Cosmic Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 6 hours ago, BJ Sands said: Not sure where to put this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouj Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 11 hours ago, dont care said: Yep clearly enough room to expand on the other side They only could have expanded to the trees. There is a city street there lined by the trees. Yes, they could have done that at the expense of parking, but parking was already at a premium with the park was built. And before anyone asks about all the empty-appearing area around the park, this is an old photo, and the team doesn't own that land. The area across the street from the left field wall is townhouses/condos now, the area across Texas St has long been developed or it is owned by the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, and most of the other areas that could be for parking have been developed as well. There is more parking across US Highway 59, but it butts up against the Dynamo's park. Go Astros!Go Texans!Go Rockets!Go Javelinas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 47 minutes ago, Bouj said: They only could have expanded to the trees. There is a city street there lined by the trees. Yes, they could have done that at the expense of parking, but parking was already at a premium with the park was built. And before anyone asks about all the empty-appearing area around the park, this is an old photo, and the team doesn't own that land. The area across the street from the left field wall is townhouses/condos now, the area across Texas St has long been developed or it is owned by the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, and most of the other areas that could be for parking have been developed as well. There is more parking across US Highway 59, but it butts up against the Dynamo's park. Even if they only built to the street, they would have gained at least 50 feet to play with and would have lost what looks to be about 30 parking spaces. Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017 ///// Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverBullet1929 Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 18 hours ago, BJ Sands said: Not sure where to put this... Oh man I'm taking sooooo much celery to the ballpark that day! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sport Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 1 hour ago, leopard88 said: Even if they only built to the street, they would have gained at least 50 feet to play with and would have lost what looks to be about 30 parking spaces. Exactly. They invented a problem for themselves so they could solve it with purposefully quirky dimensions. I liked that center field was so deep because somewhere in the park needed to be a tough home run, but the hill was the worst contrivance of them all. It was built in a time when quirky dimensions were all the rage and that stadium has more quirky dimensions crammed into it than any of them. I'm glad the Reds don't have to go there for 9 games a year anymore. Left field is the cheapest home run in baseball. "there is a city street lined by trees" So you move the city street and the trees. It's a major league baseball team, not me trying to get a permit to put an extension on my house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroywen Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 They could've very easily moved the entire ballpark about 20-30 feet toward that back street with the trees, and completely avoided the need for contrived dimensions in left field. Add that to the fact that the "Crawford Boxes" are a completely unnecessary add-on that takes away further space in left field, it becomes pretty clear that the fault for the super-short left field porch and stupidly contrived dimensions lays entirely at the feet of the architects. Either moving the ballpark 20-30 feet or not adding on pointless "box seats" would've rectified the issue. I actually really enjoyed visiting Minute Maid Park when I went, since the rest of the ballpark is actually really well designed and inviting for fans. But left/center field is a jumbled, pointless mess that negatively impacts the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dont care Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 8 hours ago, Bouj said: They only could have expanded to the trees. There is a city street there lined by the trees. Yes, they could have done that at the expense of parking, but parking was already at a premium with the park was built. And before anyone asks about all the empty-appearing area around the park, this is an old photo, and the team doesn't own that land. The area across the street from the left field wall is townhouses/condos now, the area across Texas St has long been developed or it is owned by the Diocese of Galveston-Houston, and most of the other areas that could be for parking have been developed as well. There is more parking across US Highway 59, but it butts up against the Dynamo's park. That's a band new photo using google earth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 27, 2017 Share Posted February 27, 2017 Yeah, but when did Google upload the photo? It's not real time, and sometimes can lag by years. The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVIXX Posted February 27, 2017 Author Share Posted February 27, 2017 Miami Marlins have a new primary conformed by @ColorWerx (black part is white) https://mobile.twitter.com/ColorWerx/status/834383921903239168 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonYoung320 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 36 minutes ago, TVIXX said: Miami Marlins have a new primary conformed by @ColorWerx (black part is white) https://mobile.twitter.com/ColorWerx/status/834383921903239168 1 It looks much stronger with the (Black with no script) versus White (with no script). At least now the Cap logo matches the Primary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TVIXX Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 Today's update Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCdog Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 4 hours ago, dont care said: That's a band new photo using google earth... Was just here for Super Bowl - it's definitely outdated. For one, the new loft building over the left field wall isn't even rendered on Google Earth. Neither is that new hotel with the Texas shaped lazy river 11 hours ago, kroywen said: They could've very easily moved the entire ballpark about 20-30 feet toward that back street with the trees, and completely avoided the need for contrived dimensions in left field. Add that to the fact that the "Crawford Boxes" are a completely unnecessary add-on that takes away further space in left field, it becomes pretty clear that the fault for the super-short left field porch and stupidly contrived dimensions lays entirely at the feet of the architects. Either moving the ballpark 20-30 feet or not adding on pointless "box seats" would've rectified the issue. I actually really enjoyed visiting Minute Maid Park when I went, since the rest of the ballpark is actually really well designed and inviting for fans. But left/center field is a jumbled, pointless mess that negatively impacts the game. I get the hate for the hill & flag pole ...that was totally unnecessary. But what other design options did architects have aside from the Crawford Boxes? There wasn't much room because of a roof rail and a train station. If the boxes aren't there, you get just one big continuous arched wall, with more roof rail columns in play then what's currently in the LF power alley. I think considering the site constraints the architects had of building a climate-control retractable roof ballpark on a city grid with historic train station on site, HOK did a damn good job. When comparing it to other climate controlled facilities in baseball (Safeco isn't climate controlled) MMP really is the best designed climate controlled ballpark currently in baseball. And HOK made it a reality for only $250 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBTV Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Well it's already been shown that it could have been moved 20-30 more feet, but also I'm struggling to believe that in a city as sparsely populated as Houston, there wasn't a larger plot of land to work with. "The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kroywen Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 46 minutes ago, NYCdog said: I get the hate for the hill & flag pole ...that was totally unnecessary. But what other design options did architects have aside from the Crawford Boxes? There wasn't much room because of a roof rail and a train station. If the boxes aren't there, you get just one big continuous arched wall, with more roof rail columns in play then what's currently in the LF power alley. They could've not included the Crawford Boxes at all, and instead just had a solid wall with an out of town scoreboard there. 20+ ft walls with scoreboard were super-popular design items at the time (Jacobs, Coors, AT&T, PNC, Arlington, etc.) - they could've easily went that route. Instead, they shoehorned in glorified outfield seats, gave them a fancy name to mark up the price, and created needless outfield angles, terrible shadows, and a joke of a left field porch instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobbi Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Not sure if it's appropriate for this thread but I'm confused by this Reds jersey I found on eBay. It has red sleeves but the mothership shows the road jersey from this era as having black sleeves. I might be forgetting something but I can't recall the Reds having red sleeves with this jersey... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYCdog Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, kroywen said: They could've not included the Crawford Boxes at all, and instead just had a solid wall with an out of town scoreboard there. 20+ ft walls with scoreboard were super-popular design items at the time (Jacobs, Coors, AT&T, PNC, Arlington, etc.) - they could've easily went that route. Instead, they shoehorned in glorified outfield seats, gave them a fancy name to mark up the price, and created needless outfield angles, terrible shadows, and a joke of a left field porch instead. IMO, a solid continuous arched wall would've looked worse, even if they integrated an out-of-town scoreboard. Id imaging it would've been similar to the old Busch Stadium double-deck corners, spanning all of left field. Guess you could've had standing room areas but that's it. The short porch was the better option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jungle Jim Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 1 hour ago, Gobbi said: Not sure if it's appropriate for this thread but I'm confused by this Reds jersey I found on eBay. It has red sleeves but the mothership shows the road jersey from this era as having black sleeves. I might be forgetting something but I can't recall the Reds having red sleeves with this jersey... I addressed this on page 110... On 2/14/2017 at 11:40 PM, Jungle Jim said: Here are the photos from the 1999 unveiling. It was my impression at the time that they were intended to always wear red undershirts at home and black on the road. After they started winning a lot of road games that first season (even earning the nickname "The Big Road Machine"), they naturally assumed it was because they were wearing black undershirts on the road. (I'm being sarcastic about the stupidity of superstition, by the way). It was for that reason that they started wearing the black undershirts both home and road, and as the wins piled up, they were there to stay for far too long. I may be wrong, but I don't think they ever wore red undershirts on the road with that set in the eight years they had them. As you mentioned, though, the replica jerseys of that era strangely had the red undershirt with the road vest. Regardless of the combination, it was a horrible look, and I'd like to forget it ever happened. The current ones are much better, but it's time to take the next step and eliminate the black. As others have said, just go back to 1968-71 and be done with it. They never should have strayed from those in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bouj Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 15 hours ago, dont care said: That's a band new photo using google earth... As others pointed out above, that's an outdated photo. I was just down there for the Winter Invitational. The condos behind LF aren't in that pic. They've been under construction since before the 2015 playoff run. The construction crane at that site collapsed on the day the ALCS began in 2015 (Had the Astros not lost to KC, it...wouldn't have affected them at all because they would have been in TOR for G1). And I'm not saying it was a good idea to not move the park to the tree line. I'm just explaining the reasoning. They were tied up by the desire to keep Union Station (to house the team's offices) and the train track (a contrivance for certain). But the field dimensions are not substantially different than Fenway. The wall is shorter, but the distances are similar. For all the complaints about "cheap offense", it's really a falsehood perpetuated by the team's poor pitching in 2000 and during the lean years of the early 2010's. When the Astros' staff is decent-to-good, it's a middle-of-the-pack offensive park (according to MLB Park Factors). Go Astros!Go Texans!Go Rockets!Go Javelinas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leopard88 Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 5 minutes ago, Bouj said: And I'm not saying it was a good idea to not move the park to the tree line. I'm just explaining the reasoning. They were tied up by the desire to keep Union Station (to house the team's offices) and the train track (a contrivance for certain). But the field dimensions are not substantially different than Fenway. The wall is shorter, but the distances are similar. For all the complaints about "cheap offense", it's really a falsehood perpetuated by the team's poor pitching in 2000 and during the lean years of the early 2010's. When the Astros' staff is decent-to-good, it's a middle-of-the-pack offensive park (according to MLB Park Factors). The distinction is that Fenway really was constrained by the existing street grid. Most Liked Content of the Day -- February 15, 2017, August 21, 2017, August 22, 2017 ///// Proud Winner of the CCSLC Post of the Day Award -- April 8, 2008 Originator of the Upside Down Sarcasm Smilie -- November 1, 2005 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gobbi Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 9 hours ago, Jungle Jim said: I addressed this on page 110... Oh my bad, thanks! Sad part is that I did read that when it was posted. The only part of that discussion that stuck with me was the navy/black conversation though... I shouldn't be getting that forgetful at my age! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.