Page 1 of 226 1231151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 5642

Thread: Target Field

  1. #1

    Target Field

    Last edited by milladrive; 08-06-2012 at 11:23 AM. Reason: Replaced dead links with newer photo links

  2. #2
    Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth building.

  3. #3
    Welcome to BBF, hofflalu.

    As for the Twin's new park, they could of done better. Compared to what the A's are building.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    1,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Williamsburg2599 View Post
    Welcome to BBF, hofflalu.

    As for the Twin's new park, they could of done better. Compared to what the A's are building.
    At least it's a lot better than the current stadium. It's great for Vikings football, but for baseball? It's just like playing baseball inside a house: it doesn't work. I'm not saying it has an unfair advantage for playoffs, but it's just awkward to play in a dome baseball stadium with no retractable roof.

    From what I have heard, the neighborhood around the Metrodome, is not exactly the safest, so be careful at nighttime.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    438
    It looks like a nice open-air ballpark, but given all the bad weather this April in the northern cities (epsecially Cleveland), it seems like the Twins should really be considering a retractible roof.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Paso Robles, CA
    Posts
    393
    Roof would be too expensive from what I understand. They used to play outdoors (but the season started later) so we'll see how it works out.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by catbox_9 View Post
    Roof would be too expensive from what I understand. They used to play outdoors (but the season started later) so we'll see how it works out.
    I'm sure it will be fine. This year's April weather was a fluke just because the jet stream dipped way down into the southern U.S. drawing a bunch of Arctic air with it. (According to Al Roker )

    Looks like a pretty good stadium, good to see another dome & artificial turf stadium headed for the scrap heap. Only two more to go after this!


  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    The Wettest Part of the Ocean
    Posts
    5,951
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean O View Post
    Nothing new, nothing interesting, nothing worth building.
    I beg to differ. Have a look at this slideshow. The external drawings of the stadium look very interesting and in my opinion, very unique.

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by brewcrew82 View Post
    I beg to differ. Have a look at this slideshow. The external drawings of the stadium look very interesting and in my opinion, very unique.
    It looks like a bad ripoff of a Libeskind mess. It takes the worst generic qualities of the HOK cookie cutters, and wraps it in a contemporary monstrosity. Instead of a park based on proper architectural principals like line, form and texture, we have Camden Yards with a glass and steel tumor on the front.

    When will we have another stadium on par with Kauffman?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,441
    Blog Entries
    8
    Okay, this is what I think about the new Twins ballpark:

    Pros:

    * It's an obvious upgrade over the Metrodome. Anything would be.

    * The external design is interesting. It does look kind of weird.

    * I notice a double-decker tease somewhere, but I forget where.

    Cons:

    * Look at the upper deck seats barring the ones past the outfield. It still looks like it's pushed back badly.

    * Too much emphasis on the lower deck.

    * HOK-made means cheap looking. The distance and leverage of the seats still bothers me. It gets as flat as a board at times.
    Last edited by Knick9; 04-12-2007 at 08:40 PM.

  11. #11
    It's all right. Not the best design to come out, but light years away from the Metrodome and that's a good thing. It's open air which may cause problems in the early season or in post season play, but hey, baseball was always meant to be outdoors. I'm sure the Twins will adapt.

    The new breed of ballparks seem always to get a bad rap on this board, with complaints about them being too derivative of each other and stuff about the upper deck being too far back. I'm not saying there isn't validity to those complaints, but I can't see how anyone can say this recent breed of parks is worse than the "dark ages" of the stadiums built from the mid-sixties to the eighties (with the possible exception of Kauffman Stadium). There's got to be some perspective to these things, and all things considered, the new "retro" parks are still a welcome change from the sterile, multipurpose monstrosities a generation back.

    And I do think the Twins design is better than the New Yankee Stadium, which I honestly believe is a major disappointment.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Fort Worth, TX
    Posts
    438
    I've been to four of the new retro parks, and I like all four of them. Coors Field is just about perfect for watching baseball (especially if you like high scoring games). My experience at Chase Field was unique since the only game I went to there was the first Opening Day. Watching that roof open was amazing though. Minute Maid Park in Houston is nice too, but both time I went, they had the roof closed. I'd like to go to one with the roof open one of these days.

    The Ballpark in Arlington is beautiful, but it has a couple of major flaws that take away from the experience of watching a game. The first one is that fans can't see the field from the main concourse. They had to install TVs at the concession stands just so people could see what was going on while waiting in line. The other flaw is the placement of the jumbotron scoreboard. About a third of the ballpark can't see it (including everyone in that homerun porch).

