
Originally Posted by
PeteU
I think the big selling point is the view of the hills behind the park. It gives it a nice pastoral feel to it. Had the view been of a flat parking lot, I don't think it would be as nice.
Dodger Stadium is simple in its design, but not boring. (Unlike the concrete donut clones which followed soon thereafter, which were incredibly boring). It was designed for baseball, and shows nicely to that effect. Also what helps with Dodger Stadium is that I've heard it's been nicely maintained, unlike, say, Shea Stadium which has just been allowed to deteriorate.
Along with Kauffman Stadium and Angels Stadium (as renovated), Dodger Stadium shines out as a good park in what was otherwise an awful era for ballpark construction in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
The only question I have about Dodger Stadium is that it seems to get a free pass from some on this board whose big thing is that upper decks must be placed virtually on top of each other. The upper decks at Dodger Stadium look pretty massive and far back. Not that I really care--I really don't care much one way or another about the placement of upper decks, but there are some who seem intent on making that their key factor in ballpark design, yet they don't seem to make that much of a fuss about Dodger Stadium.
But all in all, Dodger Stadium is by far one of the better ballparks, and deserves to be saved for posterity for years to come.