Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cookie-Cutter Thread

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

  • Chevy114
    replied
    Yeah the structure itself has more than just a round concrete exterior.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Monument
    replied
    Originally posted by Chevy114 View Post
    Yeah although skydome has a cookie cutter sole the hotel and outside make it feel slightly more advanced
    Do you mean the sole on the Skydome's footprint?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chevy114
    replied
    Yeah although skydome has a cookie cutter sole the hotel and outside make it feel slightly more advanced

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt The Hammer
    replied
    I guess because the definition of a 'cookie cutter' is cloudy. Is it the round shape of an actual cookie cutter? Or is the fact that the stadium looks like it was cut from the same cookie cutter?

    SkyDome roof makes it stand alone in my opinion. Sadly, the stadium itself was built at a lackluster time of design, but the roof changed the world.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phantom Dreamer
    replied
    Originally posted by Matt The Hammer View Post
    Good article.
    But, for some reason Sullivan doesn't consider SkyDome a cookie cutter. That doesn't make any sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • Matt The Hammer
    replied
    Good article.

    Leave a comment:


  • NickEsasky
    replied
    I love when old threads get bumped. Reading through some of the discussion on this page the comments made by buckeyejim and Pelt stand out. The people that were regularly going to games in those stadiums didn't have a problem with them. I grew up in a non-MLB town. A majority of the kids I went to school with as a youngster were Braves fans (closest team + WTBS), there was a big chunk of Cardinals fans (our local minor league team was a Cardinals affiliate), one kid was a Pirates fan, and I was a Reds fan. The common denominator here is cookie cutter stadiums. Nobody talked about stadium shortcomings. I thought Riverfront was a palace. It wasn't until I went to high school when Camden came out and I met some new friends that had been to some older stadiums that I started hearing the chirping about cookie cutters.

    It's not the building, it is what happens in the building.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phantom Dreamer
    replied
    http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...donut-stadium?

    Leave a comment:


  • Chevy114
    replied
    Originally posted by The Old Ballpark View Post
    I've never met a Pirates fan, or for that matter a Reds fan, who called Three Rivers or Riverfront "dumps." They were both clean, comfortable and well-maintained the days they were destroyed. They were both just plastic, round, enclosed and charmless. Not to mention economically obsolete in the post Camden Yards world.

    The Vet was another matter because it was not taken care of. Like Shea vs. Dodger Stadium.
    Oh ok, I guess they must have meant the shape wasn't good for either sport. That shea and dodger stadium comparison is a good one.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Old Ballpark
    replied
    Originally posted by Chevy114 View Post
    I have met a lot of philly and pitts fans who said "It was a dump, but it was our dump." It seems like their go to line. Riverfront might have been different though, we don't get too many cinn transplants in Tampa.

    From a fan standpoint the thing I hated most about cookie cutters for baseball was that they did not have outfield seats like they do now. Now you are right up against the wall and you can catch even the shortest home run ball, but with DC and most of those other parks you could only catch the really high HRs. I guess for football those endzone seats in pitts were annoying as well, what were there like 30 seats?
    I've never met a Pirates fan, or for that matter a Reds fan, who called Three Rivers or Riverfront "dumps." They were both clean, comfortable and well-maintained the days they were destroyed. They were both just plastic, round, enclosed and charmless. Not to mention economically obsolete in the post Camden Yards world.

    The Vet was another matter because it was not taken care of. Like Shea vs. Dodger Stadium.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chevy114
    replied
    Originally posted by buckeyejim View Post
    I don't know if they were call "dumps" as much as people critized playing sports like baseball and football whose playing fields did not work in circular structures and seeing that football and baseball should not share stadiums. The cookie cutters did work but they made peple realize that cities with 2 stadiums built specifically for baseball and for football are much better. How many times did we see a World Series being played at Riverfront Stadium or Three Rivers Stadium and the scrubbed out football lines showing up so clearly or even worse was when the Oakland Coliseum or Shea Stadium had post season baseball being played after football games had chewed up the natural sod. I actually worked at Riverfront Stadium and it was an amazing facility and when it was torn down it was still a clean and nice stadium. Needless to say I have fond memories of Riverfront Stadium both as a stadium and as an engineering marvel that saw it as the reason the Bengals exist and why the Reds are still in Cincinnati.
    I have met a lot of philly and pitts fans who said "It was a dump, but it was our dump." It seems like their go to line. Riverfront might have been different though, we don't get too many cinn transplants in Tampa.

    From a fan standpoint the thing I hated most about cookie cutters for baseball was that they did not have outfield seats like they do now. Now you are right up against the wall and you can catch even the shortest home run ball, but with DC and most of those other parks you could only catch the really high HRs. I guess for football those endzone seats in pitts were annoying as well, what were there like 30 seats?

    Leave a comment:


  • buckeyejim
    replied
    Originally posted by Chevy114 View Post
    I call "mall"parks beautiful because they look like what I call beautiful buildings. I never look at a bland concrete buidling and wow look at that! I look at the brick, stone, and metal buildings though and say wow look at that!

    I mean weren't cookie cutters called dumps faster (20 years) than we will call camden and coors dumps (20 years and counting)?
    I don't know if they were call "dumps" as much as people critized playing sports like baseball and football whose playing fields did not work in circular structures and seeing that football and baseball should not share stadiums. The cookie cutters did work but they made peple realize that cities with 2 stadiums built specifically for baseball and for football are much better. How many times did we see a World Series being played at Riverfront Stadium or Three Rivers Stadium and the scrubbed out football lines showing up so clearly or even worse was when the Oakland Coliseum or Shea Stadium had post season baseball being played after football games had chewed up the natural sod. I actually worked at Riverfront Stadium and it was an amazing facility and when it was torn down it was still a clean and nice stadium. Needless to say I have fond memories of Riverfront Stadium both as a stadium and as an engineering marvel that saw it as the reason the Bengals exist and why the Reds are still in Cincinnati.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chevy114
    replied
    Originally posted by Paul W View Post
    were called "beautiful" by many, same word affixed to the current ones.

    go to 4:25 of this clip from '71...



    describing a mallpark as "beautiful" dosen't mean much except for marketing purposes...
    I call "mall"parks beautiful because they look like what I call beautiful buildings. I never look at a bland concrete buidling and wow look at that! I look at the brick, stone, and metal buildings though and say wow look at that!

    I mean weren't cookie cutters called dumps faster (20 years) than we will call camden and coors dumps (20 years and counting)?

    Leave a comment:


  • Paul W
    replied
    Originally posted by buckeyejim View Post
    I know that people like to "live in the past" as far as ballparks go, but when the multi-purpose stadiums that were build in the '60's and '70's virtually everyone thought they were awesome...
    were called "beautiful" by many, same word affixed to the current ones.

    go to 4:25 of this clip from '71...



    describing a mallpark as "beautiful" dosen't mean much except for marketing purposes...
    Last edited by Paul W; 08-27-2012, 05:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BiZmaRK
    replied
    Originally posted by icee82 View Post
    I think the noise level at those cookie cutter stadiums were assisted by the total enclosure of the stadium. You have to admit those stadiums were huge. With Great American, PNC, etc, those are not enclosed stadiums and the noise escapes.
    Does noise not travel up just as much as it travels towards the outfield? The Kingdome and Metrodome were likely much louder than any of the aforementioned cookie cutters. But I'd bet their loudness was greater than that of the cookie cutters by a far greater margin than the cookie cutters loudness was over places like Shea Stadium, Fenway Park, Wrigley Field, AT&T Park, etc. Another completely enclosed stadium to consider was Tiger Stadium. I remember seeing a game there in the '70s and it was very loud.

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X