Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Support Columns; Yay or neigh?

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

  • Support Columns; Yay or neigh?

    My roommate is trying to tell me support columns should be introduced back into stadiums. I HATE them.

    I think he is rediculous but his point is that it allows fans to be closer to the game. For the amount of money each ticket costs I'm sure as hell not going to lean back and forth during the game.

    Please let me know your thoughts or let me know if this a support column support board!

  • #2
    Originally posted by Bob_Welch View Post
    My roommate is trying to tell me support columns should be introduced back into stadiums. I HATE them.

    I think he is rediculous but his point is that it allows fans to be closer to the game. For the amount of money each ticket costs I'm sure as hell not going to lean back and forth during the game.

    Please let me know your thoughts or let me know if this a support column support board!
    Your roommate hasn't heard of either cantilevers or cable-supported concrete. His intentions are good, but support columns are no longer necessary to bring people close to the action.

    That said, HOK needs to at least show some effort to create good sightlines, which they've totally ignored.
    http://www.virtualfenway.com

    Comment


    • #3
      I say the re-introduce them, but make them out of glass so everyone can see.

      Comment


      • #4
        having mostly gone to games at wrigley and tiger stadium, i don't mind them. the seats that are really badly affected by them are very view, a few hundred out of a 40-50,000 seat venue. for the vast majority of the seats behind the line of posts you hardly even notice them. yeah, they are there. but because i naturally don't sit 100 percent still, the one post that is in my field of vision isn't constantly blocking the same area. honestly don't really notice them that much. but i LOVE having a roof over my head when i am in the upper deck and i love how much closer the upper deck is compared to the retro parks. i guess it is just preference. the cheap seats at wrigley are a lot closer than the cheap seats at the cell, but they have posts.

        if a new park was built with posts they should do it like the posts at u.s. cellular with the posts in the aisles. that way no seat is directly behind one. honestly don't know why they didnt do it that way when these old parks were built in the first place.

        but the real problem with the old parts sightlinewise are/were not the posts. it was having the upper deck directly on top of the lower deck so that the rear of the lower deck had its view of the sky completely blocked. you lose sight of fly balls. tiger stadium was really bad with this. and i almost never sit in the lower deck at wrigley. but i prefer the view from the upper deck anyway, so i guess i don't mind so much.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sean O View Post
          Your roommate hasn't heard of either cantilevers or cable-supported concrete. His intentions are good, but support columns are no longer necessary to bring people close to the action.

          That said, HOK needs to at least show some effort to create good sightlines, which they've totally ignored.
          Agreed. The lack of cantilevered decks in most of these new parks is just sad.

          Nationals Park can't hold a candle to RFK's engineering marvel.







          Comment


          • #6
            Depends on the ballpark/stadium. Only caveat I would suggest is the fans know in advance what seats will be effected by them when they purchase tickets.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by IPO View Post
              Depends on the ballpark/stadium. Only caveat I would suggest is the fans know in advance what seats will be effected by them when they purchase tickets.
              Of course, but given how expensive these stadiums cost to build, you'd think they could design a grandstand that doesn't have any crappy seats. i.e. Dodger Stadium.

              Comment


              • #8
                From a revenue standpoint, teams wouldn't want to sell season tickets in an area where you have to tell someone a column is nearby, even if it is in the aisle. It is a matter of eras. Plus, there are other construction options to help bring upper level seats closer. Bottom line is that the Club and Suite levels are what push the upper tiers away. However, teams need those revenue areas. If columns existed today as in the past, the lower level between the bases would be most affected. I find that most people wouldn't want to shell out $4,000-$6,000 (or more) per seat for a full season if they have to worry about a column. Season tickets are usually sold from the front to back rows especially in the infield areas. While it may add to the nostalgia, it also takes away a lot more. At U.S. Cellular Field, the columns are in the nose bleed sections, far from full season ticket locations. The columns definitely add to the look of that ballpark. I love those old photos of pre-renovated Yankee Stadium, but a new park built just like that wouldn't be as fan friendly today. If it could've work in today's era then we would've seen the Yankees, Mets and Twins opt for a look with support columns. The only places that can get away with it are the remaining classics like Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. People know that's the was it always has been and they accept it, although I'm sure the Red Sox and Cubs get plenty of requests to be away from stadium columns.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Neigh or nay?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm a huge supporter of cantilevers, as seen in RYS and RFK. Columns aren't necessary and only serve to obstruct views. The only reason why they were used in old stadiums was because the technology to support massive stands through cantilevers wasn't fully developed, and any options of that nature were far too expensive for teams at the time.

                    Cantilevers all the way.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Yankees12 View Post
                      The only reason why they were used in old stadiums was because the technology to support massive stands through cantilevers wasn't fully developed, and any options of that nature were far too expensive for teams at the time.
                      Plus there was no option of watching the game on TV, so for the unlucky slob behind the pole, 75% of something was better than 100% of nothing.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Yeah, who wouldn't want to sit here

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by dgk View Post
                          but the real problem with the old parts sightlinewise are/were not the posts. it was having the upper deck directly on top of the lower deck so that the rear of the lower deck had its view of the sky completely blocked. you lose sight of fly balls. tiger stadium was really bad with this. and i almost never sit in the lower deck at wrigley. but i prefer the view from the upper deck anyway, so i guess i don't mind so much.
                          Conversely, however, when you sit more than a couple rows back in the upper deck in these kinds of stadiums, about a third of the outfield is blocked by the upper deck. This was somewhat annoying in Yankee Stadium... some people knock the bleachers but hey at least you didn't have to worry about this. Regardless of whether the design has posts or is cantilevered heavily, if you have excessive overhang you're going to have these problems, which is why I think HOK and other designers are trying to get away from aggressive cantilevering.
                          Attached Files

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            They have reintroduced support columns but they put them in the aisles and curved the seats around it so there are no seats directly behind...I think it looks alright...has anyone sat up there? How's the view in the upper deck of US Cell?
                            Attached Files
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sean O View Post
                              Your roommate hasn't heard of either cantilevers or cable-supported concrete. His intentions are good, but support columns are no longer necessary to bring people close to the action.

                              That said, HOK needs to at least show some effort to create good sightlines, which they've totally ignored.
                              Trust me, he is WELL aware of all aspects of major league stadiums. I believe he is so infatuated with the Yankees that if it doesn't look like it was built in 1923 then screw it.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X