    The Minnesota design looks comparable to Coors Field. Two other parks that I'd really like to visit just from seeing them on TV are PNC Park in Pittsburgh and PacBell Park (or whatever they're calling it this year) in San Francisco. The plans for the new park in Oakland look fantastic (better than the Twins new park)...

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dyer, IN
    Posts
    381
    From those pictures I dont really see a 'focal point' or 'signature' of the ballpark. The shot that is always on TV that allows everyone to recognize where they are.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Hogtown
    Posts
    3,380
    I like it. If only they would put the upper deck anywhere near the action... . It looks like you'll be able to watch for free from the parking garage, and from the area past RF. Kind of cool...
    WAMCO!

  15. #15
    The left field stands are reminiscent of Metropolitan Stadium. The best thing about this ballpark is that baseball returns to the elements the way it was meant to be played (translation: advantage pitcher early and late in the year). Same for football, the Vikings utilized the elements to their advantage when they played at the Met. The Rams or the Cowboys dreaded going there for a playoff game.
    I like the new ballparks. I also like the old parks. If I am going to take a loan to go to a major league game, I at least don't want to wait on a very long line to go to the bathroom, get a beer, soda, hot dog or get a souvenir ( as great as they are they suck for these very things: Yankee, Fenway & Wrigley).

  16. #16
    I do think that too many new ballparks get a bad rap on these types of boards and that is fine, but in the real world of budgets, the teams and architects spend what is allowed and that can greatly affect the way you set up the entire design of a new park. I'm not saying that some critical points are wrong, as I do agree with a lot of the remarks made in regards to HOK's past projects, but we do have to realize there is a real world apsect and they are not designing ballparks at will like someone on Google or as a hobby. A lot of us have great designs when not dealing with real money.

    Let's all note, the new Twins ballpark was originally designed as a retractable roof stadium. Even the new Yankee Stadium was once presented to have a moving roof. And, Citi Field was once going to have a roof and a moving field. That little thing called money tends to get in the way of big ideas.

    I think the Twins have done fine. I also think some of us get caught up in the "old-ballparks-are-waaaaaay-better-than-HOK-crap-they-build-today" a little too much. I am a team historian and I do appreciate the significance of every old ballpark (Tiger Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Forbes Field, Crosley Field and so on and so on) but that time is gone and we need to remember the behind-the-scenes operations and needs of today's MLB team's are a little different than they were 50, 60, 70 or 80 years ago. It is hard to try to duplicate the past. Baseball prides itself on tradition and history and I think overall it has done a good job at maintaining that while servicing the time we live in. The cookie cutter stadiums were built because it was thought that they were the best route for their time. The historical ballparks before them were built to upgrade the smaller, wooden parks and attract more fans. One thing that will never change- owners are in it to make money. Our ballparks today reflect the way baseball needs them to be and yes that includes Club Levels, Suites, owner's clubs, LED signs, WiFi, etc. With today's society being so information driven people have smaller attention spans and quicker opinions with text messaging, cell phones, blackberries and the like. People look for these types of features in ballparks.

    I tend to wonder if one day, say 40-50 years from now, if all the teams will want "futuristic" stadiums to replace all the "retro" parks that were built at the turn of the century (1999-2010). My biggest fear about today's parks is that, in retrospect, we made some of them too much like a mall.
    Last edited by Astros; 04-13-2007 at 03:48 PM.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,441
    Blog Entries
    8

    Question Retro look has to go ultimately

    Astros:

    It is impossible to duplicate past masterpeices of ballparks if teams' egos get in the way. You can't really explain the true needs of a new proposed ballpark. The ballpark dimensions may be assymetrical but barely. I think people have waited too long to see something really interesting when it comes to this. Not anything like 329-403-325 but rather say 350-415-317. Teams are nowhere close to attempting the latter because they're afraid to expand the ideas or go outside the box. Giants Park or Astros Field are good examples of what I'm talking about. (339-399-309, 315-436-326)

    I know, in the Twins' case, they were limited in action because of the size of the land they were given, but I would've liked to see some more seperation between foul line distances. I mean, the Twins Park is fine, and it's alot better than Citi Field or Yankee Stadium II's designs, but there was room for more creativity here. That's all I'm saying.

    Oh, and about Suites, Club Levels, Owner's Clubs, etc., those are the things that are overshadowing many qualities that these new ballparks may have and will be the poison that brings the level of the retro look down quite a few notches. For the record, I do not consider any of the new HOK ballparks in my top 10 list of best ballparks of all-time. It's far from that. I'm sure people have said that it has a "corporate feel" to the ballpark. That's not welcome or comfortable to your everyday bumpkin fan who is just there for the game. Sacrificing the upper deck seats by pushing them back in favor of moving up owner/suite seats are not the game-winning plans to a good ballpark. I say the retro look must go one day. It's as if the other looks have been whiped off the face of the Earth. That's just me of course.
    Last edited by Knick9; 04-13-2007 at 05:20 PM.

  18. #18
    I think when judging these new ballparks, you first have to think as to what they have replaced before crying foul too much here. Let's take all the ballparks that have opened since 1992, when Oriole Park at Camden Yards opened and the retro-park craze began:

    Baltimore, Cleveland, Texas, Colorado, Atlanta, Arizona, Seattle, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Detroit, San Francisco, Houston, San Diego, Cincinatti, Philadelphia and St. Louis.

    Of these parks, Baltimore, Cleveland, Milwaukee and San Francisco had parks built after the classic era but before the multipurpose era. These parks had some charms to them, but really only appreciable to the fans of that specific team and city.

    Arizona opened its park as a new expansion team, and Colorado replaced a temporary venue suited for football.

    Texas, Atlanta, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Houston, San Diego, Cincinatti, Philadelphia, and St. Louis all replaced rather sterile multipurpose venues built during the most bland of architectual eras for stadium building. It's hard to argue, other than some sentimental value for the history occuring in the stadiums (but not for the actual park itself), these teams are worse off in their new ballpark. I would say they are in a much better position if you ask me.

    The only classical era ballpark that was replaced was Tiger Stadium (and I'm not saying Comerica Park isn't a bad place which doesn't have some advantages over the old park in terms of convience, if not in history).

    Now, looking at the parks to be built, Minnesota, Washington and the New York Mets are replacing stadiums of the multipurpose era without much architectual distinction. Same could be said for Oakland, as Mount Davis ruined whatever charm may have existed in the Oakland Coliseum. If Florida ever gets around to building a new ballpark, it will replace a stadium designed for football. Fenway and Wrigley are safe for the forseeable future. The only classical era stadium which will be lost (and it will be a big loss) is Yankee Stadium (and there are some--although I don't agree--that say the 1970s renovation diminished the historical value of the park).

    So while you can certainly go on about the flaws of the HOK and retro parks, you still have to ask yourself what was lost in terms of historical and architectual distinction. And I would say for the majority of these teams, they are better off in their new park, regardless of whatever flaws you may percieve to exist in them.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    40
    I'm seeing a lot of HOK bashing. And I'm not going to defend them.

    But how many different ways are there to build a good stadium? What do you guys want out of a ballpark?

    All I care about is grass & dirt infield (even a skinned infield would be fine for me). Nice viewing angles, decent priced food on the concourse and something nice to look at in the outfield. A good team wearing home whites every night would be an added bonus. But what do you guys really want?
    Harold Norbert "Harry" Kalas (1936 - 2009)
    Swing and a long drive. Watch that baby. Outta here, home run.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by pauliedanger View Post
    I'm seeing a lot of HOK bashing. And I'm not going to defend them.

    But how many different ways are there to build a good stadium? What do you guys want out of a ballpark?

    All I care about is grass & dirt infield (even a skinned infield would be fine for me). Nice viewing angles, decent priced food on the concourse and something nice to look at in the outfield. A good team wearing home whites every night would be an added bonus. But what do you guys really want?
    Oh man, seriously? Unfortunately, since there's only one really good baseball field in the United States from a purely architectural point of view (Kauffman), we've begun to think that sports architecture has to be bland and derivative. Not so. A quick selection of beautiful parks from around the world:











    Each of these are interesting. And HOK keeps recycling the same design over and over again.

    The end result? In 25 years, we go through the same thing all over again, when people get sick of another generation of cookie cutters.
    Last edited by Sean O; 04-14-2007 at 07:17 PM.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,441
    Blog Entries
    8

    Post

    PeteU,

    I'm not saying that I hate every HOK ballpark. There are some that I do indeed like. If you want me to name some, I will.

