Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Ballpark Aesthetics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • New Ballpark Aesthetics

    Am I the only person who looks at places like Safeco and Miller Park and imagines what a 747 would look like with propellors and a multi-riveted exterior for the sake of nostalgia? Seeing a retractable roof and all it's state- of-the-art machinery on top of a brick facade and giant archways is seeing an ugly building. Will the zeitgeist of the era in which these places were built be forgotten as they attain landmark status, like most of Washington D.C. and it's faux Greek theme, or will people see them as a plaid blazer with striped pants?

    Which of the new parks looks the most like Ty Cobb wearing Mizuno batting gloves, or Huck Finn showing Jim how to program an i-pod? Do tell, and feel free to use an inspiring simile (or two).
    smoker

  • #2
    You're probably not the only person who doesn't care for some of the architectural styles, just like I'm not the only person who feels most of the newer parks are pretty cool.
    Never confuse character with geography --- Red Smith
    Astros Daily

    Comment


    • #3
      I tend to agree with you, but only time will tell for sure. But most of these new stadiums use the term architecture quite loosely. Where is the forward thinking?

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree but there is a reason for retractable roofs (try going to a game in Milwaukee in April or Houston in August and you'll get my point). As for architecture, alot of these new Camden Yards knockoffs are this era's multipurpose doughnut. Who was the pitcher who once said he could be standing on the mound and couldn't tell if he was in St. Louis, Pittsburgh or Cincinnati?

        Comment


        • #5
          There is a reason for a retractable roof. If you put one on the Coliseum in Rome, would it not look out of place? Would the Coliseum look the way it does if it were originally designed for a retractable roof?

          I'm saying these places, fun as they may be, are ugly hybrids of past and present. Wanna build an old-timey ballpark? Don't put a roof on top. It ruins the mirage.
          smoker

          Comment


          • #6
            I think the new ballparks are great. They are SO much better than the cookie cutter late 60's parks. I totally disagree with all the "architects" here at Baseball Fever. I think the new stadiums are mostly dynamic and interesting.

            Some them are better than others. Some teams (the Reds and the Brewers) built cheap and chose their location poorly, but others were more thoughtful and patient and built something cool as hell like PNC or SBC/Pac Bell.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by riverfrontier
              There is a reason for a retractable roof. If you put one on the Coliseum in Rome, would it not look out of place? Would the Coliseum look the way it does if it were originally designed for a retractable roof?

              I'm saying these places, fun as they may be, are ugly hybrids of past and present. Wanna build an old-timey ballpark? Don't put a roof on top. It ruins the mirage.

              Except the Coliseum did have a retractable roof.

              I can't speak for all of the retractable roof stadiums but I don't really see Miller Park as being ugly. Sure Miller Park and almost all parks belong in a neighborhood type setting instead surrounded by a lake of parking but the building itself from the outside isn't ugly to me.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Elysian Fields
                Some them are better than others. Some teams (the Reds and the Brewers) built cheap and chose their location poorly, but others were more thoughtful and patient and built something cool as hell like PNC or SBC/Pac Bell.

                PNC has a great location in terms of views from inside the stadium, but I don't see a big difference between their actual stadium and say the Brewers or the Reds. I would the same thing for AT&T park. While I haven't visited it yet it does look a whole lot like Miller Park from the outside. Same color bricks, same brickwork, so on and so on. The only difference again being location.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Elysian Fields
                  I think the new ballparks are great. They are SO much better than the cookie cutter late 60's parks. I totally disagree with all the "architects" here at Baseball Fever. I think the new stadiums are mostly dynamic and interesting.
                  1. A cold water flat is SO much better than a cardboard box in an alley.

                  2. What is exactly "dynamic and interesting" about the architecture and vision of these newer parks?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Ehh, Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, and Wrigley Field...those places and those places only should NEVER have a retractable roof. I mean think if you're planning a trip to Minute Maid Park, and it rains well they can just put up the Roof. See is what I can't stand is sitting in the nosebleed durring the summer, too damn hot...they need to put the roof up than so I can atleast get some shade.
                    "he probably used some performance enhancing drugs so he could do a better job on his report...i hear they make you gain weight" - Dr. Zizmor

                    "I thought it was interesting and yes a conversation piece. Next time I post a similar story I will close with the question "So, do you think either of them have used steroids?" so that I can make the topic truly relevant to discussions about today's game." - Eric Davis

                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gqul1GyK7-g

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Ubiquitous is right, the Coliseum had a retractable roof. The Romans liked to be under the shade just as much as we do.

                      What I mean by "dynamic and interesting" is feng shui, better sight lines, and not just a round concrete thing a la Busch II, Riverfront, Three Rivers, and Olympic Stadium. HOK architects and others have put a lot of thought into where they should build a stadium, like where there is a back drop to the ball game or the park is downtown (except for Miller). That's cool. Seats in the stadium are turned towards the field. There are no sight obstructions like there are at Fenway or like there were at Tiger Stadium.

