Jump to content

Whats in your opinion the visually ugliest stadium out there?


Davidellias

Recommended Posts

Paul Brown Stadium. I walked the Cincinnati riverfront (beautiful BTW) during my trip in the summer and the stadium, from the outside at least is very underwhelming. I walked around the entire thing trying to get a shot at something worth taking a picture of, but very hard to even tell it's home of the Bengals.

sig.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm surprised we this far in the thread, and no one has mentioned Marlins Park in Miami as "visually ugly", especially if nothing else but for that eyesore in center field and the neon-green outfield walls.

Aside from that, out of all of the sports venues in greater Los Angeles, the L.A. Sports Arena probably has the ugliest look out of all of them...the "turtle"-shaped roof with the faded-blue color. Hell, even the 92 year-old Coliseum next door and the museums on the north end of the Exposition Park campus look more modern than the Sports Arena. At least with the new soccer stadium that's gonna be built soon, the Sports Arena will be no more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree with you on the sports arena.

I think Donald Sterling treated that place the same as he treated his low income housing buildings.

With Marlins Park, its tough to say. I certainly see your points and can't really disagree too much with what your saying. But the place is far nicer then what they had with Dolphins Stadium. I also want to see what that place would look like with someone not named Jeffrey Loria running the team. I can't call that place a 100% negative.

I do have an opportunity to go to a game there next year though and am already leaning pretty heavily towards no. That should tell you something about how I feel about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone please explain what made Old Comiskey and Tiger Stadium so wonderful? I constantly see people saying they were the greatest places in the world. Based on photos alone I don't really see it, so I'm curious as to what it was like to be there. I've read about the atmosphere in the outfield seating at Tiger Stadium, what else made it so wonderful?

That all might sound sarcastic or something, but as someone who didn't get to experience those stadiums I'm honestly just curious.

If you've ever been to Wrigley or Fenway in recent years both of which I have you understand. The history that's built into the walls just can't be replicated in a newer park. That's not to say that a place like Camden Yards can't be just as nice. But these parks bring something to the table that an architect can't design and a fan base can't bring over.

All you really need for an MLB park is it for it to seat 40,000 people to go with a few suites and party areas. This could have been done with both Tiger and Comiskey Park. You may have had to get creative, but if you promote the area right, people will want to sit anywhere.

The cleanliness issue also plagued Fenway for decades, but if you go to it now its one of the cleanest looking parks in baseball despite its age. Also has all the modern amenities of a new park. Both Wrigley and Dodger Stadium the next two oldest parks are going down this path as well. If you're willing to put in the time and money you can fix those issues and if that was the worst parts of Tiger Stadium and Comiskey Park in addition to the lack of suites, you could have done something to fix those places.

Also someone took the time to do a great home movie tour of the park about a month before it closed in 1990. It's pretty clear the park had seen better days, but even through the video you get that "if these walls could talk" feel that you only get in older parks.

There's also no other park that looks even close to the Old Comiskey. No park, not even Fenway had as much green as Comiskey did. The picnic area built into the left field wall seemed like one of the most underrated places to watch a game from in all of baseball. The scoreboard still looked impressive as hell.

The worst thing I think you could say about it was that it the place was that it wasn't maintained well. But I didn't see anything that a new coat of paint or architectural adjustments couldn't have fixed. This wasn't like Crosley Field or Ebbetts Field where the park had clearly gotten too small to continue to play host to an MLB team. This was a plenty big enough facility to continue to have baseball played for decades to come.

Instead the White Sox traded it in for a stadium nicknamed "the cell", which I think also plays into why Comiskey is so missed. Plenty of history attached to both Cleveland Stadium and County Stadium when they were torn down. I don't hear any Indian or Brewers fans complaining about Progressive Field or Miller Park because both were more than suitable replacements for what they left behind. The White Sox didn't come up short in replacing Comiskey so much as they didn't even come close IMO.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaepsBBHTh4

Yeah and I even mentioned County Stadium here. I absolutely loved that place dents, dings, and ridiculous smells. But one smell that carried over from there that brings fond memories back from there to Miller Park, Heavenly Roasted Nuts. That reminds me of Baseball so much.

packchampionslfroh.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Texas Stadium was awful for the last 10 years of its life. While it close in 2008, neither the city of Irving nor Jerry really cared about it after 1998. It was sad to go there, even with Blue (close) or Diamond (first 6 toes) parking passes.

images5_zpsjw0lrsdq.jpg

The Crown Suites, above the upper bowl, were built in '85 and ruined the air circulation since it essentiality connected the roof to the stadium.

I never caught a game there, but I've heard those early season matchups were absolutely brutal.

I will say though, I went to the Notre Dame ASU game a few seasons ago and I was totally disappointed by AT&T Stadium. It's HUGE, but that's about the only truly interesting thing about that building. I feel like every new football stadium I've ever been to reminds me, in some ways, of giant Box Stores like CostCo and Sam's Club. They're all the same stark, depressing buildings made of miles and miles of bare concrete.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the venues are on this list as much because of bad upkeep as bad design.

FedEx Field

I prefer FedEx field over RFK Stadium.

rfk10950.JPG

Speaking of stadiums that haven't been maintained . . .

I went to the US-Peru soccer match there last month and was astounded at what poor shape it is in. There were huge areas on the facade and the interior where paint had peeled off. The burgundy seats had faded to a medium shade of pink. Sections of concrete were missing in many places. I could go on . . .

My first trip to RFK was in 1994 and it wasn't exactly a palace then. However, the current condition was shockingly bad.

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

I remember how the (Great Western) Forum's interior looked in the years after the Lakers and Kings left for Staples Center. There was a local church in Inglewood that owned the building in the early-to-mid 2000s, and they would conduct most of their Sunday services there...the church didn't do a whole lot to maintain even a decent appearance. There was old signage still around the concourse, including a couple of old Great Western Bank ads (and mind you that Great Western got absorbed by Washington Mutual in 1997-98), and inside the arena they still had the Lakers' and Kings' championship and retired numbers hanging on the walls, faded and dingy colors and all. The Forum's seats were also pretty worn out, and compared to Staples, there was very little leg room along the rows.

Now fast-forward to this year...my wife and I attended a Valentine Day's concert there, and I was totally impressed with the renovations that MSG put together. The place always, IMO, had good sightlines, but we were lucky enough to get floor seats at that concert. However, even though they recently held a boxing event there, the current layout pretty much nullifies them from ever hosting basketball and hockey again.

I'll agree with you on the sports arena.

I think Donald Sterling treated that place the same as he treated his low income housing buildings.

With Marlins Park, its tough to say. I certainly see your points and can't really disagree too much with what your saying. But the place is far nicer then what they had with Dolphins Stadium. I also want to see what that place would look like with someone not named Jeffrey Loria running the team. I can't call that place a 100% negative.

I do have an opportunity to go to a game there next year though and am already leaning pretty heavily towards no. That should tell you something about how I feel about it.

Well those bright minds that represented the L.A. Coliseum Commission weren't better either in regards of how they treated the Sports Arena (and the Coliseum)...their incompetence was a large reason they lost the Lakers, Rams, and Raiders. The Clippers were supposedly looking get out of there even before Anaheim came calling in the mid-90s...they gave Sterling what was essentially a sweetheart deal--a state-of-the-art arena, an on-site practice facility, and tens of millions of dollars just to be there. Of course, we know the rest of the story...

As far as the Marlins...I'm with you there. Probably any place would have been nicer than that stadium in Miami Gardens...it's kinda funny that waited until now to add a roof (albeit canopy style) with the new renovation; maybe having a roof there when the Marlins were still playing in (insert corporate name) Stadium would have made the fan experience maybe a bit more palpable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the venues are on this list as much because of bad upkeep as bad design.

FedEx Field

I prefer FedEx field over RFK Stadium.

rfk10950.JPG

Speaking of stadiums that haven't been maintained . . .

I went to the US-Peru soccer match there last month and was astounded at what poor shape it is in. There were huge areas on the facade and the interior where paint had peeled off. The burgundy seats had faded to a medium shade of pink. Sections of concrete were missing in many places. I could go on . . .

My first trip to RFK was in 1994 and it wasn't exactly a palace then. However, the current condition was shockingly bad.

I have a soft spot in my heart for old stadiums and I'd really like to get to RFK before it closes to see a DC United game or something.

I went to the IZOD Center in the Meadowlands a few years back and while it wasn't anything special on the outside, the insides were surprisingly well maintained. The tile was clean, the ramps made sense, and it was an altogether fine experience. This was in 2013, which I think would have been during the first Brooklyn Nets season, so the building wouldn't have gone to hell yet. I wonder if it's still used? (Tank - and Google - would know. When can Tank come back? I hope he gets to do a Mets-related victory lap here)

1 hour ago, ShutUpLutz! said:

and the drunken doodoobags jumping off the tops of SUV's/vans/RV's onto tables because, oh yeah, they are drunken drug abusing doodoobags

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree that the LA Coliseum could and should be way nicer than it is.

Only venue to host the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the World Series. That's a resume that can go toe to toe against any venue in terms of historical significance.

And yet a place ozzing with that much history has somehow become an after thought and its becuase there's been hardly any money invested into that place over the years. Aside from removing the track the building looks pretty much exactly the same now as it did in World War II.

I would much rather see an NFL team return to the Coliseum than see a new stadium built, but when a stadium has been neglected for as long as the Coliseum has been, I completely understand why a team wouldn't even consider going there. At this point you would almost have to tear down the entire stadium and start from scratch to make it a modern NFL stadium, which is really no different then just buliding a new stadium.

The Coliseum could have been saved, but nobody cared enough to even try and now its too late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree that the LA Coliseum could and should be way nicer than it is.

Only venue to host the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the World Series. That's a resume that can go toe to toe against any venue in terms of historical significance.

And yet a place ozzing with that much history has somehow become an after thought and its becuase there's been hardly any money invested into that place over the years. Aside from removing the track the building looks pretty much exactly the same now as it did in World War II.

I would much rather see an NFL team return to the Coliseum than see a new stadium built, but when a stadium has been neglected for as long as the Coliseum has been, I completely understand why a team wouldn't even consider going there. At this point you would almost have to tear down the entire stadium and start from scratch to make it a modern NFL stadium, which is really no different then just buliding a new stadium.

The Coliseum could have been saved, but nobody cared enough to even try and now its too late.

Since USC took over operations of the Coliseum, they have done some gradual improvements (new big HD scoreboard, touching-up the exterior, expanded concession stands, and new field suites under the bleachers on the east-end). They signed a 99-year master lease a few years ago, so given the revenue the football program generates, plus the rich alumni/boosters, USC will (and had already done) something that the old commission never bothered doing--maintain the Coliseum to modern-day standards. Eventually, the Coliseum (at least the interior) will be re-done--either by USC in the not-too-distant future or if L.A. wins that 2024 Olympic bid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of the venues are on this list as much because of bad upkeep as bad design.

FedEx Field

I prefer FedEx field over RFK Stadium.rfk10950.JPG

Speaking of stadiums that haven't been maintained . . .

I went to the US-Peru soccer match there last month and was astounded at what poor shape it is in. There were huge areas on the facade and the interior where paint had peeled off. The burgundy seats had faded to a medium shade of pink. Sections of concrete were missing in many places. I could go on . . .

My first trip to RFK was in 1994 and it wasn't exactly a palace then. However, the current condition was shockingly bad.

I have a soft spot in my heart for old stadiums and I'd really like to get to RFK before it closes to see a DC United game or something.

I went to the IZOD Center in the Meadowlands a few years back and while it wasn't anything special on the outside, the insides were surprisingly well maintained. The tile was clean, the ramps made sense, and it was an altogether fine experience. This was in 2013, which I think would have been during the first Brooklyn Nets season, so the building wouldn't have gone to hell yet. I wonder if it's still used? (Tank - and Google - would know. When can Tank come back? I hope he gets to do a Mets-related victory lap here)

The NJSEA made a deal with the Prudential Center people to close the IZOD Center for two years and to transfer its scheduled shows to Newark. As far as I know, there are no plans to renovate or re-open it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree that the LA Coliseum could and should be way nicer than it is.

Only venue to host the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the World Series. That's a resume that can go toe to toe against any venue in terms of historical significance.

And yet a place ozzing with that much history has somehow become an after thought and its becuase there's been hardly any money invested into that place over the years. Aside from removing the track the building looks pretty much exactly the same now as it did in World War II.

I would much rather see an NFL team return to the Coliseum than see a new stadium built, but when a stadium has been neglected for as long as the Coliseum has been, I completely understand why a team wouldn't even consider going there. At this point you would almost have to tear down the entire stadium and start from scratch to make it a modern NFL stadium, which is really no different then just buliding a new stadium.

The Coliseum could have been saved, but nobody cared enough to even try and now its too late.

Since USC took over operations of the Coliseum, they have done some gradual improvements (new big HD scoreboard, touching-up the exterior, expanded concession stands, and new field suites under the bleachers on the east-end). They signed a 99-year master lease a few years ago, so given the revenue the football program generates, plus the rich alumni/boosters, USC will (and had already done) something that the old commission never bothered doing--maintain the Coliseum to modern-day standards. Eventually, the Coliseum (at least the interior) will be re-done--either by USC in the not-too-distant future or if L.A. wins that 2024 Olympic bid.

USC has an architect hired, the DLR Group (architect of the new University of Houston stadium) and must spend at least $70MM on improvements by 2023. The school sent season ticket holders a survey last spring to judge the level of amenities they want and are willing to financially support, be it through capital donations or PSLs. The university appears ready to commit up to $500MM towards the final project.

Before the new lease was agreed to, a Coliseum Improvement Fee was also added to each ticket which covers some of the basics every season as well as was used for some of the 2014 and 2015 improvements inside and in terms of landscaping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree that the LA Coliseum could and should be way nicer than it is.

Only venue to host the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the World Series. That's a resume that can go toe to toe against any venue in terms of historical significance.

And yet a place ozzing with that much history has somehow become an after thought and its becuase there's been hardly any money invested into that place over the years. Aside from removing the track the building looks pretty much exactly the same now as it did in World War II.

I would much rather see an NFL team return to the Coliseum than see a new stadium built, but when a stadium has been neglected for as long as the Coliseum has been, I completely understand why a team wouldn't even consider going there. At this point you would almost have to tear down the entire stadium and start from scratch to make it a modern NFL stadium, which is really no different then just buliding a new stadium.

The Coliseum could have been saved, but nobody cared enough to even try and now its too late.

Since USC took over operations of the Coliseum, they have done some gradual improvements (new big HD scoreboard, touching-up the exterior, expanded concession stands, and new field suites under the bleachers on the east-end). They signed a 99-year master lease a few years ago, so given the revenue the football program generates, plus the rich alumni/boosters, USC will (and had already done) something that the old commission never bothered doing--maintain the Coliseum to modern-day standards. Eventually, the Coliseum (at least the interior) will be re-done--either by USC in the not-too-distant future or if L.A. wins that 2024 Olympic bid.

Would prefer an NFL team, but very nice to hear that the venue will have at least one major tenant ensuring its future. That place has too much of a history and legacy to tear down.

That place needs more then a paint job and a few extra luxury suites though. To do it right would require a near complete tear down job. Even $500 million I think is being optimistic about how much it will really cost.

I would assume they would go with something other than Coliseum for the Olympics though. Are they going to build another track around the field just to tear it out again as soon as the games are over? Seems like a waste, but then again you wonder why so few cities want the Olympics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe Louis Arena is an architectural turd. Come in from the parking garage side? Stairs! Tons and tons of stairs! Park down the way along the river and use the other entrance? STAIRS!! The rest is plain, flat, grey, blah. No character whatsoever.

thejoe.jpg5749275305_30b3d99a18_z.jpg

Joe Louis Arena is horrible! I can't wait to see the new arena for the Red Wings!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll agree that the LA Coliseum could and should be way nicer than it is.

Only venue to host the Olympics, the Super Bowl and the World Series. That's a resume that can go toe to toe against any venue in terms of historical significance.

And yet a place ozzing with that much history has somehow become an after thought and its becuase there's been hardly any money invested into that place over the years. Aside from removing the track the building looks pretty much exactly the same now as it did in World War II.

I would much rather see an NFL team return to the Coliseum than see a new stadium built, but when a stadium has been neglected for as long as the Coliseum has been, I completely understand why a team wouldn't even consider going there. At this point you would almost have to tear down the entire stadium and start from scratch to make it a modern NFL stadium, which is really no different then just buliding a new stadium.

The Coliseum could have been saved, but nobody cared enough to even try and now its too late.

Since USC took over operations of the Coliseum, they have done some gradual improvements (new big HD scoreboard, touching-up the exterior, expanded concession stands, and new field suites under the bleachers on the east-end). They signed a 99-year master lease a few years ago, so given the revenue the football program generates, plus the rich alumni/boosters, USC will (and had already done) something that the old commission never bothered doing--maintain the Coliseum to modern-day standards. Eventually, the Coliseum (at least the interior) will be re-done--either by USC in the not-too-distant future or if L.A. wins that 2024 Olympic bid.

Would prefer an NFL team, but very nice to hear that the venue will have at least one major tenant ensuring its future. That place has too much of a history and legacy to tear down.

That place needs more then a paint job and a few extra luxury suites though. To do it right would require a near complete tear down job. Even $500 million I think is being optimistic about how much it will really cost.

I would assume they would go with something other than Coliseum for the Olympics though. Are they going to build another track around the field just to tear it out again as soon as the games are over? Seems like a waste, but then again you wonder why so few cities want the Olympics.

Casey Wasserman was a guest on Bill Simmons' podcast last Thursday, and one of the things he talked about in regards to the L.A. Olympic bid that not only the Coliseum would be used in some capacity (and given its history, why wouldn't it be?), but also whichever new NFL stadium is around by '24 will be used as well. He also said the L.A. Olympic committee not only plans on using any available venue in Los Angeles proper, but also venues in elsewhere in California, including Sacramento and San Diego.

I have to imagine that if and when the Coliseum is re-done, they could have retractable/detachable seating sections placed on top of where the track would go. That would certainly be a better option than just spending millions of dollars on something that's gonna be used for only two weeks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.