SportsLogos.Net News

Texas Rangers Bid Farewell to the Ballpark With Patch in 2019

Recommended Posts

On 1/9/2019 at 6:12 PM, 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. 

 

1.  I wouldn't consider Arlington and Atlanta "Camden-era".  The timing may have lined up, but they were not designed for the same purposes.  Atlanta's was an olympic stadium converted into a MLB park, and wasn't built to the same standards as the parks that truley followed in Camden's footsteps.  Arlington is closer, but still wasn't quite "neo-retro" in the way Camden was, and (I could be mistaken here) was similar to Comiskey 2 in how it was designed and built relatively cheaply without the same concern for overall experience as Camden had.

 

 

2.  In no universe are Fenway and Wrigley "top notch venues".  Fenway, if not for its history, would barely cut it as a AAA park.  Wrigley is significantly better, but still not without lots of flaws that are hard to look past if they weren't concealed by "charm".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 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.

My take on it is this. 

Back in the early 1990s? The Rangers could have had a neo-retro style park without a retractable roof or they could have had a SkyDome-esque park. 

 

In a vacuum? Either are fine choices. SkyDome/Rogers Centre is proof that even a park like that firmly planted in its pre-Camden stylings can still be a nice place to see a ball game if properly renovated and maintained. So really, either would have been viable in 1994.

 

Where I lose sympathy for the Rangers is that they didn’t exist in that vacuum. They were planning a new, expensive baseball stadium in the middle of Texas. 

The humidity and heat didn’t sneak up on them, they knew the climate. And that should have dictated a SkyDome-esque park, as that was the long-term viable option given the climate they were working with. Sorry if they don’t get their neo-classic ballpark, but all the retro stylings in the world won’t make it not hot and humid in Texas in the summer. 

 

They chose the open-air option though. No one forced that on them. They chose it. That short-sightedness is all on them. And they still had the gall to go, cap in hand, to the tax payers asking for a new baseball palace not even thirty years later. 

 

And for the record? Rogers Centre is still going strong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That it isn't an indoor ballpark is like the only thing I like about Arlington. It's the McMansion of ballparks.

 

Also, it'll probably be a good thing that people can't take their kids there anymore because something about parents with children there makes people fall to their deaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, the admiral said:

That it isn't an indoor ballpark is like the only thing I like about Arlington. It's the McMansion of ballparks.

That’s strangely fitting for the Rangers though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, the admiral said:

Also, it'll probably be a good thing that people can't take their kids there anymore because something about parents with children there makes people fall to their deaths.

Hmm, not cool.

Share this post


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

My take on it is this. 

Back in the early 1990s? The Rangers could have had a neo-retro style park without a retractable roof or they could have had a SkyDome-esque park. 

 

In a vacuum? Either are fine choices. SkyDome/Rogers Centre is proof that even a park like that firmly planted in its pre-Camden stylings can still be a nice place to see a ball game if properly renovated and maintained. So really, either would have been viable in 1994.

 

Where I lose sympathy for the Rangers is that they didn’t exist in that vacuum. They were planning a new, expensive baseball stadium in the middle of Texas. 

The humidity and heat didn’t sneak up on them, they knew the climate. And that should have dictated a SkyDome-esque park, as that was the long-term viable option given the climate they were working with. Sorry if they don’t get their neo-classic ballpark, but all the retro stylings in the world won’t make it not hot and humid in Texas in the summer. 

 

They chose the open-air option though. No one forced that on them. They chose it. That short-sightedness is all on them. And they still had the gall to go, cap in hand, to the tax payers asking for a new baseball palace not even thirty years later. 

 

And for the record? Rogers Centre is still going strong. 

I think part of it is that the average sports fan has changed. Atlanta's climate isnt significantly cooler than the North Texas climate yet no one is saying "why didnt the Braves build a roof on their new stadium?" The Rangers played outside in Arlington Stadium for 21 years before The Ballpark was built. Their attendance is in the top half of the league except for the years where the team is just straight garbage. Baseball season ticket sales are more about the corporate ticket packages than your average fan buying a block of seats to sit with family and friends. They probably will have an easier time selling corporate season ticket blocks even in bad seasons if the companies that was to treat clients out dont have to worry about weather or extreme heat causing tickets to go to waste.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cajunaggie08 said:

I think part of it is that the average sports fan has changed. Atlanta's climate isnt significantly cooler than the North Texas climate yet no one is saying "why didnt the Braves build a roof on their new stadium?" The Rangers played outside in Arlington Stadium for 21 years before The Ballpark was built. Their attendance is in the top half of the league except for the years where the team is just straight garbage. Baseball season ticket sales are more about the corporate ticket packages than your average fan buying a block of seats to sit with family and friends. They probably will have an easier time selling corporate season ticket blocks even in bad seasons if the companies that was to treat clients out dont have to worry about weather or extreme heat causing tickets to go to waste.

 

These are all great points but Business 101 says that that first and foremost blame uncontrollable external factors (e.g. weather, location, lack of AC) before you admit that your product or management is at fault for poor performance at the box office. Also be sure to ignore the data that disproves your claims because this time it's different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2019 at 12:56 PM, AstroBull21 said:

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

 

Like the XFL. The Rangers are marketing the new ballpark as a future home.

 

In the below tweet is a render of Globe Life Field in a football setup. Guess that means they’ll have artificial turf. 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

 

Like the XFL. The Rangers are marketing the new ballpark as a future home.

 

In the below tweet is a render of Globe Life Field in a football setup. Guess that means they’ll have artificial turf. 

 

 

 

 

giphy.webp?cid=3640f6095c423bce347130773 

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