                      I don't think all of them are great. Miller and Great American bother me. Milwaukee should have built the thing downtown and it doesn't need a roof (is really hotter there than in Chicago?). GAB is plain for a new park. Citizens Bank is also poorly located.

                      Some of the more interesting parks are now in the Minor Leagues. So you also have to think about what the smaller teams are doing.

                      The reality is there isn't much you can do with a pallpark. It's a ballpark. It is going to have look more or less the same. You're going to have stands around the diamond. That is functionally what you have to have. Can't get around it.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Elysian Fields
                        I think the new ballparks are great. They are SO much better than the cookie cutter late 60's parks. I totally disagree with all the "architects" here at Baseball Fever. I think the new stadiums are mostly dynamic and interesting.

                        Some them are better than others. Some teams (the Reds and the Brewers) built cheap and chose their location poorly, but others were more thoughtful and patient and built something cool as hell like PNC or SBC/Pac Bell.
                        I pretty much agree with this. I don't know that much about Miller Park beyond what I see on tv, but the retractable roof at Safeco blends in just fine with the architecture, imo. You get the best of "both worlds" so to speak in that it's a very nice open-air stadium, yet you can still put an "umbrella" over it in the event of rain... and it's still an open air stadium (not a dome) with the roof overhead.

                        I don't love all of the new ballparks, but PNC and AT&T with their classic architure and urban waterfront locations are cool as heck. Not a fan of the Texas and Houston stadiums.

                        Some of the best "new" stadiums, imo:

                        1. Safeco
                        2. PNC
                        3. AT&T
                        4. Camden Yards
                        5. Citizens Bank
                        6. Comerica

                        (Of these I have personally been to Safeco, PNC, Citizens Bank, and Comerica.)

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Elysian Fields
                          I don't think all of them are great. Miller and Great American bother me. Milwaukee should have built the thing downtown and it doesn't need a roof (is really hotter there than in Chicago?). GAB is plain for a new park. Citizens Bank is also poorly located.

                          Some of the more interesting parks are now in the Minor Leagues. So you also have to think about what the smaller teams are doing.
                          Miller Park belongs in the middle of a huge parking lot because tailgating is as much a tradition in Milwaukee (all of Wisconsin for that matter) as pre/postgame drinking in neighborhood bars is on the north side of Chicago or Boston.

                          As for the others, they all have their merits but some are a bit too gimmicky (i.e. Arlington). I could dissect each and every one but that would take forever. GABP is a very good ballpark--no the view of the river isn't as spectacular as Pittsburgh but it's unique. And I like the red seats. The only new ballpark I can find much fault in is Philly because yes, it's in the middle of a sea of parking lots. That ballpark would fit much better downtown but I guess the powers that be figured all the major sports facilities in the city had always been in that location since old JFK Stadium (remember it?) and if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Elvis
                            2. What is exactly "dynamic and interesting" about the architecture and vision of these newer parks?
                            What might be interesting to me could get just a shrug or even an up-turned nose from you. Plus I'm colorblind, so the 'aesthetics' from my angle are probably a lot different than your eyes. Also spent a bulk of my life within the engineering discipline, so I often look at things from that side instead of just if it's a pretty color or has some decorative detail that others find attractive.

                            I've walked inside Arthur Andersen Memorial Std in Houston, through just about every corridor that I could, as well as sneaking in for but a brief time while the park was being built. One facet that I find 'better' than Camden Yards is you can walk around the entire lower deck and see out onto the field. Can't do that in Baltimore. Is that 'aesthetics' or 'engineering?' Either way, I feel it's an improvement.

                            Some people like contemporary or modern styles. Others like French Colonial and shop for antiques.
                            Never confuse character with geography --- Red Smith
                            Astros Daily

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Elysian Fields
                              I don't think all of them are great. Miller and Great American bother me. Milwaukee should have built the thing downtown and it doesn't need a roof (is really hotter there than in Chicago?). GAB is plain for a new park. Citizens Bank is also poorly located.

                              Have you ever gone to a game in April in the North?

                              I've gone to three different cities opening days. Philadelphia, Chicago, and Milwaukee. One year in Philadelphia it was snowing. The first quarter of the schedule or so the weather is horrible for baseball having the dome makes it enjoyable to go to a game. Right now I live in an area where I can easily choose between Milwaukee and Chicago. The choice is a no brainer for me I go to Milwaukee in the spring time. Then when it gets later in the season and weather turns once again it is much much better to be under a dome.

                              As for Citizens bank it is not poorly located. Sure if you want to talk about nice back drop but in terms of actually getting to the game it is in an excellent spot. One of the biggest reasons I loved going to the Vet was because it was so easy to get to. I lived on the other side of Philly and it would only take me 10 to 15 minutes to get there.

                              Downtown locations are nice ideas and pretty and all but for the most part they are not realistic. It isn't like basketball where the land needed is much much smaller and the crowds being much much smaller. Baltimore comes the closest I think and I think they were able to do that because of the size of Baltimore.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X