansdowne Rd. stadium which was home to Irish soccer and rugby actually had the DART line run through one of the stands and everytime a train would go through the entire stand would vibrate.
Greystones Mariners Baseball Club. The oldest baseball club in Ireland. 16 years and still going strong.
www.greystonesbaseball.org
Moderator
I guess, but can't the same be said about the current sign? Sure you can see it from the Deegan, but is that why it's there, for motorists on the Deegan? It's ornamental, just like the new sign will be.
Team Veteran
I think the point is that the sign itself is pointless and tacky. After all, you don't see big neon lettering stretched across that famous mid-town Manhattan building that says:
EMPIRE STATE BUILDING
Is it really needed?
Dodger Stadium and Fenway Park for example have nothing huge and gaudy proclaiming what they are--they don't feel the need to. But that's King George for ya.
Here's Dodger Stadium's simple art deco sign:
Last edited by Elvis; 06-10-2007 at 01:46 AM.
Registered User
I completely agree. Yankee Stadium is a place that people should see and not have to be told what they are looking at. I thought they would realize that when they were building it and not put any oversized signs on it.I think the point is that the sign itself is pointless and tacky. After all, you don't see big neon lettering stretched across that famous mid-town Manhattan building that says:
EMPIRE STATE BUILDING
Is it really needed?
Dodger Stadium and Fenway Park for example have nothing huge and gaudy proclaiming what they are--they don't feel the need to. But that's King George for ya.
Here's Dodger Stadium's simple art deco sign:
Birds and Fish
I don't know about that. The true cookie cutter parks were RFK, Atlanta-Fulton County, Busch II, Riverfront, Three Rivers, and Veterans.
Of those, Three Rivers, Veterans and Riverfront (with the possible exception of the last two years when they opened the end up for construction) were absolutely dreadful. Atlanta Fulton County had grass but really wasn't any better.
RFK has that interesting wavy shaped upper deck, and it has grass, but other than that it contains all the terrible elements of all the other cookie cutters--circular ashtray shaped, exposed concrete exterior, and moveable stands to make it football ready in a snap.
The "best" of the worst probably was Busch II. And even that wasn't really the case until they added grass, gave the place a paint job and added that interesting scoreboard area in the centerfield upper deck. And even with all that, it was still one of the least interesting stadiums in the league.
Face it, these cookie cutters signified the absolute dark age for ballpark design. (That we somehow got Royals/Kaufmann Stadium during the same era is nothing short of a miracle). You can complain all you want about the HOK designs being derivative and the upper decks being too far back, but at least the new breed of parks were designed for baseball in their layout, and not some poorly envisioned baseball-football hybrid with swiveling stands. The thing about the cookie cutters was they were designed to accommodate both baseball and football, but in doing that, they created parks which were mediocre for both sports, and as such viewed as quickly disposable.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks