Page 1 of 16 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 394

Thread: Great American Ball Park

  1. #1

    Great American Ball Park

    Quote Originally Posted by StanTheMan View Post
    The most dissapointing new park I've been to has been Great American. It was a bit static to me. A nice park, but far from a standout, especially when placed next to some of the other new outstanding parks.
    ~~~~~

    Ballpark's too gaudy, architects say

    Six pros agree that as a building, the Reds' new home tries to do too much

    By Marilyn Bauer
    The Cincinnati Enquirer

    Take six architects on a tour of a new ballpark, then sit them down in a room to review the place, and you might expect some disagreement. But that's not what happened when we convened a panel to "review" Great American Ball Park.

    No, this group was unanimous. Their consensus: It's fragmented. It has too many elements and lacks a consistent overall design.

    The group said architects HOK Sport of Kansas City created a basic structure that is erratic. They say the client, the Reds, added too much to please too many.

    Our panel included academics and practicing professionals, some with experience in sports facility design. They took a 21/2-hour private tour of Great American Ball Park, examining details, asking questions, taking notes. They were given architectural plans and comprehensive background information. HOK Sport said a mission statement was not available.

    We asked them to consider six questions. Then they sat down for a discussion. This is what they had to say:

    Is Great American Ball Park well designed?

    The answer was a resounding no. Too many influences result in a lack of continuity and order. Too many elements added later make for a disjointed building that has no soul, no interesting rhythms and textures and no memorable proportions.

    They believe the client was too involved the design. It looks as though the client visited different ballparks and took a few elements from one and a few from another, mixed them up and said, here's ours.

    "There was so much junk thrown in there, it took away from the original intent," said Greg Tilsley of Tilsley and Associates. "It looks to me like there were 20 people saying: `I need a smokestack. I need double-hung windows because it reminds me of Crosley Field.' ... Hokey stuff like that distracts from the whole concept."

    "It's the most assertive, aggressive background building you will ever see in your life," agreed David Niland, a retired professor of architecture who does not object to "hokey," if it is done right.

    "Are you familiar with Michael Graves' Swan and Dolphin Hotel (at Disney World)? ... It's very, very active. It's high Baroque. But it all hangs together. There's this great diversity, this plethora of restaurants and special places, but it's all of one thing ... "

    "It is a theme park with a bad structure," said Michael McInturf of Michael McInturf Architects.

    "They conceptualized the building first, then figured out what it was going to cost," said Tilsley. "Then they stripped stuff off and added things. I think it was conceived one way and then manipulated into what we see here."

    The panel felt even the basics - "something the architects and engineers could control" - lacked consistency in size, shape and choice of materials.

    "We could forgive or have pity on the architects for having multiple owners to deal with, and having to decorate the place with all these little gadgets and toys, but in terms of the structural system, it should be clear," said Emilio Thomas Fernandez of SFA Architects Inc. "There should be a consistent pattern, language and way of detailing the entire building. ...

    "The building is void of the romance that typically occurs in ballpark designs between the steel frame and the surrounding elements. There is no logic to the way the structural system was developed. A pancake effect occurs with each level having its own distinct framing disconnected from the next."

    The panel liked the scale of the grand concourse with its exposed steel and "lots of activity." They liked the trusses beneath the upper bleachers: "They look potentially unstable but were the heaviest members and consistent throughout," said architectural historian Walter E. Langsam. "They're on a grand scale."

    "The things we have criticized will make those slow innings go by a little faster," commented Carlos Rojas of Environ Group. "There's a lot of visual excitement; it's like going to Barnum & Bailey's circus. The ballpark has a huge emotional attachment for the fans. It is the home of the Reds and people are dying to get there. The magic happens once you get in your seat."

    Did the architects succeed in what they set out to do?

    No, the panel says, again citing client interference.

    "The ballpark in many respects is a repudiation of the architects' intentions," said Niland, who as a member of the city's Urban Design Review Board was privy to the architect's original design.

