No new parks being built

[MC EXPOS]

This is the first time in a long time that no MLB team has plans for a new park to be built. Eventually some will be needed, be it in 30,40 or 50 years. With that said, which team do you think will be the next to build a new park

(TB and Oakland will eventually need one be it in their current city, or elsewhere, so they dont count for this)

[mandrake]

This is the first time in a long time that no MLB team has plans for a new park to be built. Eventually some will be needed, be it in 30,40 or 50 years. With that said, which team do you think will be the next to build a new park

(TB and Oakland will eventually need one be it in their current city, or elsewhere, so they dont count for this)

1) Wrigley Field 2) Fenway Both really need to be replaced. Historical, yes. But people were either 5'5'' and weighed 140 lbs back 100 years ago, or those ballparks were built on 3/4 scale. Their time has come and gone.

[Chevy114]

This issue comes up from time to time on here and I wonder if the new parks i.e. new yankee, cbp, pnc, at&t, etc. will really need to be replaced? What more could they do? Is it a structural thing where the ground can't handle that much weight for that long? I always thought they were replaced because they lacked amenities, but with no new amenities in site I truely wonder.

[MC EXPOS]

This issue comes up from time to time on here and I wonder if the new parks i.e. new yankee, cbp, pnc, at&t, etc. will really need to be replaced? What more could they do? Is it a structural thing where the ground can't handle that much weight for that long? I always thought they were replaced because they lacked amenities, but with no new amenities in site I truely wonder.

Your right that there isnt much that can be improved, even adding a retractable roof (if wanted) can be done to these. The new parks are reinforced steel, and armoured concrete, good for atleast 100yrs

[Danielh41]

Obviously, the teams at the top of the list for new ballparks are the A's, Rays, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Royals, and Angels since those are the clubs that have ballparks that opened before 1990. But of the ones who have parks that opened since 1990? I don't think any of the newer parks will be replaced anytime soon, but the team that comes immediately to mind is the Texas Rangers because of the heat here in July and August and the lack of a retractable roof with air conditioning. Unless of course, they come up with a way to put a roof on the current Ballpark.

[MC EXPOS]

BTW. this is off topic, but this season is the first year that i have nt attend a MLB game since the age of 8. Since 1985 (my first ever game) to 2004, i attended about 20-25 Expos games per year, as well as watching Expos road games from 1997 to 2004 in various ballparks. I've been going to Fenway every year since the Expos left town. However with the purchase of a new house this year, a the extensive renovations that came along with it, i just had no time this year. But Im gonna start a new streak next season, cant wait already.

[Chevy114]

Obviously, the teams at the top of the list for new ballparks are the A's, Rays, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Royals, and Angels since those are the clubs that have ballparks that opened before 1990. But of the ones who have parks that opened since 1990? I don't think any of the newer parks will be replaced anytime soon, but the team that comes immediately to mind is the Texas Rangers because of the heat here in July and August and the lack of a retractable roof with air conditioning. Unless of course, they come up with a way to put a roof on the current Ballpark.

I would say Baltimore might have the next issue with no open concourses, if they even care about that. I would also say the Bluejays might want a baseball only place one day, but again its never been said so I don't know if they even care about it.

[dstoffa]

Obviously, the teams at the top of the list for new ballparks are the A's, Rays, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Royals, and Angels since those are the clubs that have ballparks that opened before 1990. But of the ones who have parks that opened since 1990? I don't think any of the newer parks will be replaced anytime soon, but the team that comes immediately to mind is the Texas Rangers because of the heat here in July and August and the lack of a retractable roof with air conditioning. Unless of course, they come up with a way to put a roof on the current Ballpark.

All they'd need to do is install a big sun-shield like the one C. Monty Burns did to cast Springfield in shadow..... It was a big disk that covered the whole town... Surely such a device can be constructed to cover a ballpark...

Cheers!
-Doug

[Mr. Laser Beam]

What happened to Cisco Field? I thought the A's were still working on it.

