Rangers New Ballpark

[OnWis97]

7 minutes ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

Totally disagree with this, since from a fan's perspective the entire point of going to a ballpark is to watch a team and enjoy a great atmosphere.  That's kind of like saying "if the worst thing about your life is that you're dead, then you have a decent life."

 

I've never been to Miller Park, but in general unless the team is great and I'm getting swept up in the whole thing, I don't think I'd ever go out of my way to go to a place that feels like a "hanger", especially on a beautiful weekend afternoon or Friday night.

 

The Phillies blow, but going to games is still a good time in a great baseball environment because of the park.  They sell tickets based on the park atmosphere alone.  Not nearly as many tickets as they sold when they didn't suck, but way more than they'd sell if they played in a "hanger".

I agree with this too.  The Phillies blow?  I'll raise you the Twins.  I would not even consider going to see a Twins team that is likely going to break the all-time loss record if they played in the Dome (which, granted, was much worse than Miller Park).  But Target Field provides a great atmosphere and I am sure I'll get to a couple more games this year (went to one before I knew just how bad it would get).

 

I am surprised pmoehrin, who seems like a traditional baseball guy, feels this way.  That's not a shot; there is no right or wrong.  But I am kinda surprised.  As far as being a utilitarian park, Miller Park gets it done (except for the horrendous hassle of getting out of the parking lot) but the atmosphere is somewhere between "Wrigley" and "Metrodome."

[MadmanLA]

3 hours ago, pmoehrin said:

Biggest issue I saw with County Stadium was that Brewers never put any effort into upgrading or maintaining the place. It was still using a black and white video board the day it closed. How cheap can you get? Had that not been the case, we might be talking about County Stadium as one of the truly classic ballparks in baseball history, or it could have done little more than add on a few years before its inventible demise. We'll never know.

 

From material I remember seeing and hearing in regards to Milwaukee County Stadium and Miller Park, Bud Selig had been begging for a new ballpark or at least renovations to County as far as back as 1987.  I was always of the belief that MCS was a fine ballpark, but so much could have been done to improve the place over time, and it clearly showed that Bud and his daughter let that place age to basically prove a point that they wanted a new stadium...it was built around the same era as Baltimore Memorial Stadium and Metropolitan Stadium in the Twin Cities, but you could that see that Dodger, Angel, and Kaufmann stadiums were in some way or another influenced by County Stadium.

 

As far as the new Rangers' ballpark, it's the same way I feel about both of Atlanta's new stadiums...why!?

 

I get that heat is the #1 issue, but it's really of the fault of the ownership group who owned by the Rangers back then, because a roof should have built with the current one in the first place.  I wonder what would be logistically wrong with using some of that money towards the new ballpark, and put it towards building a roof with the existing stadium.

[BBTV]

44 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I agree with this too.  The Phillies blow?  I'll raise you the Twins.  I would not even consider going to see a Twins team that is likely going to break the all-time loss record if they played in the Dome (which, granted, was much worse than Miller Park).  But Target Field provides a great atmosphere and I am sure I'll get to a couple more games this year (went to one before I knew just how bad it would get).

 

I am surprised pmoehrin, who seems like a traditional baseball guy, feels this way.  That's not a shot; there is no right or wrong.  But I am kinda surprised.  As far as being a utilitarian park, Miller Park gets it done (except for the horrendous hassle of getting out of the parking lot) but the atmosphere is somewhere between "Wrigley" and "Metrodome."

 

Well they totally did the past few years, and while they've had a surprising start to this year and have a whole new "energy" about them, they've also had among the easiest schedules in the league and have not shown signs that they can maintain  the pace they're on.  They may not be worst in the league like last year, but they'll likely finish 4th in the division and 10 to 15 under .500 when all is said and done.

[pmoehrin]

7 minutes ago, OnWis97 said:

I am surprised pmoehrin, who seems like a traditional baseball guy, feels this way.  That's not a shot; there is no right or wrong.  But I am kinda surprised.  As far as being a utilitarian park, Miller Park gets it done (except for the horrendous hassle of getting out of the parking lot) but the atmosphere is somewhere between "Wrigley" and "Metrodome."

 

I'm probably just not as harsh on domes as most people are. Its hard to make a dome look good. You can even make the argument that's never been done. I just don't see why it has to be such a downer.

