SportsLogos.Net News

Texas Rangers Bid Farewell to the Ballpark With Patch in 2019

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, KRZYBDGRZ said:

Woah there bud 1*rXy8-NplLdH0OgwXRQq-Tg.gif

 

 

 

Wasn’t the whole point of the show that Hank was surrounded by idiots, jackasses, or some combination of the two? Don’t get me wrong, I love the show, but most of those characters were idiots.

 

Still, the point stands, the team should have figured out the retractable roof engineering before opening a replacement for Arlington/Turnpike Stadium. Save yourself some trouble down the line, methinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 10:03 PM, Ice_Cap said:

People vote against their best interests all the time.

 

This is questionable, IMO. 

 

People vote for a myriad of reasons, and their immediate interests might not line up with the group-think interests.

 

If you're a local Rangers fan paying an extra $45 a year in taxes for a stadium that was far better than Arlington Stadium...that might be a solid interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 11:37 PM, SFGiants58 said:

Still, the point stands, the team should have figured out the retractable roof engineering before opening a replacement for Arlington/Turnpike Stadium. Save yourself some trouble down the line, methinks.

 

That's hindsight, though...shoulda/woulda/coulda. Retractable roof engineering designs in the early 90s were still in "Ugly and expensive AF" mode. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 3:37 AM, Ice_Cap said:

1) It was humid and hot in in Texas back in 1994. They couldn't figure this out then?

To be fair back in 94, the only retractible roof stadium was Skydome, and the next major one (the current Chase Field in Arizona) was 4 years away.  It might have been an option in 94, but maybe costs were higher that expected or it wasnt thought of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WSU151 said:

 

This is questionable, IMO. 

 

People vote for a myriad of reasons, and their immediate interests might not line up with the group-think interests.

 

If you're a local Rangers fan paying an extra $45 a year in taxes for a stadium that was far better than Arlington Stadium...that might be a solid interest.

 

Define far better. If you ask me a roof, AC, and artificial turf makes for a worse baseball stadium and in game experience. The sport has been played in the summer heat for over 150 years and the rangers attendance has been some of the most consistent in the league since the old stadium opened in '94. The only thing I can think of is that this is a proactive measure to combat the inevitably more volatile summer weather brought on by global warming which is just starting to ramp up big time in TX.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Define far better. If you ask me a roof, AC, and artificial turf makes for a worse baseball stadium and in game experience. The sport has been played in the summer heat for over 150 years and the rangers attendance has been some of the most consistent in the league since the old stadium opened in '94. The only thing I can think of is that this is a proactive measure to combat the inevitably more volatile summer weather brought on by global warming which is just starting to ramp up big time in TX.

The roof isnt just for baseball, it also allows the venue to host other events that require indoor capabilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Define far better. If you ask me a roof, AC, and artificial turf makes for a worse baseball stadium and in game experience. The sport has been played in the summer heat for over 150 years and the rangers attendance has been some of the most consistent in the league since the old stadium opened in '94. The only thing I can think of is that this is a proactive measure to combat the inevitably more volatile summer weather brought on by global warming which is just starting to ramp up big time in TX.

 

1) North Texas has always had volatile summer weather...global warming doesn't "ramp up in Texas". The Ballpark's first regular season game was delayed 50 minutes due to rain

2) I was talking about the transition from old Arlington Stadium to The Ballpark, as the cost of the new ballpark will be mostly funded by tourist taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

1) North Texas has always had volatile summer weather...global warming doesn't "ramp up in Texas". The Ballpark's first regular season game was delayed 50 minutes due to rain

2) I was talking about the transition from old Arlington Stadium to The Ballpark, as the cost of the new ballpark will be mostly funded by tourist taxes.

 

Basic geography puts the state of texas near the top of the list in terms of exposure to global warming. Extended droughts, record high temperatures, annual 100 year hurricanes, catastrophic flooding and the like are only going to get worse through the end of the century. I would say those factors may make watching baseball games outdoors no longer feasible as they were over the past 4 decades. If you take that into consideration, I guess you could make a case for a $700 million taxpayer subsidy for a baseball team otherwise they might move to Vancouver or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, guest23 said:

 

Basic geography puts the state of texas near the top of the list in terms of exposure to global warming. Extended droughts, record high temperatures, annual 100 year hurricanes, catastrophic flooding and the like are only going to get worse through the end of the century. I would say those factors may make watching baseball games outdoors no longer feasible as they were over the past 4 decades. If you take that into consideration, I guess you could make a case for a $700 million taxpayer subsidy for a baseball team otherwise they might move to Vancouver or something.

 

Man if you are absolutely certain about all of these alarming weathing events happening in Arlington, Texas from now until 2100 you might want to go buy some lottery numbers. If the most alarming climate change predictions do come true by 2100 (which is incredibly unlikely, especially your made up scenario of annual 100 year hurricanes in Texas), baseball will be a complete afterthought in 90% of the markets.

 

I mean you'd think drought in Texas would be happening now and it's amazing how the Rangers played outdoor baseball even with the dozens of floods in Texas's history. 

 

And in all likelihood this new stadium might be replaced in 2070 or so, which would then make way for a newer, more environmentally-advantageous stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2019 at 2:37 AM, Ice_Cap said:

1) It was humid and hot in in Texas back in 1994. They couldn't figure this out then?

 

 

Should’ve been able to figure it out then. The other Texas baseball team (Astros) have been playing indoors since 1965 and just extended their lease at Minute Maid Park through 2050. Not a bad deal for a $250 million retractable roof park with a skyline view compared to the Rangers $1.2 billion correction of their past mistake (that might not even have grass).

 

BTW, not a fan of the Jerry World style field suites Globe Life Field will have surrounding the entire infield, along with the premium seats moat. Hope that doesn’t start a new trend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, WSU151 said:

 

Man if you are absolutely certain about all of these alarming weathing events happening in Arlington, Texas from now until 2100 you might want to go buy some lottery numbers. If the most alarming climate change predictions do come true by 2100 (which is incredibly unlikely, especially your made up scenario of annual 100 year hurricanes in Texas), baseball will be a complete afterthought in 90% of the markets.

 

I mean you'd think drought in Texas would be happening now and it's amazing how the Rangers played outdoor baseball even with the dozens of floods in Texas's history. 

 

And in all likelihood this new stadium might be replaced in 2070 or so, which would then make way for a newer, more environmentally-advantageous stadium.

 

At the rate the rangers and city of arlington consume stadia we can expect the new stadium to be replaced in 2035.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/2/2019 at 8:32 AM, andrewharrington said:

That’s insane. I still think of that place as new, and I think it’s because it opened the same year as Jacobs Field. I couldn’t fathom the Jake being replaced for at least another 25 years.

 

Indeed. The fact that two of the Camden-era parks have already been replaced in Atlanta and now Arlington is just insane. They are all still new. When parks like Fenway, Wrigley, and Dodger Stadium are all still top notch venues with proper care and upkeep 50-100 years later... it's just wasteful. And stupid. One of the great joys in life is to take your kids or grandkids to the same ballyard you visited as a kid. Now poor bastards in both cities will be denied that pleasure for ostensibly no reason as the new parks don't have much that the old ones didn't already have. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Indeed. The fact that two of the Camden-era parks have already been replaced in Atlanta and now Arlington is just insane. They are all still new. When parks like Fenway, Wrigley, and Dodger Stadium are all still top notch venues with proper care and upkeep 50-100 years later... it's just wasteful. And stupid. One of the great joys in life is to take your kids or grandkids to the same ballyard you visited as a kid. Now poor bastards in both cities will be denied that pleasure for ostensibly no reason as the new parks don't have much that the old ones didn't already have. 

 

But what you're overlooking is that rangers fans is that the weather and lack of AC is clearly keeping fans away from the stadium. It's just too unbearable. Just ignore these statistics that show how W/L plays a major role and the argument totally makes sense https://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/TEX/attend.shtml

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think anyone is ignoring that. What everyone is doing is pointing out how stupid it was to overlook all of that in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bucfan56 said:

I don’t think anyone is ignoring that. What everyone is doing is pointing out how stupid it was to overlook all of that in the first place.

Exactly. It was hot and humid in Texas back in 1994. They should have invested in a retractable roof back then. Hell, Rogers Centre is older and it's still a nice place to watch a ball game with a fully functioning retractable roof. It could have been done, the just didn't want to. And then they asked for more money for their shortsightedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ice_Cap said:

Exactly. It was hot and humid in Texas back in 1994. They should have invested in a retractable roof back then. Hell, Rogers Centre is older and it's still a nice place to watch a ball game with a fully functioning retractable roof. It could have been done, the just didn't want to. And then they asked for more money for their shortsightedness.

 

Well to be fair to the Rangers, in 1994 no one had built a successful Camdenesque retractable domed stadium to that point. Skydome existed, but Skydome for all it's then technological marvel really was the a far from ideal prototype for a successful retractable roof put on top of a stadium that was still built in that 60-90's multipurpose concrete behemoth vein. That's not to say it's a bad venue, but no one had really put together the Camden style park with a roof that didn't defeat the purpose behind Camden parks. The first mostly successful attempt at that (Bank One Ballpark) wouldn't even enter the planning stages until a year after The Ballpark in Arlington opened. So I don't fault them for that.

 

That has to be the one saving grace. The two parks replaced from the Camden era so far were not ideally built. Arlington because it really did need a roof and missed that boat by a few years, and Turner Field because it was built as an Olympic venue on the cheap and it showed (strange concourses (dark underseat main concourse on the 1st deck and huge empty concourse at the top of the 1st deck for example which were clearly designed for a stadium holding 100,000 people, not 40,000), shoddy brickwork that was crumbling 7 years ago when I visited, shoddy concrete work that had worn away to the rebar in many places, etc...) that was in a neighborhood that never developed around it as planned. 

 

By comparison there aren't too many other Camden era parks that were as blatantly deficient. The Diamondbacks are trying to argue theirs isn't up to snuff, but that's bull :censored: and they know it.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Well to be fair to the Rangers, in 1994 no one had built a successful Camdenesque retractable domed stadium to that point. Skydome existed, but Skydome for all it's then technological marvel really was the a far from ideal prototype for a successful retractable roof put on top of a stadium that was still built in that 60-90's multipurpose concrete behemoth vein. That's not to say it's a bad venue, but no one had really put together the Camden style park with a roof that didn't defeat the purpose behind Camden parks. The first mostly successful attempt at that (Bank One Ballpark) wouldn't even enter the planning stages until a year after The Ballpark in Arlington opened. So I don't fault them for that.

 

That has to be the one saving grace. The two parks replaced from the Camden era so far were not ideally built. Arlington because it really did need a roof and missed that boat by a few years, and Turner Field because it was built as an Olympic venue on the cheap and it showed (strange concourses (dark underseat main concourse on the 1st deck and huge empty concourse at the top of the 1st deck for example which were clearly designed for a stadium holding 100,000 people, not 40,000), shoddy brickwork that was crumbling 7 years ago when I visited, shoddy concrete work that had worn away to the rebar in many places, etc...) that was in a neighborhood that never developed around it as planned. 

 

By comparison there aren't too many other Camden era parks that were as blatantly deficient. The Diamondbacks are trying to argue theirs isn't up to snuff, but that's bull :censored: and they know it.  

 

Safeco & Minute Maid we’re both designed just 2 years later, opened 5 years later. It could’ve happened in 1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, NYCdog said:

 

Safeco & Minute Maid we’re both designed just 2 years later, opened 5 years later. It could’ve happened in 1994.

 

The Ballpark in Arlington wasn't designed in 1994. It opened in 1994.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, NYCdog said:

 

Safeco & Minute Maid we’re both designed just 2 years later, opened 5 years later. It could’ve happened in 1994.

 

Safeco and Enron were designed two and three years after Arlington opened (designed in 1996 and 1997 respectively), later than even Bank One Ballpark (designed in 1995). So not sure what your point was? Arlington was designed back in 1992. 3 years prior to the first Camden style dome, which again wasn't ideal as the BOB's rectangular warehouse design was not copied since with the Safeco/Enron/Marlins side slide roof being the favored design. So realistically they were 4 years or more too early to get a Safeco/Enron/Marlins style park like they're building with Globe Life Field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bosrs1 said:

 

Safeco and Enron were designed two and three years after Arlington opened (designed in 1996 and 1997 respectively), later than even Bank One Ballpark (designed in 1995). So not sure what your point was? Arlington was designed back in 1992. 3 years prior to the first Camden style dome, which again wasn't ideal as the BOB's rectangular warehouse design was not copied since with the Safeco/Enron/Marlins side slide roof being the favored design. So realistically they were 4 years or more too early to get a Safeco/Enron/Marlins style park like they're building with Globe Life Field. 

 

The point was it certainly wasn’t impossible to construct a retractable roof park, even Camden style. It could’ve happened and probably just depended on what the Rangers design requirements and budget were at that time. For whatever reason, they opted for an outdoor ballpark and ignored the climate concerns at that time, a mistake Arlington taxpayers will be paying for dearly now. 

 

If if we want to go back further, here’s a 1986 proposal for a retractable roof ballpark for the White Sox. 

 

Addison_Dome_Overhead.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now