[Ben Grimm]

Eventually, we'll see another boom of parks like we did from '92-'08 or so where 80% of the league created a new venue.

I think we'll see it sometime around 2030 or so and wouldn't be surprised if it's even more corporate-friendly and insanely digitally driven. Imagine a park with only 15-20k seats for fans while the rest is nothing but suites, hotels, restaurants etc. A futuristic venue in which the in-seat fans are in the low-level of the bowl from the 1B line wrapped around to the 3B line. While at the game, you see nothing but windows, digital boards, advertising et al, but on tv, CGI takes over and fills those "storefronts" with digital fans. We've all watched movies and see how CGI can make pretty much anything look how they want it to - just imagine what it'll be like 20 years from now. I really think the game will be driven by TV more than the fans in the seats as there could be some type of interaction between the viewer and the manager, players, and even umpires.

Speaking right now, it's not something I would enjoy. But with technology, each year we become a bit more numb to things as it's developed and in 20 years, the shock value won't be there like it would right now.

[jnakamura]

Obviously, the teams at the top of the list for new ballparks are the A's, Rays, Red Sox, Cubs, Dodgers, Royals, and Angels...

You can scratch the Red Sox, Dodgers and Royals off that list.

The Sox and Royals have just finished long-term renovations that will keep those parks viable for the next several decades. The Dodgers are part-way through similar renovations, and have recently hired Janet Smith to finish the Dodger Stadium renovations. Smith was in charge of the renovations of Fenway, Turner Field and Camden Yards.

The Cubs are in the middle of finalizing plans for similar long-term renovations to Wrigley, so they as well seem to be off the list of building a new stadium anytime soon.

The Angels owner has made statements in recent years that he is not content with Angel Stadium--both with the age of the venue and with the lease. The Angels lease expires in 2016, so expect the Angels to start talking about either another major renovation or even a move back to L.A. proper with a new stadium.

The A's and Rays are the obvious choices for new stadiums--the A's already have plans but are fighting with the league on rights to San Jose. The Rays are not even close to finding a solution, either with location or funding. Both teams also face financing issues with new venues.

As for the Rangers, as long as they keep being in the top tier of the league in attendance, I just don't see the rationale for a dome. If the fans are coming without one, what's the point?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

^ Wasn't there a plan put forth that would demolish the Oakland Coliseum and construct new stadia for the Athletics *and* Raiders on the same property? IIRC, both teams would temporarily move elsewhere while these places are being constructed and they would move into the new ones when finished.

[Chevy114]

^ Wasn't there a plan put forth that would demolish the Oakland Coliseum and construct new stadia for the Athletics *and* Raiders on the same property? IIRC, both teams would temporarily move elsewhere while these places are being constructed and they would move into the new ones when finished.

I thought that was wishful thinking where they would do a mount davis 2.0 on the side of the field, but I might be thinking of plans to make it football only.

[Anubis2051]

This issue comes up from time to time on here and I wonder if the new parks i.e. new yankee, cbp, pnc, at&t, etc. will really need to be replaced? What more could they do? Is it a structural thing where the ground can't handle that much weight for that long? I always thought they were replaced because they lacked amenities, but with no new amenities in site I truely wonder.

Yanks will move back across the street in ~50 years, just to do it.

[drdg]

^ Wasn't there a plan put forth that would demolish the Oakland Coliseum and construct new stadia for the Athletics *and* Raiders on the same property? IIRC, both teams would temporarily move elsewhere while these places are being constructed and they would move into the new ones when finished.

the was by far the best plan and it was even approved by the city of oakland
but the owner of the A's said NO, that he wanted out of Oakland, something about not enough rich fans
and the owner of the NFL Raiders pass away, so their future in Oakland is uncertain,
it seems like they want to move back to Los Angeles if they build a new stadium in downtown L.A.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/02/sports/baseball/as-and-giants-in-tug-of-war-over-rights-to-san-jose.html?pagewanted=all

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304451104577390133979036176.html