Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What new stadium did more harm than good?

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

  • What new stadium did more harm than good?

    With all the new ballparks in the past 20 years, is there a new ballpark that is worse than the one it replaced?

    I would have to say Comerica Park is worse than Tiger Stadium.

  • #2
    Originally posted by mdseverin View Post
    With all the new ballparks in the past 20 years, is there a new ballpark that is worse than the one it replaced?

    I would have to say Comerica Park is worse than Tiger Stadium.
    Comerica is worse than Tiger Stadium HOW? Too few posts, wire screens & sight-obstructing overhangs?

    Too many bathrooms, concessions, roomier seats, gift shops, historical kiosks, statues, waterfalls and views of downtown?

    Have you been to both? I have. Are you offering any objective analysis to qualify your statement, or are you simply emoting like the majority of the new = bad crowd here that rags on new stadiums day & night?
    Last edited by DaBigMotor; 05-29-2009, 08:41 AM.

    Comment


    • #3
      I think one could argue that both New Comiskey and Comerica were regrettable, because they replaced classic and beloved ballparks with drab desisgns. Both ballparks really were out of date and were showing their age, and you can't say that either New Comiskey or Comerica were mistakes because they offered significant improvements in clenliness and space of the facility. However, neither of them really offered much in terms of innovation and only after a significant renovation has New Comiskey really become an acceptable replacement. For me, the jury is still out on Comerica

      Comment


      • #4
        I have been to both Tiger Stadium and Comerica. Tiger was awesome and much was lost when the Tigers moved to Comerica. But when you stop trying to compare Tiger and Comerica, and compare it to its peers, Comerica is a great ballpark. Much like PNC, they didn't overdo it with too many luxury levels and it's only a two deck structure. The views of downtown are great as well.

        My only gripes with Comerica are that they could have cantilevered the upper deck more and I wish they would not have brought in the left field fences, taking the flagpole out of play.
        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          I think I would say minute maid, but I guess you could debate that the astrodome wasn't that good anyore when they added the extra seats and got rid of the scoreboard.

          As for comeisky and Tiger they were too much hassle for the owners. Its hard for an owner to turn down money from luxary boxes and it's hard for a fan to turn down more room and less stuff falling/leaking on you. The memories are always going to be there, but I hate to see things go past their prime. I.E. Johnny Unitus trying to play for the chargers.
          The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time.

          Comment


          • #6
            Not in a bad way, but to kind of go on a tangent (yet still follow the question of what ballpark did more harm than good) I would have to say Camden Yards.

            It isn't a bad park at all, in fact it's my favorite of the new wave of parks (to be closely followed by a couple others).

            But, after that was built, it got all the other teams wanting that exact type of park, and it fed into a sort of new cookie cutter era for ballparks.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by JoostSuderFain View Post
              Not in a bad way, but to kind of go on a tangent (yet still follow the question of what ballpark did more harm than good) I would have to say Camden Yards.

              It isn't a bad park at all, in fact it's my favorite of the new wave of parks (to be closely followed by a couple others).

              But, after that was built, it got all the other teams wanting that exact type of park, and it fed into a sort of new cookie cutter era for ballparks.
              Completely agree. For the most part, our MLB ballparks haven't really evolved since OPACY. Take the new Twins park for example. It's got a few things in the interior & exterior that make it unique, but the seating bowl isn't really that different compared to the Camden clones. I'm still waiting for a new ballpark to have a seating bowl similar to Kauffman.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lafferty Daniel View Post
                Completely agree. For the most part, our MLB ballparks haven't really evolved since OPACY. Take the new Twins park for example. It's got a few things in the interior & exterior that make it unique, but the seating bowl isn't really that different compared to the Camden clones. I'm still waiting for a new ballpark to have a seating bowl similar to Kauffman.
                Why? What is so great about the seating bowl at Kauffman?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by majorleads View Post
                  Why? What is so great about the seating bowl at Kauffman?
                  No obstructions. Fans in the upper deck are literally right on top of the action, creating an intimidating atmosphere similar to Old Yankee Stadium. And to me, Kauffman just looks more visually appealing. It flows nicely and I like how they have more seats behind home plate in the upper deck compared to down the foul lines in the outfield corners. What's not to love?





                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by DaBigMotor View Post
                    Comerica is worse than Tiger Stadium HOW? Too few posts, wire screens & sight-obstructing overhangs?

                    Too many bathrooms, concessions, roomier seats, gift shops, historical kiosks, statues, waterfalls and views of downtown?

                    Have you been to both? I have. Are you offering any objective analysis to qualify your statement, or are you simply emoting like the majority of the new = bad crowd here that rags on new stadiums day & night?
                    I am not part of the new=bad crowd. I think most of the new ball parks have been a huge benefit to the team and baseball.

                    I have been to a game at Tigers Stadium and I went on a tour of Comerica. Yes, with a new stadium you get more amenities, but that has anything to do with a baseball game. The upper deck at TS gave an amazing view and it was somewhat intimidating for the visiting team. Tiger Stadium was all about baseball.

                    Comerica, is a little too gimiky for me. The tiger statues, waterfalls, and fair rides, I just dont get it. I also hate how the scoreboard was placed so far to the left.

                    Comerica is a nice modern park. The view of the city is great. But when I compare it to what Detroit had, I'm disapointed. I wish they renovated TS like they did with Kauffman and built it out to expand concorses, build extra bathrooms, etc.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by JoostSuderFain View Post
                      Not in a bad way, but to kind of go on a tangent (yet still follow the question of what ballpark did more harm than good) I would have to say Camden Yards.

                      It isn't a bad park at all, in fact it's my favorite of the new wave of parks (to be closely followed by a couple others).

                      But, after that was built, it got all the other teams wanting that exact type of park, and it fed into a sort of new cookie cutter era for ballparks.
                      Very interesting point.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mdseverin View Post
                        I wish they renovated TS like they did with Kauffman and built it out to expand concorses, build extra bathrooms, etc.
                        Whatever happened with the Cochrane Plan?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          New Yankee Stadium. People can argue til' the cows come home that Renovated Yankee Stadium wasn't Pre-Renovated Yankee Stadium, but it's more of a Yankee Stadium than that insult of one next door will ever be. It's like when U.S. Cellular first opened, it was called "New Comiskey". One of the few times I've been grateful corporite names taking the the name of a stadium. NYS will never be OYS, just like The Cell will never be Comiskey. What greed will do to money hungry pigs.
                          1924 1987 1991
                          1925, 1933, 1965
                          1969, 1970, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2009, 2010
                          10/26/1991
                          ....And we'll see you tomorrow night!sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by mdseverin View Post
                            With all the new ballparks in the past 20 years, is there a new ballpark that is worse than the one it replaced?

                            I would have to say Comerica Park is worse than Tiger Stadium.
                            Where is Donald, POLO GROUNDS?

                            Lol.

                            Anyone remember him? He always called Comerica Park an "antiseptic toilet bowl."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              "Citi Field" reduced overall seating by about 15,000.

                              In addition, at Shea there were 34,576 affordable Upper Deck and Mezzanine seats; at "Citi" there are 15,500 equivalent Promenade and Promenade Box seats - a net decrease of almost 20,000 affordable seats.

                              Field Level has gone up from 11,149 seats to 18,000 and they're well beyond the average fan's means of affording them - geared pretty exclusively toward corporate "fans".

                              The sight lines are uniformly worse. Pretty much no matter where you sit you can't see one outfield corner or another. My friend and I were out there the other night and walked across the top of Promenade. Even directly behind home plate, BOTH outfield corners are blocked from view!

                              We missed a couple of important plays because the outfield corner was completely blocked from our seats. We were also sitting on an aisle; even though we were far enough back so the glass staircase only blocked an annoying but managable chunk of the outfield, there was a constant stream of people walking back and forth in front of us to get to or return from the street fair behind center field. Having been there a couple of times now, I can honestly say the experience of seeing a game is a step down from Shea, where you could see the whole field and there were fewer non-baseball related annoyances to deal with.

                              The place is a shopping mall designed to have people wandering around and buying things the whole game long. The flow of people never slowed until about the 7th inning, when they wandered back to their seats and started doing the wave during a good and close game. The whole atmosphere there removes the game itself from being the focus of the ballpark experience. It's build to cater to non-fans, viewing the game takes a back seat to the food areas and other retailing areas; Shea on the other hand simply offered a field and seats and better views of the game.

                              Take your pick as to what you prefer as a ballpark experience, but for just viewing a ballgame, Shea blows "Citi Field" out of the water.


                              "The Fightin' Met With Two Heads" - Mike Tyson/Ray Knight!

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X