Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is it possible to design an excellent multi-purpose?

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

  • Is it possible to design an excellent multi-purpose?

    The closest we ever got was the Astrodome. The only negative was it was rather dreary in there. Just dark I guess, maybe the coloring. Can't put my finger on it. Oh, and of course they quintuple-decked the outfield like morons.

    Shea was basically the same place, only they for some bizarre reason never put up real, stationary, nice looking bleachers in the outfield. Over the years they added various chunks of disposable looking bleachers.

    And the problem with both of these was that they were perfect circles, too wide, and too high. Lots of bad seats. They did however have minimal foul territory for both sport configurations (due to the moving lower level). Following the design of these two seems to be the only way to really approach excellence in a multi-purpose.

    There's nothing inherently wrong with a multi-purpose as most I'm sure would agree. It's just that so far, I've never seen a truly excellent one--or even a concept of an excellent one.

    Have any of you hobbyists ever designed one? Or come across one on the interwebs?
    Go go White Sox

  • #2
    In the distant future, if they can get the entire internal structure to change shape, then yea, until then no. Baseball and football/soccer have too much of a difference in shape of a field.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Zoso View Post
      The only negative was it was rather dreary in there.
      That's not the only negative.

      The MAIN negative is that the seating was a mile from the field down the baselines because it was a perfect circle--hardly an ideal arrangement for a baseball park.

      The onlt way to make a multi-purpose "excellent" IMO would be to make the entire grandstand movable so that sightlines would be good for both sports. Hardly an easy task. Mile High and Aloha had movable stands, but the outfield seating made them not great for baseball atmosphere.

      Anyway, to answer your title question in one word: No
      I see great things in baseball. It's our game - the American game.
      - Walt Whitman

      Comment


      • #4
        I tried designing one during math class when I was bored to death. But it just could happen.

        Comment


        • #5
          The thing would need to be a transformer to work. It might be cheaper to just build two parks than worry about all the mechanical requirements to transform the building.

          Comment


          • #6
            Sorry but I'm going to strongly disagree with the Astrodome being dreary and the seats being so far from he action. I spent many, many years watching games there and it was anything but dreary. The roof allowed light to filter in- not enough to grow grass but it allowed quite a bit of sunlight. It was and still remains the only domed stadium built with skylights to allow light to filter in. Say what you want about Astroturf but at that time it was needed after the dome was painted two weeks after opening.

            If you want to talk about dreary then discuss the interior of the dark Superdome or the tomb of the Kingdome with all of its concrete. The Astrodome in its original conception was about as close to a sports palace as one would ever see. You really had to be there and see the ins and outs of the Dome to really understand how spectacular the layout was. The circular nature of it did not take away that much from viewing baseball as some would like to brainwash younger people today.

            While I agree Shea Stadium and the Astrodome appear to be "cousins" based on the layout of the first three levels, the comparisons stop there. The concourses and ramps as well as the main structural layout was vastly different. I have been all through the Astrodome and Shea Stadium and the likeness was only aesthetic in some respects.

            If you have to vote for a near perfect multi-purpose stadium that also served its primary tenant well (an MLB team), it would be the Astrodome. All other stadiums that were deemed "multi-purpose" never were as good as the Astrodome.
            Last edited by Astros; 07-08-2009, 10:09 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              ^Wrong. Rogers Centre aka Skydome beats it.

              Comment


              • #8
                ..............
                Last edited by Astros; 07-09-2009, 12:38 PM.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Astros View Post
                  Negative. Rogers Centre tried but has not come close to the original impact or design or layout of the Astrodome, period. The seating in the Rogers Centre is set higher and steeper than the grade of the levels in the Dome. Rogers Centre is nice and was the first retractable domed stadium but still doesn't come close design-wise.
                  A retractable roof is superior to a stationary dome IMO. Therefore Skydome>Astrodome :twocents:

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    How about this. Two levels, with a baseball roof. Dimensions...ehhh maybe 310 with a 45 degree angle, then 380+ and 400 to center. Possibly 48,000 for baseball and 60,000 for football. Open outfield view. Similar to the Polo Grounds only far less elongated. I don't really see any terrible seats coming from here. It's geared aesthetically for baseball because who cares what football stadiums look like? That's the number one thing. You need to make many more concessions in favor of baseball. Just gotta find the right balance of scarcity and abundance of seats for each sport respectively.

