Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nationals Park

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

  • PeteU
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean O View Post
    I have no idea why people are saying this is better than RFK, other than it being newer. If you put 10% of the cost of the new park into RFK, not only do school kids in DC have new books and maybe some breakfast, but you have a park with genuine history and acceptable sightlines.

    Tear down the outfield, put in every amenity you can think of, widen the concourses, and you're all set.
    I doubt $50+ million (10% of the $500+ million to build the new park) could have covered the cost to:

    *Demolish the outfield upper deck
    *Build new outfield bleacher pavillions (with concession and restroom space), bullpens and landscaping
    *Build a larger and more modern scoreboard
    *Structurally widen and enhance the concourses
    *Reface and enhance the exterior to differentiate it from the dreadful and outdated 1960s era concrete donut clone facades
    *Add/expand restrooms and concession areas
    *Expand clubhouses and players facilities to those comparable with newly built ballparks
    *Convert the narrow mezannine deck to much wider luxury box seating, which would require some tricky structural engineering

    Don't get me wrong; it would be an interesting sight to see done, and probably a decent looking result. But it would probably cost almost as much as building an entirely new ballpark, considering all the work that was done.

    Consider that 20 year old Dolphin Stadium recently underwent a renovation, and all that was really done was some widening of the concourses, building two new club level facilities, and replacement of the scoreboards. The cost? $213.5 million.

    Leave a comment:


  • Smirkman
    replied
    Originally posted by Sean O View Post
    I have no idea why people are saying this is better than RFK, other than it being newer. If you put 10% of the cost of the new park into RFK, not only do school kids in DC have new books and maybe some breakfast, but you have a park with genuine history and acceptable sightlines.

    Tear down the outfield, put in every amenity you can think of, widen the concourses, and you're all set.

    The bottom line is, there is nothing good about this park on its own merits. It looks like a cinder block prison overlooking parking garages, without any unique touch or basic proper design principle. The upper deck is miles away. Seating stops and starts randomly, creating an ugly jarring mess. The exterior, as I mentioned, is a perfect combination of office park, hotel and penitentiary.

    HOK completely mailed this one in, leading to one abortion of a ballpark.
    SeanO,

    I get it. You don't like the ballpark; however that doesn't excuse you from spewing incorrect information every time you post.

    No money came from the DC general fund and the city will be making over $100 million on its investment based on large businesses/ Feds taxes. If anything the stadium will help build schools. BTW DC was 2nd in per capita education spending the last time I looked so throwing money at the problem simply isn't the answer.

    Secondly, RFK was a dump in a bad neighborhood for a ballpark. There was no way for the city to get any revenue from fans (other than parking) because the area restricted growth and the zoning was not going to be changed to allow any development.

    Architecture is subjective and you are entitled to your opinion, however it appears to have restricted your objectivity.

    Personally, I like the look of the ballpark from the outside and like it overall, however I don't like:

    Upper deck press box - Not that it is in the upper deck, but how it breaks up the bowl. I like how it was done in Pittsburgh.

    Garages - duh.

    Curviture of the club and upper levels. I would have preferred that the other leels follow the flow of the lower bowl.

    One thing I really like is the lower bowl and the field itself. I like the dimensions, wall heights and angles. There is enough to have character without being contrived.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean O
    replied
    I have no idea why people are saying this is better than RFK, other than it being newer. If you put 10% of the cost of the new park into RFK, not only do school kids in DC have new books and maybe some breakfast, but you have a park with genuine history and acceptable sightlines.

    Tear down the outfield, put in every amenity you can think of, widen the concourses, and you're all set.

    The bottom line is, there is nothing good about this park on its own merits. It looks like a cinder block prison overlooking parking garages, without any unique touch or basic proper design principle. The upper deck is miles away. Seating stops and starts randomly, creating an ugly jarring mess. The exterior, as I mentioned, is a perfect combination of office park, hotel and penitentiary.

    HOK completely mailed this one in, leading to one abortion of a ballpark.

    Leave a comment:


  • PeteU
    replied
    Originally posted by Kentucky Bomber View Post
    Let's be reasonable here. This isn't the most beautiful park I've seen, but it is serviceable and an improvement over what they had. It was built in the wrong place (DC instead of Northern VA) but thanks to Peter Angelos and the insistence of others in charge that was what they got. So you have to build in a place without much open space, for a population that is mostly poor and doesn't give a damn about the club and doesn't provide much financial support. You're given the old Navy yard on the Anacostia Basin. Period. I'm sure you'd prefer being right next to the Lincoln Memorial but that ain't happening. At least the Navy Yard site has a Metro station a couple of blocks away, the Memorial doesn't. The orientation of the park can't be determined by giving the fans a nice view of the Capitol or the Washington Monument, it is determined, as are all ballparks, by the position of the sun relative to the batters and fielders.

    So you have a new workable park in a not very exciting part of town that looks out upon what's there. If the Nationals are worth watching the fans will come.

    OK, now that I'm done ranting...speaking of the Metro station, I went to a Nats game a couple of years ago, vs. the Yanks, and the RFK Metro station was a disaster, completely overwhelmed by the number of people trying to get into it after the game. Is the Navy station being rebuilt to convey more folks? Are they going to run more trains at gametime to handle the load?
    I agree with Bigtime39. Peter Angelos can certainly be blamed for a lot of messes (as an Orioles fan I can attest). But given his choice I think he would have rather seen a ballpark in Northern Virginia instead of in Washington DC. The O's got some fan base from NoVa in the mid 1990s after Camden opened and it was the big hot spot, but the logistics of getting to Baltimore from across the Wilson Bridge and navigating the DC beltway were a bit limiting after a while and after the novelty factor wore off. Whereas the Orioles have a legitimate claim to baseball fans in PG, Montgomery and the Southern Maryland counties, but a team in DC could siphon some of those fans off. So if Angelos were forced to choose between DC and NoVa, he undoubtedly would have preferred NoVa.

    And Angelos had nothing to do with the design of the ballpark, whether you like it or not.

    I will agree with you on the fact that the new park is certainly an improvement over RFK.

    As for the DC Metro, I imagine the Navy Yard Station being worse than the RFK station, but that's just my guess. RFK fit 15,000 riders and serviced three lines. Navy Yard used to fit 5,000 riders but was expanded to 15,000 riders, but it is only serviced by one line. That means many riders will either have to do 1 or 2 transfers before getting to the park, or alternately travel to a Metro Stop near the US Capitol and take a 20 minute walk under an expressway and possibly through some questionable areas.

    I think the Nationals team realized the limitations on both the scant amount of on-site parking and the limited Metro access; that's why I believe they are running shuttle busses from RFK Stadium (where there is plenty of parking) to the new ballpark.

    Leave a comment:


  • exposhistory
    replied
    Originally posted by bigtime39 View Post
    This cluster**** of a location can be blamed squarely on MLB and the Peoples Republic of DC...and no one else.


    This would have been a better location (among other things)...

    Leave a comment:


  • bigtime39
    replied
    Originally posted by Kentucky Bomber View Post
    Let's be reasonable here. This isn't the most beautiful park I've seen, but it is serviceable and an improvement over what they had. It was built in the wrong place (DC instead of Northern VA) but thanks to Peter Angelos and the insistence of others in charge that was what they got. So you have to build in a place without much open space, for a population that is mostly poor and doesn't give a damn about the club and doesn't provide much financial support. You're given the old Navy yard on the Anacostia Basin. Period. I'm sure you'd prefer being right next to the Lincoln Memorial but that ain't happening. At least the Navy Yard site has a Metro station a couple of blocks away, the Memorial doesn't. The orientation of the park can't be determined by giving the fans a nice view of the Capitol or the Washington Monument, it is determined, as are all ballparks, by the position of the sun relative to the batters and fielders.

    So you have a new workable park in a not very exciting part of town that looks out upon what's there. If the Nationals are worth watching the fans will come.

    OK, now that I'm done ranting...speaking of the Metro station, I went to a Nats game a couple of years ago, vs. the Yanks, and the RFK Metro station was a disaster, completely overwhelmed by the number of people trying to get into it after the game. Is the Navy station being rebuilt to convey more folks? Are they going to run more trains at gametime to handle the load?
    Oh, come on! Peter Angelos can be blamed for so many things...but now you want to blame him for the location of the Nationals ball park? If he'd had any say in it at all the park would have been located in 1) Montreal, 2) any of the other cities competing for the former Expos, or 3) Northern Virginia.
    This cluster**** of a location can be blamed squarely on MLB and the Peoples Republic of DC...and no one else.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chevy114
    replied
    Originally posted by nymdan View Post
    Those were some great pics! The scoreboard looks amazing and so does the rightfield board!

    Leave a comment:


  • Pere
    replied
    Originally posted by Elysian Fields View Post
    The architect snobs on this site are insufferable. They want some owner or ownership group to pay out a billion dollars to build the perfect stadium... with an upperdeck just like Tiger Stadium.
    There have been some great ballparks built in recent years for a whole lot less than a billion. Good architecture (for ballparks or anything else) doesn't necessarily require piles of money, just very careful thought and a clear understanding of what you're trying to do.

    I am somewhat skeptical of this ballpark. So far it reminds me a lot more of the new one in Detroit than the new one in Pittsburgh, and I don't believe this one's got a merry-go-round. Nevertheless, I'm not going to pass judgement until I've seen some games there. In fact, I've got tickets now for five games, in five different areas of the ballpark (prices from $18 to $58). I'm going to give it every chance I can. :cap:

    Leave a comment:


  • tfc3rid
    replied
    I think from the pics from JD's site, this looks pretty darn nice... I love new ballparks and this troubled organization, I think this is a huge step in legitimizing the Nationals...

    I think it's a vrey pretty ballpark and will be a nice home field for an NL East team.

    Leave a comment:


  • Kentucky Bomber
    replied
    Let's be reasonable here. This isn't the most beautiful park I've seen, but it is serviceable and an improvement over what they had. It was built in the wrong place (DC instead of Northern VA) but thanks to Peter Angelos and the insistence of others in charge that was what they got. So you have to build in a place without much open space, for a population that is mostly poor and doesn't give a damn about the club and doesn't provide much financial support. You're given the old Navy yard on the Anacostia Basin. Period. I'm sure you'd prefer being right next to the Lincoln Memorial but that ain't happening. At least the Navy Yard site has a Metro station a couple of blocks away, the Memorial doesn't. The orientation of the park can't be determined by giving the fans a nice view of the Capitol or the Washington Monument, it is determined, as are all ballparks, by the position of the sun relative to the batters and fielders.

    So you have a new workable park in a not very exciting part of town that looks out upon what's there. If the Nationals are worth watching the fans will come.

    OK, now that I'm done ranting...speaking of the Metro station, I went to a Nats game a couple of years ago, vs. the Yanks, and the RFK Metro station was a disaster, completely overwhelmed by the number of people trying to get into it after the game. Is the Navy station being rebuilt to convey more folks? Are they going to run more trains at gametime to handle the load?

    Leave a comment:


  • GordonGecko
    replied
    Originally posted by FearlessFreep View Post
    And you pass all this judgment from a WebCam picture. GO there before you condemn it.
    I'll be there opening day, I'll post pictures and comments

    Leave a comment:


  • FearlessFreep
    replied
    And you pass all this judgment from a WebCam picture. GO there before you condemn it.

    Leave a comment:


  • applenut
    replied
    Originally posted by FearlessFreep View Post
    No one with any kind of appreciation for the game of baseball can look at a new ballpark such as this and not think it's a great sight. Like the stadium or not, this is a new showcase for a wonderful sport. And from that perspective, it's gorgeous, just as NYS, Citi, the Twins ballpark and Cisco will be.

    As for it being dated I think a strong argument can be made that history will lump all of the new stadiums within the past 20 years as the "retro" period - heavy on nostalgia but safe and without many chances and innovation taken.

    Not to say that Nationals Park will be any better. I'm a retro fan. But as one who's been to the stadium and been inside, I can say it will be a great place to watch a game, and really that's all that matters.
    um... no?

    Seriously... it's an ugly and bland ballpark with no character. It's not even retro. It looks amateur and generic.

    It's a waste of money.

    I'm not even being as harsh as I'd like to be.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sean O
    replied
    Originally posted by FearlessFreep View Post
    And in the discussion of cantilevers, upper deck distances, architecture and the color of construction materials, isn't the only meaningful criteria that it be a good place to spend 2 1/2 hours and watch a ballgame?

    That's like saying a good criteria for a nice country isn't crime rate, the economy, education or employment. You need intimate seating and proper architectural principles to have a ballpark worth visiting, which this new park certainly does not have. Literally every single part of the park violates at least one major architectural principle, and the end result is the worst ballpark in the majors.

    And if that's not enough, you get a gorgeous view of parking garages. What a place.

    Leave a comment:


  • FearlessFreep
    replied
    Originally posted by Smirkman View Post
    The perfect stadium for Joe Fan who pays $10 for a ticket. Believe me, I would love to pay $10 and sit over home plate, but baseball economics require something different. DC has a large amount of corporations and law firms that pay top dollar so Joe Fan can be in the ballpark, but not as close as yesteryear. As a fan it is disappointing, but I understand.
    It's a tough juxtaposition. Teams have to build these luxury suites and areas to generate revenue. Revenue that in most cases is needed to compete in the out-of-control salary structure that is MLB. The same fans who complain that a $10 ticket in a new ballpark stinks are the very ones who also raise a stink when the team doesn't shell out megabucks for the flavor-of-the-month free agent.

    But back to the stadium itself. It is nice. It is not RFK. It has a lot of fan amenities. And the upper deck or even the concourse will be a good place to watch a game - even with a $15 ticket. And in the discussion of cantilevers, upper deck distances, architecture and the color of construction materials, isn't the only meaningful criteria that it be a good place to spend 2 1/2 hours and watch a ballgame?

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X