    "I have great compassion for the architects. I think we reviewed that project eight times. As we got closer and closer to the end, they had to be frustrated."

    "They had a tall order of a lot of people to answer to," said Rojas. "The building lacks a singular spirit. It's a restaurant and it's this plaza, and then the field and the billboards. It felt like we were in eight different places."

    "It almost appears as though the design stopped at the schematic design level," said Fernandez. "I think some of the concepts they were trying to achieve were valid. How it was actually carried out is where they failed."

    "You walk down Main Street and go in the little gap to the entrance and you are expecting this really great space and you are let down," said Tilsley. "You walk around the corner through the barricades and all you see is white steel. There is nothing well composed about it. They didn't even do a good job of place-making, which is one of the most basic urban design concepts."

    "They made a neutral space," said Niland, "and then they filled it with diversions."

    Where did they fall short?

    The "black glass box" in center-right field that contains a party room and security cameras and is intended to block out distractions for the batter is out of place.

    "You look at that black box ... and there's so much visual garbage - those smokestacks are absurd - surrounding it, it's a hoax," said Niland.

    "The fact that the theme color for the building is beige," said Tilsley, "sums up what the architects intended - for the ballpark to be inoffensive. It is very noncommittal and really doesn't know what it wants to be. They recognized this later on and added the graphics, which may have been part of the original idea."

    "Yes, but the graphics were never integrated," added Niland. "There's so much of that building that is cosmetic. So much is heavy-handed. To me it's the Tammy Faye Bakker stadium."

    A set of double-hung windows used in an area where an elaborate track system was already in place produces a jarring effect. During the tour, the architects were told that a public relations executive was responsible for selecting the second set of windows.

    "You don't start with one thing and then stop with another unless you are looking for the kind of discontinuity that ruptures the whole idea," Niland said.

    One of the signature design elements, a wedge cut into the pie of the exterior allowing for views of Kentucky, also failed, the panel said.

    "The wedge, the gap, the wedgie, whatever you want to call it," said Fernandez, "is misaligned. There's this great intention of being there off the street and being able to look inside the ballpark - they even suggested we might have a view to the river - and it is unsuccessful.

    "They blocked it in because they needed to get more private boxes in there. One of the levels isn't even transparent. It just misses the mark. It could have been a wonderful connection piece, but it just looks like a missing piece."

    "On the west side of the gap, several of us saw at least three structural systems stuck one on top of each other with absolutely no attempt to link them," said Langsam.

    "Some elements like the `toothbrushes' (lights) weren't even touching the ground," added Fernandez.

    "I'm sure you noticed there were cast iron pipes that were black, there were some kind of conduits painted white, then there were raw metal conduits just as they came out of the electricians' package," said Niland. "Wouldn't you want to paint it all white so at least there's continuity there?"

    "Rarely do a group of architects go through a building without touching the materials," said Fernandez. "There just wasn't a whole lot you wanted to touch."

    Does the ballpark fit into any particular style or trend in ballpark design?

    "It was defined by negatives," Langsam said. "It wasn't nostalgic like Camden Yards. It wasn't retro. It wasn't cookie cutter or Cinergy Field. There were references to Crosley Field without ... looking at its character or atmosphere in any serious way. They simply didn't decide on a positive approach or a dominant image . . ."

    The panel did identify architectural trends they felt the ballpark reflected.

    "It's no mystery to me that there are these odd shapes and the gap," said Tilsley. "That's the way they are designing ballparks now. The Great American Ball Park doesn't capture a retro essence or the spirit of the old ballparks. Those old ballparks were quirky ... and all the elements - the billboards and the clocks and the things the owners liked - were all part of the culture and evolution of baseball. The Cincinnati ballpark is contrived."

    All these stadiums are changing over, said McInturf. "They are adding more (private) clubs, because it is all economics driven. ... Everyone wants pampering. The people who can pay for the upgrade of the stadium want to be pampered, and their familiarity and aesthetics are geared more toward malls and theme parks than they are to the real taste of architecture."

    Niland said there's a trend to avoid the symmetrical, which Great American Ball Park does. But so did Crosley Field, but only because of the "goofy configuration of the site" on which it's built.

    He said that although the building is "of the time at the moment" it lacks the "continuity, consistency and unity" of Paul Brown Stadium, Coors Field in Denver and Camden Yards in Baltimore.

    "Architecture in general is in a crisis because there is less respect for what we do out there than there is for construction managers," said McInturf.

    "Even when they started the (new Rosenthal Center for Contemporary Art) building they started with a budget set by Turner (Construction) before they had any architects involved."

    Is the building better designed than Cinergy Field?

    The consensus was no.

    "It's the structural element," said Rojas. "For whatever reason, Cinergy didn't work as a ballpark. But at least it was consistent and you could mentally get your brain around the concept of the big round doughnut. ...

    "That doesn't happen with the Great American Ball Park. It's a tough building to understand on several levels. It could have been done ... more elegantly."

    "You look at Cinergy Field with its consistent rhythm of bays. There was order there," said Niland. "What we have all responded to at the new ballpark is the lack of a harmonic order on which coherent variations can be worked."

    Does the ballpark fit into the Cincinnati skyline and riverfront?

    The consensus again was no.

    "If stripped of its applied decoration, inclusive of signage, the architecture of the ballpark is neither reflective of Cincinnati nor telling of what the community strives to achieve," said Fernandez. "... It doesn't even offer many postcard opportunities for the connection to the city to grow, as occurred with Cinergy Field."

    "They intended this to be an urban ballpark that relates to the city, to the texture and context and color," said Tilsley. "Yet it's this big building that's not a landmark. It should have some landmark qualities besides the antennas sticking up saying I'm here...I don't see anything that is very compelling that makes me say I have to go there because it's an incredible place. It's not a monumental structure like Union Terminal or Paul Brown Stadium."

    "None of the angles relate to the riverside," said Langsam. "It doesn't relate to the rhythms around it. It is totally separated from the larger environment."

    E-mail mbauer@enquirer.com

    Panel members and their credentials:

    Emilio Thomas Fernandez

    A graduate of St. Xavier High School and the University of Cincinnati, Fernandez is principal in charge of design at SFA Architects Inc. He oversees educational, health care, research, civic and residential projects. He is working on the Environmental Protection Agency Annex Building, the new East End School for Cincinnati Public Schools, the Advanced Technology and Learning Center for Cincinnati State, Lebanon High School, Fenwick High School and the Center for American and World Culture for Miami University. Recent restoration projects include Cincinnati City Hall and Krohn Conservatory.

    Walter E. Langsam

    Langsam is an architectural historian and historic preservation consultant who teaches art and architectural history at the University of Cincinnati. Educated at Miami and Yale universities, he is active in local and regional historic preservation and arts organizations. His book Great Houses of the Queen City: 200 Years of Historic and Contemporary Architecture in Cincinnati and Northern Kentucky (1997) has recently been reprinted. He is also the author of Architecture Cincinnati: A Guide to Nationally Significant Buildings and Their Architects in the Cincinnati Area (1999).

    Michael McInturf

    McInturf established Michael McInturf Architects in 1995. He is an associate professor of architecture at the University of Cincinnati and received the 2000 DAAP Annual Award for Outstanding Research and Creative Work.

    He has worked in notable architecture offices such as Skidmore Owings and Merrill and Peter Eisenman. During the six years McInturf worked with Eisenman, he participated in the design and execution of the Wexner Center for the Visual Arts in Columbus and UC's Aronoff Center for Design and Art. As the principal designer of the Aronoff Center, McInturf relocated to Cincinnati in 1994 to oversee the construction.

    David L. Niland

    A retired professor of architecture at the University of Cincinnati, where he taught from 1965-2001, Niland is also a member of the Urban Design Review Board, runs a private practice founded in 1962 and lectures internationally. He was honored in 1992 as National Distinguished Professor of the Year by the Association of Collegiate Schools of Architecture and at UC he was named Professor of the Year in 1988 and received the A.B. Dolly Cohen Award for Excellence in Teaching in 1988. He earned both a bachelor's and master's of architecture from Yale University and was a Fulbright scholar to Copenhagen.

    J. Carlos Rojas

    Rojas holds a bachelor's degree in architecture from the University of He has been involved in commercial design and construction for more than 15 years. He is a vice president at the Environ Group. His experience includes projects in the commercial, residential, institutional and government sectors.

    Gregory P. Tilsley

    Tilsley founded the firm of Tilsley and Associates in 1991 and serves as principal in charge of design. His experiences include urban renovation and housing, adaptive re-use, meeting/banquet facilities, restaurants, retail, office buildings, golf course clubhouses and athletic facilities. Notable projects include General Cable Learning Center, Shaker Run golf course clubhouse and the Manor House.

    http://reds.enquirer.com/2003/03/28/frilede28.html

  2. #2
    Great article. I always wondered why GABP was featured in a European stadium design book I purchased a while back, simply because it doesn't seem to do anything all that well. The grey steel in the concourses seems like it would've worked if they continued the concept throughout the park, but then you see the ugly mess inside and everything's lost.

    Unfortunately, it does fit into Cincinnati architecture, in that it is unfocused and aesthetically displeasing. Downtown Cinci, from my view, left much to be desired. Of course, I was there in February where there was 6" of brown muddy slush on the ground, so hopefully I just had a bad experience.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    866
    I have never been to GABP but the two different seat set ups in the upper deck has always irked me. It's also a little cheesy with the river boat theme even though the location can allow it. It's a bit over the top though kind of like the fake rock pile in Anaheim.


    D-Rex!

  4. #4
    GABP look like 2 ballpark designs in one. I don't like it, I mean it is too much stuff. But at least GABP has a distinct feature, some newer ballparks are lacking in this certain area. GABP has won some points with me because there is something there that helps diffrentiate that ballpark to say CBBP in Philly.

  5. #5
    They believe the client was too involved the design. It looks as though the client visited different ballparks and took a few elements from one and a few from another, mixed them up and said, here's ours.
    I hope Citi Field doesn't come off as such. Jeff Wilpon and a crew of people toured all the new stadiums to gather ideas for thier new park. It looks nice in the renderings, but you never can be sure untill it plays it's first game.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Mex4Prez View Post
    I hope Citi Field doesn't come off as such. Jeff Wilpon and a crew of people toured all the new stadiums to gather ideas for thier new park. It looks nice in the renderings, but you never can be sure untill it plays it's first game.
    The inside of CitiField is so hopelessly muddled that there's no chance of it magically coming together upon completion. You have arbitrary dimensions, stupid aspects stolen from old parks and then poorly incorporated (that hilarious rotunda, the overhanging 2nd deck for no reason in right), an ugly color scheme, seating randomly vomited all over the place, and a park built irrespective of the neighborhood architecture.

    It's pretty unforgivable, considering that they had no restrictions on what they could build given the site. That people who get paid to design buildings decided that structure would be acceptable is nothing short of mind-boggling. Out of the various crappy interiors of the HOK era, CitiField appears to take the cake.

  7. #7
    I will only give credit for the riverboat in dead center field, but that might be it. I will never understand that gap. Poorly designed is perhaps the right way to put it. Great article. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ripping GABP, it's not that bad as one may believe. It does have some good qualities to their credit (food, fan mists at certain areas), however, all of the newer ballparks look and feel better than GABP.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Great One View Post
    I will only give credit for the riverboat in dead center field, but that might be it. I will never understand that gap. Poorly designed is perhaps the right way to put it. Great article. Don't get me wrong, I'm not ripping GABP, it's not that bad as one may believe. It does have some good qualities to their credit (food, fan mists at certain areas), however, all of the newer ballparks look and feel better than GABP.
    And lets not forget about the Gap. Worst idea ever

  9. #9
    I am a Reds' fan and I like GABP but it falls far short of expectations. It has no personality. I think the word "fragmented" is the best word to describe that park. There is little consistency. I love the sea of red seats and the moon deck in right was a Crosley feature. After that...the park is kind of lost. However...John Allen was the person involved in the design and if you have ever met him, he is one of the most bland people that you would ever come upon. The park is much like him....bland. I think if the Reds could ever have a good team, the park would gain some personality. However...the park may be part of the reason why the Reds will not have a good team because of the small dimensions. The ball literally flies out of that park and the pitching staff's ERA balloons upward also.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,446
    Blog Entries
    8
    Personally, the Reds just tried too hard in my opinion. I'd call for a change in the ballpark dimensions. Yeah, I know that we're in the "Arena" baseball era, but having a ballpark that is simply too small for it's own good is not going to help the team at all. There's no chance of having a triple in this park and the bloated pitcher ERA's make Coors Field look like a stud. You must change that.

    Also, the identity (or lack thereof) of GABP is a big issue. You have a boat past centerfield and smoke stacks...or a lighthouse perhaps. For crying out loud, don't treat the ballpark like it's SeaWorld, because Shamu isn't swimming along the Ohio River.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    1,952
    Quote Originally Posted by Knick9 View Post
    Yeah, I know that we're in the "Arena" baseball era, but having a ballpark that is simply too small for it's own good is not going to help the team at all. There's no chance of having a triple in this park and the bloated pitcher ERA's make Coors Field look like a stud. You must change that.
    You're right, Reds Field is very small, but it doesn't hurt Aaron Harang. Here are his stats at home.

    IP 76 - K 71 - BB 22 - ERA 3.20 - WHIP 1.16 - HR 8

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Lafferty Daniel View Post
    You're right, Reds Field is very small, but it doesn't hurt Aaron Harang. Here are his stats at home.

    IP 76 - K 71 - BB 22 - ERA 3.20 - WHIP 1.16 - HR 8
    Aaron Harang's a beast. However, and I might sound crazy, but I would've stayed at the 2001-2002 version of Riverfront Stadium. Natural grass, all the new version would've needed is a single deck of seats in the outfield and a scoreboard. It would've seated 45,000, good view of the Ohio River. Just my opinion

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    3,454
    Blog Entries
    7
    In the greater scheme of things, the riverboat elements really don't distract too much from what's right with Great American Ball Park -- which is a lot.

    First off, there's an agreeable spaciousness to the ballpark. You can walk around the entire ballpark through a 40-foot-wide concourse, with some strategic areas for viewing the field from the outfield and the gap in the grandstand (again, more on that later). The horseshoe design of the grandstand provides great angles for fans.

    All seats (save the left-field bleacher seats) have a good view of the large outdoor scoreboard. Its most notable feature: an analog clock designed to look like the famous Longines clock in Crosley Field. The scoreboard is large (the fourth-largest in the majors, by our estimates) and comprises three sections focused on fan information (line score, replays, various stats) sitting above advertising. Most MLB scoreboards look like huge ad displays with a little section for fan info; Great American Ball Park bucks that trend. That seems to be keeping with the general practice of minimal ad signage at the ballpark.

    There's something very unique here: a gap between sections of the grandstand. The point is to give fans sitting in the Sun Deck/Moon Deck a view of downtown Cincinnati, while also providing a great vantage point for those standing on the walkway between the sections. This also points up one of the huge advantages to Great American Ball Park: it is an outstanding ballpark for walking and lounging. The number of places to just stand around and watch the game from a different perspective may be the highest we've ever seen in a MLB ballpark: in addition to the aforementioned gap, there are concourses surrounding the entire ballpark, with standing areas in the outfield that give views both of the ballpark and the riverfront.

    Finally, there's one more important aspect to the ballpark worth coverage: history. The original Cincinnati Reds were the first professional team (and reviled by many for that at the time, by the way), and the rich history of Reds baseball is infused in the ballpark. The main entrance, Crosley Terrace, is designed to evoke memories of the Reds' former home, Crosley Field. Statues of former Reds greats Joe Nuxhall, Ted Kluszewski and Ernie Lombardi dominate the area, which is reached after passing through a limestone giant bas relief entitled "Spirit of Baseball." Past the front gates are two large mosaics honoring the original 1869 Cincinnati Red Stockings and the 1970s Reds of the "Big Red Machine" era. Go out to the children's play area in the northwest corner of the concourse level and you'll see historical displays of prior ballparks in Reds history, including the aforementioned Crosley Field, Riverfront Stadium/Cinergy Park and the Palace of Fans.

    http://www.ballparkwatch.com/visits/gabp.htm
    Unlike most other team sports, in which teams usually have an equivalent number of players on the field at any given time, in baseball the hitting team is at a numerical disadvantage, with a maximum of 5 players and 2 base coaches on the field at any time, compared to the fielding team's 9 players. For this reason, leaving the dugout to join a fight is generally considered acceptable in that it results in numerical equivalence on the field, and a fairer fight.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    dayton ohio
    Posts
    185
    I've been to GABP and it's ok but there are two things I don't care for.

    Every seat in that stadium is red. They need a few more colors to make it feel more homey, for a better word. Even Cinergy with all its faults had blue, green and red seats.

    The smokestacks look out of place. I know they want to include the riverboat history of Cincy but they are way too large.

    As for the short distances down the lines, I think they wanted to build a little Crosley Field into the new park but todays hitters can take one out on what would be a fly ball out in many parks.

    Other than that, it's not a bad place to see a game. The sightlines are good and the fans are close to the field.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Onemoredayatshea27 View Post
    I have never been to GABP but the two different seat set ups in the upper deck has always irked me. It's also a little cheesy with the river boat theme even though the location can allow it. It's a bit over the top though kind of like the fake rock pile in Anaheim.
    As an Anaheim resident & an Angel follower, (although a native Clevelander & life long Tribe fan) I have to agree with the above. I'd like that rockpile & fake waterfall all torn out & replaced with seats or batters eye, whatever is most appropriate or necessary. It's jarring in that Anaheim has nothing like that around or near it. I am from the old school I guess. I dont like the rockpile or the "Western Metal Supply Co." (Petco Park) or fake riverboats in center field. (GABP) People like the quirky elements of Crosley and Fenway. Those elements are naturally occuring. They built parks on small slices of land in those days. Today a city will condemn a huge tract of land for a ballpark. In 1912 (Fenway Ebbets ) that would have been laughable. If you want quirky ballparks that work, dont get your city to condemn and clear a square mile of land first. I would be in favor of someone building a park like Crosley or Ebbets (any of the 1909 to say 1923 new concrete and steel parks ) and making an exact copy of it, except for whatever modern day upgrades are thought "necessary" ( ) like luxury boxes, restaurants and improved and more restrooms and concessions. But stay as true to the original designs as possible,including pillars and over hanging upperdecks close to the field instead of a mile away like the "view" level at Angel Stadium ( ) . Then, just be upfront about what you are doing. Come out and just SAY, "We know the fans love Crosley Field (or Ebbets Field etc.) & so we are bringing it back to you as close as we can." This hodgepodge of crap these new parks all have, just doesnt do it for me. I may be in the minority today & thats sad, but for me the parks are all about the baseball games played there. I dont need them to be amusement parks personally. I get the financial arguments behind doing that, but I dont have to like it. I wish the Angels had expanded the LA version of Wrigley Field to the proposed rendering on this thread, ( http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=64023 it's post # 5 ) & just stayed there.
    Last edited by Calif_Eagle; 08-04-2007 at 02:34 PM. Reason: to add a link

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Long Island!
    Posts
    866
    I agree with you, as a Met fan I get the forced Ebbets intimate feel with Citi Field. The problem is that Citi Field is in a parking lot, not the neighborhood confines of Brooklyn, so the intamacy has to be forced to make the fans happy. With GABP, I like the idea that they wanted to go over the top, but their scheme for that idea kind of back-fired.


    D-Rex!

  17. #17
    I like it A LOT. When it was first introduced, I had mixed feelings about it, but now that I've been to almost 100 games there, it's really grown on me. There's not a bad seat in the house in terms of sight lines. The views of the Ohio River and Kentucky from the upper deck are awesome. The Sun/Moon Deck is one of the best sections in baseball. Some of the things there take a little getting used to (batter's eye, smokestacks, giant pepsi signs) but overall it's a great place to watch a game.

  18. #18
    I haven't been to GABP yet, but I really don't get how those guys could pan it so badly in the article. Now I'm no architect, but how can anyone say the place is no better than Cinergy? As a baseball park, GABP works better, and isn't that the point? The place isn't a football stadium every other weekend, it's open to the river, the baseball sightlines are good, it sounds like there's Reds history all over the place, the entire park is in Reds colors, and it sounds like a great place to walk around. What color do they want the batter's eye to be? I respect the Reds for doing something different with this park. Would you guys rather it looked like this? A carbon copy of the Bank, except without the maroon steel that makes the Bank unique. It would have had red brick and green seats and no gap, and the Reds would be just like everybody else



    The original renderings of GABP in its current form had green seats. That would have looked bad too. I think GABP is one of the most unique new parks in the game, and I'm glad somebody bucked the red brick trend

    1997 2003
    Parks I've visited: 30 for 30, plus 5 closed

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by marlins739 View Post
    I haven't been to GABP yet, but I really don't get how those guys could pan it so badly in the article. Now I'm no architect, but how can anyone say the place is no better than Cinergy? As a baseball park, GABP works better, and isn't that the point? The place isn't a football stadium every other weekend, it's open to the river, the baseball sightlines are good, it sounds like there's Reds history all over the place, the entire park is in Reds colors, and it sounds like a great place to walk around. What color do they want the batter's eye to be? I respect the Reds for doing something different with this park. Would you guys rather it looked like this? A carbon copy of the Bank, except without the maroon steel that makes the Bank unique. It would have had red brick and green seats and no gap, and the Reds would be just like everybody else



    The original renderings of GABP in its current form had green seats. That would have looked bad too. I think GABP is one of the most unique new parks in the game, and I'm glad somebody bucked the red brick trend

    What's funny to me is that everyone is always clamoring for something new and different from the red brick and steel trend, but in recent years when something somewhat different has come around, such as GABP or Nationals Park, people have a lot of complaints.

    I guess that just means that unique doesn't necessarily mean good.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by nymdan9 View Post
    What's funny to me is that everyone is always clamoring for something new and different from the red brick and steel trend, but in recent years when something somewhat different has come around, such as GABP or Nationals Park, people have a lot of complaints.

    I guess that just means that unique doesn't necessarily mean good.
    Of course it doesn't. If people are sick of sappy, sugary pop music, it doesn't mean they'll like listening to a 27 minute song of feedback and squealing.

    People want something that is unique AND good. GABP isn't dramatically different from the rest of the parks, and if you look at the architecture, it's an odd combination of the staples of the retro movement, and a true retro-revival for the industrialist International Style of the 20s and 30s. The brick buildings that surround the park are straight out of Gropius' Fagus Factory, and the concourses could've easily been in Fritz Lang's Metropolis.

    The problem, as I see it, is that the inside is horribly muddled. There's an unexplained (or improperly explained) opening in the upper deck. The seating is oddly shaped. The park is disconnected to the river (road or not). It offers a dramatic view of Kentucky marshes. The outfield is surrounded by throwaway, boring buildings and stupid corporate logos, in direct opposition to the sturdy Modernism of the exterior.

    It just doesn't work. Being unique isn't enough.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    1,446
    Blog Entries
    8
    It has to be unique and make sense at the same time. The new ballpark means nothing if there's no reason for having this type of structure here or there (smoke stacks...), and then you completely slap it on anywhere. Like I said, the Reds tried way too hard and in some areas they didn't try hard enough. So, you have a recipe for disaster there.

    As for the Nats new ballpark, it's a complete abomination, simple as that.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    2,989

    GABP Biggest Flaw

    Quote Originally Posted by Lafferty Daniel View Post
    You're right, Reds Field is very small, but it doesn't hurt Aaron Harang. Here are his stats at home.

    IP 76 - K 71 - BB 22 - ERA 3.20 - WHIP 1.16 - HR 8
    Two things:

    1) This is the main reason i dont like GABP - it is too much of a hitters park. Being someone that prefers a well pitched game, this is even worse off on me. I dont come to the park to see 13-11 games with 8 homers. The dimensions at GABP as horrible and it doesnt help that during the hott summers, the ball just flies out. They need to move the fences back and i'm pretty suprised there hasnt been any serious talk of it.

    2) Would people please stop making the argument that So and So Stud Pitcher does well at GABP. Of course Harang does well in GABP, as my friend put it, "he is a beast." However, i think if you look at the average, pitchers fair much less well in Cincy as they do else where in the league. Of course there are some exceptions, but Cincy gives up the most homers - FACT.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    2,989

    Red Seats

    [QUOTE=driver62;966286]I've been to GABP and it's ok but there are two things I don't care for.

    Every seat in that stadium is red. They need a few more colors to make it feel more homey, for a better word. Even Cinergy with all its faults had blue, green and red seats.QUOTE]

    Thats funny, this is like one of the only things i like about GABP. I want the Reds ballpark to have..... red seats. I think the sea of red is very nice, much like at Busch. That why Ed Smith Stadium in Sarasota was always puzzling to me, with the blue seats (even though thats because it wasnt built for the Reds). But i guess that doesnt matter now because they are out of there shortly now.

    G Man

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Dayton, OH
    Posts
    3,454
    Blog Entries
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by gman5431 View Post
    Two things:

    1) This is the main reason i dont like GABP - it is too much of a hitters park. Being someone that prefers a well pitched game, this is even worse off on me. I dont come to the park to see 13-11 games with 8 homers. The dimensions at GABP as horrible and it doesnt help that during the hott summers, the ball just flies out. They need to move the fences back and i'm pretty suprised there hasnt been any serious talk of it.

    2) Would people please stop making the argument that So and So Stud Pitcher does well at GABP. Of course Harang does well in GABP, as my friend put it, "he is a beast." However, i think if you look at the average, pitchers fair much less well in Cincy as they do else where in the league. Of course there are some exceptions, but Cincy gives up the most homers - FACT.
    The GABP still has some great games such as the 1-0 12 inning game that I went to this summer. One thing about a small ballpark is that it allows me as a fan to believe that we have a better shot at coming from behind. Plus with a small ballpark, we don't have to see Griffey and Dunn chase after balls as much.
    Unlike most other team sports, in which teams usually have an equivalent number of players on the field at any given time, in baseball the hitting team is at a numerical disadvantage, with a maximum of 5 players and 2 base coaches on the field at any time, compared to the fielding team's 9 players. For this reason, leaving the dugout to join a fight is generally considered acceptable in that it results in numerical equivalence on the field, and a fairer fight.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    1,107
    Quote Originally Posted by redlegsfan21 View Post
    The GABP still has some great games such as the 1-0 12 inning game that I went to this summer. One thing about a small ballpark is that it allows me as a fan to believe that we have a better shot at coming from behind. Plus with a small ballpark, we don't have to see Griffey and Dunn chase after balls as much.
    Remember, the coming from behind thing goes both ways. I will never forget the game in which the Cardinals were down by like 9 runs or something in the 9th and won.

Page 1 of 16 12311 ... 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
  •