                    The seats would pull out for the nook in the corners, and the seats would pull all the way back to uncover the bullpens. The gray lines show you the inner rim of the football configuration.

                    It's a start. I know it can be done. An excellent multi-purp can be made.
                    Attached Files
                    Go go White Sox

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Bobby_Ayala View Post
                      A retractable roof is superior to a stationary dome IMO. Therefore Skydome>Astrodome :twocents:
                      Well this is more of a field/seating layout debate, i.e. is it possible to create a nice "ballpark" that can also un-retract enough seats to create a suitable NFL stadium--with solid sightlines for both.

                      Skydome seems too tall for me, and it doesn't come close to the Astrdome's proximity of the seats to the field (at least the best seats). There was less sideline space at the Astrodome than the Superdome and Miami, and those were built (pretty much let's face it) exclusively for beisbol.
                      Go go White Sox

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        One of the coolest looking stadiums has to be Aloha with the those stands move the way they do. While not the best multi-purpose, it is one of those "neat" ones.
                        Been to: CBP, OPACY, Shea, NYS, RYS, Metrodome, Angels Stadium, Petco, Dodger, At&t, Oakland, Wrigley, The Cell, PNC, Memorial in Balt, The Vet, RFK, Tropicana Field, Dolphin, Coors, Miller, Fenway

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          If Skydome didn't have such a drab exterior and those ugly, narrow light blue seats, it would be fine.

                          Also, lowering the playing field would mean they wouldn't have to cover up the first few rows with tarps in football configuration.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Zoso View Post
                            How about this. Two levels, with a baseball roof. Dimensions...ehhh maybe 310 with a 45 degree angle, then 380+ and 400 to center. Possibly 48,000 for baseball and 60,000 for football. Open outfield view. Similar to the Polo Grounds only far less elongated. I don't really see any terrible seats coming from here. It's geared aesthetically for baseball because who cares what football stadiums look like? That's the number one thing. You need to make many more concessions in favor of baseball. Just gotta find the right balance of scarcity and abundance of seats for each sport respectively.

                            The seats would pull out for the nook in the corners, and the seats would pull all the way back to uncover the bullpens. The gray lines show you the inner rim of the football configuration.

                            It's a start. I know it can be done. An excellent multi-purp can be made.

                            I love this plan; only thing I would do differently is extend the upper decks to the corners at the back of the endzone so that in football configuration one end of the stadium doesn't feel so incomplete (no pun intended). A huge scoreboard over the batter's eye would fill in the rest of the gap.

                            This would've been the perfect stadium for the Mets and Jets, IMO -- they could've killed two birds with one stone and constructed one fewer stadium, saving both the teams and New York City taxpayers many hundreds of millions of dollars on land acquisition and construction costs, since the Giants likely would've renovated their own place.
                            Last edited by KingmanIII; 07-09-2009, 12:33 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Zoso View Post
                              How about this. Two levels, with a baseball roof. Dimensions...ehhh maybe 310 with a 45 degree angle, then 380+ and 400 to center. Possibly 48,000 for baseball and 60,000 for football. Open outfield view. Similar to the Polo Grounds only far less elongated. I don't really see any terrible seats coming from here. It's geared aesthetically for baseball because who cares what football stadiums look like? That's the number one thing. You need to make many more concessions in favor of baseball. Just gotta find the right balance of scarcity and abundance of seats for each sport respectively.

                              The seats would pull out for the nook in the corners, and the seats would pull all the way back to uncover the bullpens. The gray lines show you the inner rim of the football configuration.

                              It's a start. I know it can be done. An excellent multi-purp can be made.
                              My only question about this design is how high are those outfield walls? That's quite a cutback, unless the rake is very low you would end up with very high seats, something like the Vet or Three Rivers and wouldn't be able to see large parts of the outfield directly in front of those seats.
                              Alcohol
                              Tobacco
                              Firearms
                              should be a convenience store,
                              not a government agency

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X