Page 51 of 224 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101151 ... LastLast
Results 1,251 to 1,275 of 5587

Thread: Target Field

  1. #1251
    I suppose Target is slightly better than Wal-Mart Stadium in name and quality.

  2. #1252
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South St Paul, MN
    Posts
    200
    Quote Originally Posted by Rob R View Post
    Xcel Energy would have been a cool name.
    Umm..... I hope you ain't serious.

    They already have the Wild's Arena in St Paul. Xcel Energy Center, also called "The X"

    Although, the open concourses, general layout, etc of Target Field ARE modeled after the X, which was also designed by HOK. Considering how much I like the X for Hockey, I'm very hopeful about watching Twinkie's games here.
    There's no use being pessimistic, it won't work anyways

  3. #1253
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgeboy View Post
    Umm..... I hope you ain't serious.

    They already have the Wild's Arena in St Paul. Xcel Energy Center, also called "The X"

    Although, the open concourses, general layout, etc of Target Field ARE modeled after the X, which was also designed by HOK. Considering how much I like the X for Hockey, I'm very hopeful about watching Twinkie's games here.
    Yeah, I was serious. Just the words - Xcel and Energy seem powerful, but I suppose they'd shorten it and call it the "X" which would diminish it. Forgot about the Xcel Energy Center. Duh me (RNC).
    Last edited by Rob R; 09-16-2008 at 04:57 PM.

  4. #1254
    Quote Originally Posted by Dodgeboy View Post
    Umm..... I hope you ain't serious.

    They already have the Wild's Arena in St Paul. Xcel Energy Center, also called "The X"
    thats a silly point. ever hear of the Target Center? its kinda across the street...

  5. #1255
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    1,953
    Here are some aerials courtesy of WCCO & FOX 9.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #1256
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    1,953
    A view from the lovely HERC plant. Courtesy of the Star Tribune.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #1257
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    New Prague, MN
    Posts
    226
    Blog Entries
    1
    Can't wait to see the stands start getting filled in.
    1924 1987 1991
    1925, 1933, 1965
    1969, 1970, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010
    10/26/1991
    ....And we'll see you tomorrow night!

  8. #1258
    Not to be too much of a downer, but the design of Target Field is surprisingly poor given that it will be one of the last modern ballparks to be built. The seating arrangement in left field will lend itself to hundreds, if not thousands, of empty seats because some of those left field seats are atrociously bad. And why the heck would you devote so much space in the left field corner to an office building if you are short on space to being with?



    Given the location of the site in relation to downtown, it would have made far more sense to give the ballpark an orientation with home plate facing southeast rather than due east.

    It's not as bad as Miller Park, but I would argue that Target Field is in the lower tier of new ballparks.

  9. #1259
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Athens, Ga
    Posts
    2,137
    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    Not to be too much of a downer...
    I'd hate to see it when you do mean to be much of a downer.

  10. #1260
    Quote Originally Posted by JohnCropp View Post
    I'd hate to see it when you do mean to be much of a downer.
    I apologize, but I just don't get why so many people are fawning over such a poorly designed ballpark. I suppose anything outdoors would be an improvement over the status quo.

  11. #1261
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    Not to be too much of a downer, but the design of Target Field is surprisingly poor given that it will be one of the last modern ballparks to be built. The seating arrangement in left field will lend itself to hundreds, if not thousands, of empty seats because some of those left field seats are atrociously bad. And why the heck would you devote so much space in the left field corner to an office building if you are short on space to being with?



    Given the location of the site in relation to downtown, it would have made far more sense to give the ballpark an orientation with home plate facing southeast rather than due east.

    It's not as bad as Miller Park, but I would argue that Target Field is in the lower tier of new ballparks.
    If you're basing your comments on the model picture you attached, you should find some of the newer renderings. (Stadium Page has the current ones - under 'future ballparks' or something similar) What you have pictured there isn't the final design.

    The building you're talking about is the Twins' administration building. For one thing, I know that they plan on placing a "party deck" on the top, which should be pretty sweet, as far as I'm concerned. As far as I know, the open concourses in the main grandstand and left field will connect there, so it's not like people won't be able to see the game from there. Corner seats are some of the least desired in any ballpark anyway - so this is a non-issue for me. Look at the Metrodome on any given night. nobody wants to pay the extra dough when right across the aisle, there's cheap left field seats. The "office building", as you call it, also will house a train station. They're cramming everything they can into a small space.

    and as for the "due east" configuration- have you ever been to downtown Minneapolis? all the streets run parallel to the river, not east west. So, in order to maintain a skyline view, this, as far as I know, was the only option available.

    In no way do I think this place will be a "lower tier" ballpark. But, I'm willing to at least wait until the place opens and I've seen a game there before I pass judgment.

  12. #1262
    Quote Originally Posted by Don_Taco View Post
    and as for the "due east" configuration- have you ever been to downtown Minneapolis? all the streets run parallel to the river, not east west. So, in order to maintain a skyline view, this, as far as I know, was the only option available.
    They could have built a ballpark with homeplate facing southeast, in which case, the parking ramp would have been in left-center field, and not in right-center field as is the case now. The foul lines would not have been parallel to the grid, but would have been 45 degrees off, as is the case at Petco Park, Citizens Bank Park, and Comerica Park. It would have been a tight fit, but I've done the measurements, and it could have been done.

    If the majority is happy with the design, then I guess that's all that matters. For what it's worth, I have been to Downtown Minneapolis, and I think it's lovely.

  13. #1263
    Quote Originally Posted by Don_Taco View Post
    The building you're talking about is the Twins' administration building. For one thing, I know that they plan on placing a "party deck" on the top, which should be pretty sweet, as far as I'm concerned. As far as I know, the open concourses in the main grandstand and left field will connect there, so it's not like people won't be able to see the game from there. Corner seats are some of the least desired in any ballpark anyway - so this is a non-issue for me. Look at the Metrodome on any given night. nobody wants to pay the extra dough when right across the aisle, there's cheap left field seats. The "office building", as you call it, also will house a train station. They're cramming everything they can into a small space.
    With all due respect, I think it's short-sighted not to recognize the drawbacks of having such a large upper deck in left-field. It will obstruct the view to the northeast, and Twins highlights on TV will very often show a lot of empty green seats when the camera pans to left field. Furthermore, the architects (and the Twins) would have been forgiven for placing the bullpens in foul territory because of the small size of the property. It would have been better for the architects to fill in the large gaps in the main seating bowl (the left-field corner and the outfield bullpens) in order to eliminate the need for a large upper deck in the outfield.

  14. #1264
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    They could have built a ballpark with homeplate facing southeast, in which case, the parking ramp would have been in left-center field, and not in right-center field as is the case now. The foul lines would not have been parallel to the grid, but would have been 45 degrees off, as is the case at Petco Park, Citizens Bank Park, and Comerica Park. It would have been a tight fit, but I've done the measurements, and it could have been done.

    If the majority is happy with the design, then I guess that's all that matters. For what it's worth, I have been to Downtown Minneapolis, and I think it's lovely.
    I guess I just don't see how that matters all that much. I believe it is the way it is now (with the first base line parallel with 7th street) is so they could fully utilize the space underneath 7th. Like I was saying, it's a very tight fit. FSN North ran tour of the park construction a few weeks back, and some Twins wonk said that if the site was something like 10 feet smaller in any direction, they couldn't build a park there.

  15. #1265
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Minneapolis
    Posts
    211
    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    With all due respect, I think it's short-sighted not to recognize the drawbacks of having such a large upper deck in left-field. It will obstruct the view to the northeast, and Twins highlights on TV will very often show a lot of empty green seats when the camera pans to left field. Furthermore, the architects (and the Twins) would have been forgiven for placing the bullpens in foul territory because of the small size of the property. It would have been better for the architects to fill in the large gaps in the main seating bowl (the left-field corner and the outfield bullpens) in order to eliminate the need for a large upper deck in the outfield.
    okay, you'll have to let me know exactly what 'view' you're talking about. The Ford Centre? that's about the only thing to the northeast of the park.

    I believe the left field will be amongst the first seats to sell out. They're presumably cheaper, and that's how it is in the Dome now - folks want to sit where they can catch homeruns. I'm sure any of the seats in left field - or in all of the outfield for that matter - will be cheaper than anything in the grandstand - and Minnesotans are notoriously frugal, if I may be so bold.

    As for the bullpens, yeah, they could've made that space into seats and move them into foul territory, but I believe I read somewhere the Twins specifically asked for the bullpens to be off the field - they were tired of the setup like they have currently.

  16. #1266
    Quote Originally Posted by Don_Taco View Post
    okay, you'll have to let me know exactly what 'view' you're talking about. The Ford Centre? that's about the only thing to the northeast of the park.

    I believe the left field will be amongst the first seats to sell out. They're presumably cheaper, and that's how it is in the Dome now - folks want to sit where they can catch homeruns. I'm sure any of the seats in left field - or in all of the outfield for that matter - will be cheaper than anything in the grandstand - and Minnesotans are notoriously frugal, if I may be so bold.

    As for the bullpens, yeah, they could've made that space into seats and move them into foul territory, but I believe I read somewhere the Twins specifically asked for the bullpens to be off the field - they were tired of the setup like they have currently.
    True, the Twins deserve much of blame (or credit, depending on your point of view) for the ballpark's design.

    I would assert that any open view in the outfield is good...certainly better than looking at rows of seats that will be only half full on most nights. In the Twins case, a view to the northeast in the current orientation would have been to the neighborhood between the ballpark and the river.

    There isn't anything all that spectacular north of Wrigley Field, but the open views of the neighborhoods to the north and east are important elements of what makes it such a great park.

  17. #1267

    Cool

    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    With all due respect, I think it's short-sighted not to recognize the drawbacks of having such a large upper deck in left-field. It will obstruct the view to the northeast, and Twins highlights on TV will very often show a lot of empty green seats when the camera pans to left field.
    Also, how a sports facility looks on TV should not be the concern of athletic architectural consultants. Lots of empty green seats? Turn the color down!
    RYS to NYS: "Obi-Lonn never told you what happened to your father."

    NYS: "He told me enough. He told me you killed him - in the 1970s!!"

    RYS: "No, I am your father..."

    NYS: "No, it's not true, that's impossible!!!!"

    RYS: "Look beyond my respirator pods and my upper crown; you know it to be true!

  18. #1268
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Venice, CA
    Posts
    1,953
    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    I would assert that any open view in the outfield is good...certainly better than looking at rows of seats that will be only half full on most nights. In the Twins case, a view to the northeast in the current orientation would have been to the neighborhood between the ballpark and the river.
    The Twins have averaged roughly 2 million fans a year at the giant inflatable toilet since the beginning of this decade. What makes you think that these seats at the new ballpark will be "half full on most nights?" I think you are underestimating our fan base that is yearning to finally watch baseball outside again.

    As for the left field seats, you're right, they're not perfect. Some fans that choose to sit there will have partially obstructed views of the left field wall area. Like Don said, these seats should be a hit because of the price, and the fact that many fans choose to sit in this area at the dome because they like to try and catch home runs.

    They'll also be popular because they remind fans of the left field bleachers at Metropolitan Stadium. These seats will be nostalgic without being contrived.

  19. #1269
    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    True, the Twins deserve much of blame (or credit, depending on your point of view) for the ballpark's design.

    I would assert that any open view in the outfield is good...certainly better than looking at rows of seats that will be only half full on most nights. In the Twins case, a view to the northeast in the current orientation would have been to the neighborhood between the ballpark and the river.

    There isn't anything all that spectacular north of Wrigley Field, but the open views of the neighborhoods to the north and east are important elements of what makes it such a great park.
    Um, what? You mean the neighborhoods that are like 5 blocks away? The only thing that's immediatly NE of the site is the aforementioned Ford Center, and parking lots. Conversely, you would have great views of the "garbage burner" out left field in that configuration... Sign me up for that!

    Moose

  20. #1270
    Quote Originally Posted by moose97 View Post
    Um, what? You mean the neighborhoods that are like 5 blocks away? The only thing that's immediatly NE of the site is the aforementioned Ford Center, and parking lots. Conversely, you would have great views of the "garbage burner" out left field in that configuration... Sign me up for that!
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that both structures to which you are referring (the "garbage burner" and the Ford Center) are located on the other side of the tracks. What I am proposing is that, assuming that the Twins insisted on the orientation that was chosen, the architects shouldn't have put an upper deck in left field; instead, they should have put seats in the left-field corner and in left-center field (the current bullpens) to get to 40,000 seats. This change would have allowed for a view to the northeast (not due north as I think you are suggesting) in addition to the southeast. Neither the Ford Center nor the garbage facility would be in view (at least from home plate) had the left-field seats been designed as a single-level structure.
    Last edited by pudgie_child; 09-17-2008 at 08:59 PM.

  21. #1271
    Quote Originally Posted by pudgie_child View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that both structures to which you are referring (the "garbage burner" and the Ford Center) are located on the other side of the tracks. What I am proposing is that, assuming that the Twins insisted on the orientation that was chosen, the architects shouldn't have put an upper deck in left field; instead, they should have put seats in the left-field corner and in left-center field (the current bullpens) to get to 40,000 seats. This change would have allowed for a view to the northeast (not due north as I think you are suggesting) in addition to the southeast. Neither the Ford Center nor the garbage facility would be in view (at least from home plate) had the left-field seats been designed as a single-level structure.
    My comment about the HERC is in response to your comment about orienting home plate in the SE corner... And i stand by my comment that all you're losing is a view of parking lots. Not the end of the world.

    Moose

  22. #1272
    Quote Originally Posted by moose97 View Post
    My comment about the HERC is in response to your comment about orienting home plate in the SE corner... And i stand by my comment that all you're losing is a view of parking lots. Not the end of the world.
    That makes more sense. True, the area to the northeast is parking lots now, but it will likely be developed in the near future.

    Actually, my preferred orientation was home plate facing southeast (i.e., on the northwest side of the property). The line between home plate and the pitcher's mound would have run parallel to 5th Street, and the center field seats would have contoured with the slight curve in the 394 (with 3rd Avenue and certain on-ramps being eliminated). The view corridor in this orientation would have "scanned" from southeast (in straightaway center field) to south (in straightaway right field).

  23. #1273
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    South St Paul, MN
    Posts
    200

    Left Field Bleachers

    Remember, the playing field is 25+ feet below street level. The TOP of the lower deck, and the entire main concourse, is at street level. Without an upper deck in left, there would be no visible structure along the street there.
    Besides, it's not really that bad: (from twinsballpark2010.com)
    Fifth Street.jpg

    As far as the office building: corners are terrible seats, so why bother putting any seats there?
    There's no use being pessimistic, it won't work anyways

  24. #1274

    Smile

    Guys.
    The line from 3rd base to 1st base should face south if the field is oriented properly, which Target Field is. That's how they got the name southpaw, beacause when a lefty was in the stretch, he was facing south. They have not done this at many new parks but should. I think it's suggested even in the rule book. If you don't do it this way you get terrible shadows - Tigers new park (Comerica) is one I can think of.

  25. #1275
    Quote Originally Posted by J2K View Post
    Guys.
    The line from 3rd base to 1st base should face south if the field is oriented properly, which Target Field is. That's how they got the name southpaw, beacause when a lefty was in the stretch, he was facing south. They have not done this at many new parks but should. I think it's suggested even in the rule book. If you don't do it this way you get terrible shadows - Tigers new park (Comerica) is one I can think of.
    There are a number of new ballparks where home plate faces southeast (including the "gold standard" of the new parks, PNC Park):

    U.S. Cellular Field
    County Stadium and, later, Miller Park
    Great American Ballpark
    The Ballpark at Arlington (aka Rangers Ballpark)
    PNC Park

    In a ballpark where home plate faces southeast, a left-handed pitcher is still a southpaw. Comerica Park is problematic because home plate nearly faces due south.
    Last edited by pudgie_child; 09-18-2008 at 11:04 AM.

Page 51 of 224 FirstFirst ... 41495051525361101151 ... 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
  •