Dodger Stadium

[nymTom]

I have never been there so obviously i have an opinion based only on pics .. But it seems many love this ballpark?? I dont really know why. Can Anyone explain the highlites of this ballpark. From what i see it looks pretty bland on the outside exterior, the upper deck looks as high and far back as the avg stadium and has the suites in between the decks.. The seats along the outfield foul lines look to be facing the outfield, not towards the infield.. No great characteristics in the park and just bleachers past the outfield wall.. Is it the views, the sunken in stadium into a hill?? The colors of the seats?? It looks as plain a ballpark as you can get and since it was the stadium built for the team leaving Brooklyn and built by O'malley, i would think many more would hate it .. Althoguh from what ive heard it was Omalley's vision to stay in Brooklyn but the powers that be woudlnt allow it, so Moses got his new stadium in Flushing which is Shea stadium. Now ofcourse i like Dodger stadium's looks better then Shea, who wouldnt, but it doesnt seem to be that much out of the box IMO!!!

(OH BY THE WAY AFTER ONLY A FEW PAGES ON THIS THREAD,, I NOW SEE WHY IT IS SO HIGHLY REGARDED AS A STADIUM. REAL NICE PLACE)

[Lafferty Daniel]

The San Gabriel mountains in the background. The exterior facade blends in nicely with the location, it doesn't have a forced facade like many newer stadiums. The 76 gas station past center. The symmetry gives the park a classic feel. The palm trees. The landscaping surrounding the park. The nice pacific breeze coming in from the west. Many great ticket bargains like the bleachers or the top deck for $8. Views of the whole city behind homeplate including the Hollywood Sign, downtown, and the Westside. The classic canopy. 50,000 fans show up almost every night. Close proximity to the lovely Elysian Park. Think Blue sign, Dodger Dogs, great weather, the best logo on top of a dugout. The upper decks are closer to the action than you think. Vin Scully. The roofs covering the bleachers that look like Japanese fans.

What else am I missing Elvis?

[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.

[nymTom]

an upper deck view from Dodger stadium.

[nymTom]

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.

Thanks for the helpful input, sheds some light on the topic..

[Sean O]

I believe Dodger Stadium is highly regarded because of its subtlety. Its original (and current) color scheme was very unassuming, the architectural elements understated, and the exterior all but nonexistent. Unlike today's excess, it works through complementing the game being played, not by attempting to overpower it.

The new parks attempt to be unique by having kitschy features, mainly because the fundamental structure is more or less the exact same. Dodger Stadium took a normal seating configuration, with clean lines and comparatively nice sightlines, added a single beautiful architectural element (the bleacher roof), and otherwise let the view and baseball do the rest. There's something to be said for not having distractions, and if I am correct, Dodger Stadium was never wanting for patrons.

Dodger and Kauffman both prove that baseball can stand on its own, rather than being controlled by the space.

[PeteU]

Easy fellas, nobody's mothers got insulted here.

Breathe fellas, breathe....

[Elvis]

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.

I think you've completely missed the boat on this point, especially on how it related to Dodger Stadium:

The "big thing" complaint by me, as you put it (and others on "my" side correct me if I'm wrong), is when decks are pushed back and not cantilevered as much as they could be or should be. If you look at a cross-section of Chavez Ravine, you can plainly see that all levels are aggressively cantilevered over the deck below--from the loge level all the way up to the top deck. This is why (As Lafferty can attest since he has season tickets there) the Top Deck has great sight lines, even though it's the 5th deck up from the field, and the field level is extremely deep.

This is a typical Dodger Stadium cantilever:

[nymTom]

I believe Dodger Stadium is highly regarded because of its subtlety. Its original (and current) color scheme was very unassuming, the architectural elements understated, and the exterior all but nonexistent. Unlike today's excess, it works through complementing the game being played, not by attempting to overpower it.

The new parks attempt to be unique by having kitschy features, mainly because the fundamental structure is more or less the exact same. Dodger Stadium took a normal seating configuration, with clean lines and comparatively nice sightlines, added a single beautiful architectural element (the bleacher roof), and otherwise let the view and baseball do the rest. There's something to be said for not having distractions, and if I am correct, Dodger Stadium was never wanting for patrons.

Dodger and Kauffman both prove that baseball can stand on its own, rather than being controlled by the space.

Ok i see your points, almost like a down to business park with baseball written all over it with a less is more attitude with no forced quirks.. Thanks, i guess seeing it in person with the views would be awsome ..I was looking for people's input who have been there, but unfortunatley i may have insluted the KING!! lol

[Elvis]

More examples of Dodger Stadium's aggressive cantilevers:

[Elvis]

Upper Deck view. As anyone can see, the views from the upper deck are lower than any HOK stadium. The "Top Deck" section is not considered the upper deck--it's really considered a small "bonus section", giving fans unobstructed cheap seats right behind home plate.

[PeteU]

I think you've completely missed the boat on this point, especially on how it related to Dodger Stadium:

The "big thing" complaint by me, as you put it (and others on "my" side correct me if I'm wrong), is when decks are pushed back and not cantilevered as much as they could be or should be. If you look at a cross-section of Chavez Ravine, you can plainly see that all levels are aggressively cantilevered over the deck below--from the loge level all the way up to the top deck. This is why (As Lafferty can attest since he has season tickets there) the Top Deck has great sight lines, even though it's the 5th deck up from the field, and the field level is extremely deep.

This is a typical Dodger Stadium cantilever:

I'll have to plead ignorance on the basis I've never been to Dodger Stadium in person. I can only say from the pictures I've seen, the upper decks look rather distant, even with the cantilevers, which I can clearly see but they still look relatively mild to me (compared to that of, say, Tiger Stadium, or more relevantly the renovated Yankee Stadium which has a cantilever without the support posts.)

In the end, this is all pretty much irrelevant as I don't think the placement of an upper deck alone makes or breaks a ballpark (if I did, then I'd be forced to heap praise upon RFK Stadium and its cantilevers, which would be patently absurd.)

And even without having gone to Dodger Stadium myself (although I would love to go see a game there whenever my first trip to the Los Angeles area might be), I can still tell it is certainly one of the better ballparks in baseball. I think the fact that it was designed for the game of baseball, along with its hillside setting, helps secure it as one of the top ballparks in the "modern" era.

[Lafferty Daniel]

Upper Deck view. As anyone can see, the views from the upper deck are lower than any HOK stadium. The "Top Deck" section is not considered the upper deck--it's really considered a small "bonus section", giving fans unobstructed cheap seats right behind home plate.

Ahh the Top Deck, one of few values in Los Angeles at $8 a seat

[Elvis]

[PeteU]

Ahh the Top Deck, one of few values in Los Angeles at $8 a seat

On a somewhat related note, I've heard Dodger Stadium is pretty strict on not letting you "cheat," i.e. sneak down to closer seats after buying the cheap seats. (Not that I would ever dream of doing such a thing, of course. )

Is that still the case?