    HOK-style parks I do like:
    Oriole Park at Camden Yards
    Astros Field
    Giants Park (AT&T whatever)
    Petco Park
    Chase Field
    Jacobs Field
    Ballpark at Arlington
    PNC Park

    HOK-style parks I don't/won't like: (seat structure-wise):
    Busch Stadium II
    Turner Field
    Citizen's Bank Park
    New Nats Ballpark
    Yankee Stadium II
    Great American Ballpark
    Safeco Field
    Citi Field

    Quote Originally Posted by PeteU View Post
    So while you can certainly go on about the flaws of the HOK and retro parks, you still have to ask yourself what was lost in terms of historical and architectual distinction. And I would say for the majority of these teams, they are better off in their new park, regardless of whatever flaws you may percieve to exist in them.
    Okay, this part is a cheap shot. I don't percieve any of those flaws I stated. I know that they exist in new ballparks. I suggest that you check out some of Elvis' posts about centilever upper decks and there's even a diagram of comparison in the Yankee Stadium II thread. Please don't think that I'm crazy in some way. Yes, the cookie cutters weren't great either. I know that. They were complete abominations. But I know that when I go back to look at past classic ballparks and notice how centilever they are, and then I look at the HOK parks and their seating alignment, I can point out the things that the HOK workers are doing wrong. Nobody is perfect, but alittle research never hurt anybody.

    But the thing is this, the cookie cutters at least were centilever or tried to be. HOK retro is just another fad that will fade away like dust. There is a step above HOK's design and hardly anybody is willing to take that step.

    Look at the Polo Grounds, look at Ebbets Field, look at Fenway Park, look at Crosley Field and etc. Just look at those seating alignments. Yes, while having supporting posts in the lower deck isn't good for the view below, the overall view of those in the upper deck is much more important and those views are easily affected in these new parks. Nothing was lost in the cookie cutters, but the HOK retros are not the bonafide #1 look in ballpark design. I still think that the old classics are #1. I won't talk about it much more.

    The Twins did a decent job but there could have been alittle bit more added. I rest my case now.
    Last edited by Knick9; 04-14-2007 at 07:35 PM.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean O View Post
    Oh man, seriously? Unfortunately, since there's only one really good baseball field in the United States from a purely architectural point of view (Kauffman), we've begun to think that sports architecture has to be bland and derivative. Not so. A quick selection of beautiful parks from around the world:











    Each of these are interesting. And HOK keeps recycling the same design over and over again.

    The end result? In 25 years, we go through the same thing all over again, when people get sick of another generation of cookie cutters.
    Interesting, yes. Attractive? I'm not so sure.

    Although I am intrigued as to the third park down. Where was it planned to be? Given your high regards towards Kaufmann Stadium, I can see why you like it.

  23. #23
    That, if you can believe it, was Three Rivers. Instead of:



    , we could've had a gorgeous park that would still be standing today. I have no idea why the powers that be decided to build a craphole instead of an architectural beacon, but I guess that's why they got elected.

    I don't expect everyone to love all of the different designs out there, because I certainly hate a lot of the futuristic parks being built now (the fustercluck of an olympic stadium in Beijing is horrific, and Allianz is highly overrated), but at least they're something new that try to be aesthetically relevant. Something like Shahktar Stadium would be a simply gorgeous location for baseball, and yet we can't get any new thought in a design.

    There is no reason why MN won't want a new park in 2040. How long can we keep aping the past if we never come up with new ideas?

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Sean O View Post
    That, if you can believe it, was Three Rivers. . . .
    we could've had a gorgeous park that would still be standing today. I have no idea why the powers that be decided to build a craphole instead of an architectural beacon, but I guess that's why they got elected.
    On that we can certainly agree. Unfortunately, in the 1960s and 1970s, the rage was for multipurpose stadiums which could be transformed from baseball to football within a day via a quick re-arrangement of the stands. Hence, the Three Rivers Stadium we know.

  25. #25
    But here's the thing Pete, this design had the same PSCSLD seating arrangement as Three Rivers Stadium, and so it functionally wasn't any different:



    Now, this could've been a more expensive option, but is it any worse than having to spend $300m on a new park 30 years later? Architects should realize by now that boring, uninspired buildings get torn down quickly. How many bad Bauhaus buildings were remaining in the 60s-70s when the Brutalist buildings were being made?

    Take a look at Alex Nardini's renderings of Stadio San Nicola Di Bari, which would be a perfect type of baseball park:

    http://www.alexnardini.com/snicola_eng.html

    And for kicks, how easy of a conversion would this be?




Page 1 of 226 1231151101 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •