Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Most Generic Ballpark

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

  • Most Generic Ballpark

    What ballpark would you say is the most generic looking?

    I've been debating with myself and I think it's a toss up between Citi Field and Turner Field.

    I chose those two because there is nothing that really stands out. They are both located in a parking lot, there's nothing that really represents the team that plays there. The exterior is nothing unique. (Citi's exterior is nice, but it's been done before). You could drop these ballparks in any city and no one would know the difference. Does anyone agree?

    There were two runners up as well but I ended up crossing them off.

    1. Coors Field. The exterior is your generic red brick with arched windows (Citi Field) but at the time it was built, there was nothing like it and they do have the ring of purple seats. a unique batters eye, and a scenic view from the UD.

    2. Busch Stadium. I ended up crossing it off because it does have a beautiful view of downtown and even though it has the typical red brick design, it fits with the surrounding architecture perfectly.

  • #2
    Since Tropicana Field is a domed stadium, I feel like that can be put in ANY city and look right. Just switch up the corporate sponsorship and you've got yourself a stadium.

    I hesitate to put Rogers Centre there because you have the CN Tower right next to it, which makes it unique.

    Though I hate to say it, Dodger Stadium is kind of "generic" as well. Yes, the massive renovation projects have helped, but really the only thing that makes Dodger Stadium unique is the area surrounding the stadium.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by mdseverin View Post
      What ballpark would you say is the most generic looking?

      I've been debating with myself and I think it's a toss up between Citi Field and Turner Field.

      I chose those two because there is nothing that really stands out. They are both located in a parking lot, there's nothing that really represents the team that plays there. The exterior is nothing unique. (Citi's exterior is nice, but it's been done before). You could drop these ballparks in any city and no one would know the difference. Does anyone agree?

      There were two runners up as well but I ended up crossing them off.

      1. Coors Field. The exterior is your generic red brick with arched windows (Citi Field) but at the time it was built, there was nothing like it and they do have the ring of purple seats. a unique batters eye, and a scenic view from the UD.

      2. Busch Stadium. I ended up crossing it off because it does have a beautiful view of downtown and even though it has the typical red brick design, it fits with the surrounding architecture perfectly.
      Wrigley Field. Easy.

      Comment


      • #4
        Interesting question.

        I'd hesitate to put a place like Rogers Centre on such a list because at the time it was built, the place was a modern marvel - retractable roof, 5 decks of seating, hotel space in the park (!). Of course, it's passé now, but I don't hold the fact that it was built in the 1980s against it.

        At the early part of this decade I would definitely have put new Comiskey (now US Cellular Field) high up there, but they did a very nice job in recent years revamping the place.

        Right now, when I think of "generic," I think of the nouveau-cookie-cutter era we've stepped into, where nearly every stadium built in the last 15 years has tried to be "retro" but at the same time serve up country-club amenities.

        I'd have to put Miller Park and Nationals Park on that list. Not that I have anything against Miller Park, but take out Bernie Brewer's slide and it looks like little more than a gigantic seashell with the roof closed. Nationals Park made me feel like I was at Citizens Bank when I made the trip there this summer (sans about 25,000 extra people). Not that the franchise has much history to go on, but it looks like you could place any other team name at the top of the big scoreboard in right field and it could be passed off as something else. It has no designed quirks or real identity with the city outside of the possibility of getting a glimpse of the Capitol building from the upper deck.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by abronson86 View Post
          Since Tropicana Field is a domed stadium, I feel like that can be put in ANY city and look right. Just switch up the corporate sponsorship and you've got yourself a stadium.

          I hesitate to put Rogers Centre there because you have the CN Tower right next to it, which makes it unique.

          Though I hate to say it, Dodger Stadium is kind of "generic" as well. Yes, the massive renovation projects have helped, but really the only thing that makes Dodger Stadium unique is the area surrounding the stadium.
          I get what you are saying about Tropicana, and I can agree with what you are saying, but there really are no more domed baseball stadiums once Target Field opens. So that initself to me makes it unique and non-generic.

          I think Dodger Stadium is unique. It's the only baseball stadium I know of that is set into the ground. It also has the multicolored seats, unique scoreboard, and a beautiful view.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by LDYanks16 View Post
            .

            I'd have to put Miller Park and Nationals Park on that list. Not that I have anything against Miller Park, but take out Bernie Brewer's slide and it looks like little more than a gigantic seashell with the roof closed. Nationals Park made me feel like I was at Citizens Bank when I made the trip there this summer (sans about 25,000 extra people). Not that the franchise has much history to go on, but it looks like you could place any other team name at the top of the big scoreboard in right field and it could be passed off as something else. It has no designed quirks or real identity with the city outside of the possibility of getting a glimpse of the Capitol building from the upper deck.
            Miller Park does have a lot of generic qualities. The exterior is the brick with arched windows. But I think the roof deserves a lot of credit. The city uses it as a landmark and is incorporated into many logos. In 1998 Chase Field opened, in 99 it was Safeco, and in 2000 it was Minute Maid. All these parks had retractable roofs and when Miller opened in 2001 the roof was something different.

            Comment


            • #7
              I disagree about Citi Field. It has a lot of unique features, just maybe not for the right purposes, but unique nonetheless. I wouldn't call it generic at all.

              Upon reading the title of this thread though, the first ballpark that came to mind was Turner Field. I have never seen the outside of Turner Field, I don't even know how it looks like, but every time I watch a Braves game on TV it is by far the most characterless, generic, drab, boring looking ballpark I've ever seen from the interior.
              STOP ABUSING COFFEE

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by RayNY View Post
                I disagree about Citi Field. It has a lot of unique features, just maybe not for the right purposes, but unique nonetheless. I wouldn't call it generic at all.

                Upon reading the title of this thread though, the first ballpark that came to mind was Turner Field. I have never seen the outside of Turner Field, I don't even know how it looks like, but every time I watch a Braves game on TV it is by far the most characterless, generic, drab, boring looking ballpark I've ever seen from the interior.
                The reason why I picked Citi is because it has the brick exterior with the long arched windows. Just like Safeco, Miller, Coors, Busch, and Turner. Citi is the newest ballpark and it followed that new cookie cutter pattern. I know it's homage to Ebbets, but they aren't the Dodgers. The rotunda looks beautiful, but it's in honor of a Dodger player. That could be a topic on itself and I'm sure is covered in one of the many Citi Field threads. I also think it's generic because it is plastered with ads. The only thing that seems to represent the Mets are the orange foul poles, the Home Run Apple, and the Shake Shack. I've never been there, but hope to see it in person. I'm just giving my reasons why I think what I do.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by mdseverin View Post
                  The reason why I picked Citi is because it has the brick exterior with the long arched windows. Just like Safeco, Miller, Coors, Busch, and Turner. Citi is the newest ballpark and it followed that new cookie cutter pattern. I know it's homage to Ebbets, but they aren't the Dodgers. The rotunda looks beautiful, but it's in honor of a Dodger player. That could be a topic on itself and I'm sure is covered in one of the many Citi Field threads. I also think it's generic because it is plastered with ads. The only thing that seems to represent the Mets are the orange foul poles, the Home Run Apple, and the Shake Shack. I've never been there, but hope to see it in person. I'm just giving my reasons why I think what I do.
                  ge·ner·ic (j-nrk)
                  adj.
                  1. Relating to or descriptive of an entire group or class; general.
                  2. Biology Of or relating to a genus.
                  3. a. Not having a brand name: generic soap.
                  b. Of or being a drug sold under or identified by its official nonproprietary or chemical name.
                  4. Grammar Specifying neither masculine nor feminine gender:

                  Of the above, only definition four can be used to describe the new home of the New York Mets. It also describes every ballpark everywhere.

                  So, the answer is "all of the above."

                  Last edited by JohnCropp; 10-30-2009, 07:36 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Landshark or whatever it is called....it reminds me of Nintendo games back in the day when graphics sucked and the stadium had to be simple.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by mdseverin View Post
                      The reason why I picked Citi is because it has the brick exterior with the long arched windows. Just like Safeco, Miller, Coors, Busch, and Turner. Citi is the newest ballpark and it followed that new cookie cutter pattern. I know it's homage to Ebbets, but they aren't the Dodgers. The rotunda looks beautiful, but it's in honor of a Dodger player. That could be a topic on itself and I'm sure is covered in one of the many Citi Field threads. I also think it's generic because it is plastered with ads. The only thing that seems to represent the Mets are the orange foul poles, the Home Run Apple, and the Shake Shack. I've never been there, but hope to see it in person. I'm just giving my reasons why I think what I do.
                      I agree that it lacks anything Mets and I hate that. But that is an entirely different argument IMO. Citi Field still has features that make it recognizably Citi Field. That's why I don't think it's generic.
                      STOP ABUSING COFFEE

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by bandit12 View Post
                        Landshark or whatever it is called....it reminds me of Nintendo games back in the day when graphics sucked and the stadium had to be simple.
                        There are a few special features at the Dolph, like the Teal Tower and Bermuda Triangle, and the teal backstop on TV. One look at the place and you know exactly where it is. The place is lacking in most areas, but uniqueness isn't one of them
                        1997 2003
                        Parks I've visited: 30 for 30, plus 5 closed

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Whatever they're calling the mausoleum in Oakland these days, and Tropicana, since it's the only ballpark left that was built with no tenant in mind.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I can't see any charge laid against Turner that can't be laid against Nationals (which copies Turner in several respects), except that Nationals has a better public-transportation link (rail a block away). A question of definitions whether you want to include that in the discussion of the "ballpark."

                            On the other hand, Turner has its museum and hall of fame, a small but to me significant feature, which I think should be more widely emulated.

                            I could mention some others that haven't made much impression on me but since I haven't been there, I don't really know what I'm talking about, do I?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JohnCropp View Post
                              Wrigley Field. Easy.
                              Huh?

                              I'd say Wrigley is one of the most unique
                              Alcohol
                              Tobacco
                              Firearms
                              should be a convenience store,
                              not a government agency

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X