Most Generic Ballpark

[spark240]

Originally Posted by mdseverin

[Nationals Park] fits in with the surrounding area.

Does it? Was there any effort to tie it in with the waterfront?

No. The best river view is from one of the less-used ramps to the upper decks.

Even just with respect to buildings, the potential for a Capitol view was mostly neglected, and those godawful parking structures block out most of what's left.

Sidewalks and street crossings around the park don't accommodate crowds well, especially after games, and there are no parks or plazas.

[Power Wally]

Originally Posted by abronson86

Since Tropicana Field is a domed stadium, I feel like that can be put in ANY city and look right. Just switch up the corporate sponsorship and you've got yourself a stadium.

I hesitate to put Rogers Centre there because you have the CN Tower right next to it, which makes it unique.

Though I hate to say it, Dodger Stadium is kind of "generic" as well. Yes, the massive renovation projects have helped, but really the only thing that makes Dodger Stadium unique is the area surrounding the stadium.

I dont know what stadium is the most generic, but Chavez Ravine doesn't come close. To start with, there is the towering general admission super-upper level behind home plate. No other stadium has that. The pastel colors have returned, reflection are perfect in the hazy sky. The palm trees watch the game from their prime location behind the bullpens. When the smog does blow out and the skies are clear, the San Gabriel Mountains peek over the local hills for a double-decker of natures glory.

[Tullydew]

Turner Field edges out Citi Field.

Both are very generic and unoriginal.

Nationals Park takes a distant 3rd.

[whitesox901:]

Comerica Park

[JaysExpos]

New Comiskey, hands down. Even with the renovations to what is now "The Cell", it is so bland and nothing really stands out about it except how horrible and generic the design is.

I always remember liking Turner Field as something unique. Nowadays, a lot of new parks have sprung up that follow the same formula. But Turner Field remains unique to me because its dimensions aren't as contrived as they are at a lot of newer stadiums, and because it came before the imitators.

[kovolev]

+1 Comerica

not that I don't like Comerica, its just there's nothing particularly unique about it

Red Brick
Downtown locale
wraparound concourse
big scoreboard
kid friendly
luxury suites
cheap seats in a different zip code

Busch is pretty generic by todays standards too

....and keep in mind that generic by todays standards is better than 70's-80's era generic

[scooterfan]

Just about all these new ballparks are generic. They're all built by the same firm and they all have many of the same features. Except for nooks and crannies when I walk into one of them I feel like I've walked into them all.

Dodger Stadium is generic?? No way. It's the last true baseball stadium we have left.

[Lpeters199]

Originally Posted by kovolev

+1 Comerica

not that I don't like Comerica, its just there's nothing particularly unique about it

Red Brick
Downtown locale
wraparound concourse
big scoreboard
kid friendly
luxury suites
cheap seats in a different zip code

Busch is pretty generic by todays standards too

....and keep in mind that generic by todays standards is better than 70's-80's era generic

Agreed. Plus Tigers management made it even more generic by erecting an interior fence in left field to cut down the home run distance. Let 'em earn their homers.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by JaysExpos

New Comiskey, hands down. Even with the renovations to what is now "The Cell", it is so bland and nothing really stands out about it except how horrible and generic the design is.

Horrible? Bland? Generic? How? Compared to what?

I always remember liking Turner Field as something unique. Nowadays, a lot of new parks have sprung up that follow the same formula. But Turner Field remains unique to me because its dimensions aren't as contrived as they are at a lot of newer stadiums, and because it came before the imitators.

Wait...so you're praising the lack of contrived quirkiness at Turner but denigrating The Cell?

Arlington and Coors came before Turner, BTW.

[JaysExpos]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Horrible? Bland? Generic? How? Compared to what?

Whenever I think of The Cell, I think of the drab grey interior with the gigantic and unsightly three levels of luxury seating occupying the space between the lower and upper deck. The lack of anything interesting in the outfield beyond the fence; even 500 foot home runs end up in the one deck of outfield seating. Which brings me to the lack of outfield seating options. If the seating was split between two decks it would give people more options to watch the game. Other than these criticisms, there really isn't anything about the stadium to write home about. I keep hearing that the upper deck is way too steep, but this is the kinda you stuff you need to experience to give an opinion on. To put it simply, it just doesn't stand out at all, except for its flaws. That's generic, and then some.

If you'd like me to compare The Cell to another ballpark, I'd have to go with Kauffman Stadium. They are both essentially cut from the same cloth; modern stadiums that are serviceable and don't try to be flashy. Kauffman does it with a certain charm and flare. US Cellular Field is outclassed by it in every possible category - by a mile, except rapid transit access. But that has nothing to do with the park itself.

Wait...so you're praising the lack of contrived quirkiness at Turner but denigrating The Cell?

Arlington and Coors came before Turner, BTW.

Arlington is as contrived as they come. There's no reason to have all those nooks and crannies in the outfield, or having it look the way it does in the middle of suburbia. The porch in right field is just dumb.

Coors does follow the formula we see replicated now, but back then the "retro" thing was still new enough that it didn't seem to matter. Likewise with Turner, although the dimensions aren't as contrived. It's like Turner isn't trying to be anything it's not.

[Cool Papa B.]

I haven't actually been there, but seeing it on TV several times I would have to say Great American Ballpark in Cinncinati. It looks bland, boring and has too many gimmicks.

[mdseverin]

I think when New Comisky Park opened it was very generic. There were ramps all around the exterior, a lot of blue in the interior, no homage to the Sox or old Comisky except for the pinwheels on the scoreboard.

But once it was renamed US Cellular Field and the renovations were made, it became a very distinguished ball park. You can see more of the arched windows, the exterior is not made of brick, the grey paint is more in line with the Sox colors, they made the outfield more inviting, they removed rows of seats in the upper deck and put a roof up, there are statues all around the park of Sox players, and the concourses are littered with Sox pictures and logos. Their scoreboard is the only thing that really needs to be renovated. Old Comisky was known for it's "exploding scoreboard." The one they have now is not up to par with the newer ones. The screen is small and just looks outdated.

[mdseverin]

Originally Posted by spark240

Does it? Was there any effort to tie it in with the waterfront?

No. The best river view is from one of the less-used ramps to the upper decks.

Even just with respect to buildings, the potential for a Capitol view was mostly neglected, and those godawful parking structures block out most of what's left.

Sidewalks and street crossings around the park don't accommodate crowds well, especially after games, and there are no parks or plazas.

I've never been to Nationals Park, but it was my understanding that the modern look of the stadium fell in line with other buildings in that area. I think a lot of people wanted this park to have the white columns and look more like something that should be on the National Mall. I was told that if it was designed like that, it would look really out of place in that area.

Now I'm not sure how they could really incorporate the water front into the stadium. I think the planners probably weighed the idea of having a view of the water or a view of the capital and chose the capital.

[Smirkman]

Originally Posted by mdseverin

I've never been to Nationals Park, but it was my understanding that the modern look of the stadium fell in line with other buildings in that area. I think a lot of people wanted this park to have the white columns and look more like something that should be on the National Mall. I was told that if it was designed like that, it would look really out of place in that area.

Now I'm not sure how they could really incorporate the water front into the stadium. I think the planners probably weighed the idea of having a view of the water or a view of the capital and chose the capital.

If Nationals Park were orientated to face the water the views would be blocked by development anyway. The Florida Rock property development has been on the books for years (although the name has changed). Please also keep in mind that the views to the south are no treat. The Anacostia may not be the Charles, but is is one of the more polluted urban rivers thanks to runoff from the MD suburbs. Across the river sits one of DC's worst neighborhoods so there is no treat there either. The correct choice was to have left field face north.

I think any of the new ballparks can be considered generic since there is no history at these locations. Simply based on architecture, I think Turner Field. Seating bowl - the Cell, Yankee Stadium, Dodger Stadium.

[NYBase]

Originally Posted by Cool Papa B.

I haven't actually been there, but seeing it on TV several times I would have to say Great American Ballpark in Cinncinati. It looks bland, boring and has too many gimmicks.

I hate that place, stupid steamboat in centerfield. I guess I have to see the view of the river in person... on TV the river looks like the Meadowlands.

[Captain Cold Nose]

Originally Posted by NYBase

I hate that place, stupid steamboat in centerfield. I guess I have to see the view of the river in person... on TV the river looks like the Meadowlands.

It's a river, one of the largest in the country. Now I like the fact that the boat is there, as that is a very important part of Cincinnati heritage. Could they have put more seats out there? Maybe. I actually have some pictures of the stadium from one of those ships while on the river. Pretty cool, imo.

What I like about GABP is you do have an excellent view of the field from practically every seat. How can something be boring, bland and too gimmicky at the same time?

[mdseverin]

Originally Posted by NYBase

I hate that place, stupid steamboat in centerfield. I guess I have to see the view of the river in person... on TV the river looks like the Meadowlands.

It's gimiky, but that doesn't mean generic. There are a lot of things that make it stand out. The two different upper decks, the gap behind home plate, red seats, the riverboat in outfield, the Reds museum, and the use of white steel and brick exterior.

I think it could have been designed a lot better though

[muckandgrind]

Originally Posted by JaysExpos

Arlington is as contrived as they come. There's no reason to have all those nooks and crannies in the outfield, or having it look the way it does in the middle of suburbia. The porch in right field is just dumb.

I agree 100%.

[spark240]

Originally Posted by Smirkman

If Nationals Park were orientated to face the water the views would be blocked by development anyway. The Florida Rock property development has been on the books for years (although the name has changed). Please also keep in mind that the views to the south are no treat. The Anacostia may not be the Charles, but is is one of the more polluted urban rivers thanks to runoff from the MD suburbs. Across the river sits one of DC's worst neighborhoods so there is no treat there either. The correct choice was to have left field face north.

I wasn't talking about having the park face the water, necessarily, just about a design, any design, that acknowledged the water was there.

And the way to improve a waterfront and a neighborhood is to acknowledge it and work with it, not neglect it.

[Smirkman]

Originally Posted by spark240

I wasn't talking about having the park face the water, necessarily, just about a design, any design, that acknowledged the water was there.

And the way to improve a waterfront and a neighborhood is to acknowledge it and work with it, not neglect it.

I agree. They have been trying to clean up the Anacostia for years and Poplar Point across the river is slated for development, but the city thought the north side of the ballpark had a better opportunity for development. They were right, but the recession has slowed things to a crawl.

The stadium does acknowledge the riverfront. It has the great stairs, the opening to view the water and the windows from the club level look out to the river (even if their views may eventually be blocked). In addition the entire ground level was designed to have retail, but there is no demand so the storefronts sit empty. At some point the area will have activity on non-game days as well. Maybe 2012, when we start winning more than we lose.

[jnakamura]

Originally Posted by mdseverin

I was told that if it was designed like that, it would look really out of place in that area.

That's a bogus argument IMO. Yankee Stadium hardly follows the style or look of its surrounding neighborhood's architecture. It sticks out and is proud of it.

[mdseverin]

Originally Posted by jnakamura

That's a bogus argument IMO. Yankee Stadium hardly follows the style or look of its surrounding neighborhood's architecture. It sticks out and is proud of it.

Good point. It probably came down to $

[BigMac1212]

I kinda wonder when Chase Field is mentioned. It's pretty boring, coming from a D-Backs fan.

[mdseverin]

Originally Posted by BigMac1212

I kinda wonder when Chase Field is mentioned. It's pretty boring, coming from a D-Backs fan.

I really don't like Chase Field. I was there last year and it's probably the worst park I've been to. It is very boring on the outside. It looks like a giant box. The inside is not that great either. When I went the roof was closed. I would imagine it's like that for most games because of the heat. I thought it was very dark inside. There is very little natural light that comes in. The outfield windows are blocked by large ads.

I was going to list this as one of the most generic parks but didn't just because no other park looks like this. But, you really could put this park anywhwere in the US.

[skobabe8]

Originally Posted by mdseverin

I think when New Comisky Park opened it was very generic. There were ramps all around the exterior, a lot of blue in the interior, no homage to the Sox or old Comisky except for the pinwheels on the scoreboard.

But once it was renamed US Cellular Field and the renovations were made, it became a very distinguished ball park. You can see more of the arched windows, the exterior is not made of brick, the grey paint is more in line with the Sox colors, they made the outfield more inviting, they removed rows of seats in the upper deck and put a roof up, there are statues all around the park of Sox players, and the concourses are littered with Sox pictures and logos. Their scoreboard is the only thing that really needs to be renovated. Old Comisky was known for it's "exploding scoreboard." The one they have now is not up to par with the newer ones. The screen is small and just looks outdated.

Agree with everything.

I can't put 'generic' and MLB ballaprk' in the same sentence. I don't think any are generic. I think some copy off others way too much, and there is a lack of real thought put into most designs, but I cant say generic.