 

The main issue I have with Miller Park is the same as Comerica, and U.S. Cellular in that the park looks and feels a lot bigger than it actually is. That doesn't mean its a bad ballpark and right now I think fans are being spoiled rotten with the quality of ballparks around the majors. People talk about Chase Field the same way they used to talk about the Kingdome and Chase Field is far better than the Kingdome ever was.

[Sport]

I should say that Chase Field is very nice on the inside and the entry way and concourses were as nice as any stadium I've been to. It's ridiculous that the dbacks are starting to grumble to Phoenix about a new stadium. Chase Field is more than adequate for many more decades of use. I, once again, blame Atlanta for setting unrealistic standards for what a team needs out of a stadium. 

 

 

 

[2001mark]

11 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

I should say that Chase Field is very nice on the inside and the entry way and concourses were as nice as any stadium I've been to. It's ridiculous that the dbacks are starting to grumble to Phoenix about a new stadium. Chase Field is more than adequate for many more decades of use. I, once again, blame Atlanta for setting unrealistic standards for what a team needs out of a stadium. 

 

 

 

 

Dan Snyder is still worse at this than the Braves.

[29texan]

Just keep 'em out of Dallas. 

[ICTknight]

So far I have been to 6 MLB parks. Kauffman, Fenway, Coors, Miller, Chase, and Safeco. To be honest I really felt no difference. When I go to a game I go to watch baseball. The atmosphere really has little affect on me. And what little it does that's more the crowd than the park. The stadiums are nice to look at but it never has really affected me.

[BBTV]

If you felt "no difference" between Fenway and Miller Park then you're simply not the person that they're building these new parks for.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I've been to Tropicana, Old Yankee Stadium (well, 70s-2000s), Safeco and Great American. Great American is by far the best, in large part because it's bright, open, and focused on baseball. Tropicana is garbage and the worst for obvious reasons. You'd have to be some sort of masochist -- or really like A/C, which I'd get -- to have season tickets to a Rays game.

 

I wonder what it's like to be the kind of person who looks at a perfectly good ballpark paid for by taxpayers that's it great condition and say, "you know, we ought to junk that for a new one." If you stand to make money from a decision like that, that's one thing, but there has to be some level of sociopathy involved. You have to really not care about your fellow man.

[dfwabel]

18 minutes ago, DG_Now said:

 

I wonder what it's like to be the kind of person who looks at a perfectly good ballpark paid for by taxpayers that's it great condition and say, "you know, we ought to junk that for a new one." If you stand to make money from a decision like that, that's one thing, but there has to be some level of sociopathy involved. You have to really not care about your fellow man.

The elected officials hope that the voters think that keeping the Rangers in Arlington is a matter of civic pride and the team moving to "the BIG city" is an affront to them. They believe that the Rangers are Dallas' or Fort Worth's team, but THEIR team. Always been in Arlington, need to stay there.

 

Locally, Arlington is considered the city of "bits" since Six Flags was built in the 1960's. Even with these sales taxes for stadiums, the city is still under the state's sales tax threshold. They'd rather increase taxes for stadiums than use said taxes for a bus system since they only have just one bus route.

[ICTknight]

1 hour ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If you felt "no difference" between Fenway and Miller Park then you're simply not the person that they're building these new parks for.

Honest question here. Who are they building them for then? I don't understand.

[HedleyLamarr]

Ultimately, this decision by the Rangers has to do with making themselves more competitive.  It's not just the hot summers in Texas, but it's all the night games that force red-eye flights and arriving at road cities at 3am or so during the season that results in that perception where the team fades as the season ends.  Not only do they play a bunch of Sunday night games (ask any team that has to travel after a Sunday night game...it's definitely not a preferred option) that result in a bunch of early Monday morning arrivals at their next city, most of their road trips also have mid-week late travels as well.

 

And, they likely got some input from their fans about getting a domed stadium, too.  Rarely do you make the decision to build a new stadium without getting feedback from focus groups about what all they'd like to see/have in a stadium experience.  I doubt it's much fun to sit in 100-degree weather for a long period.  Fans that don't go to these games simply don't get how uncomfortable it is to be exposed to the elements of a 100-degree summer day (or a 20-degree or below football game).  It's really easy for a person to say "They don't need a roof." or "Play the Super Bowl in the elements!!!" when they're sitting on their sofa in a 71-degree living room.  The most uncomfortable I've ever been at a sporting event was sitting in the upper deck at LP Field in Nashville for a Music City Bowl game a couple years ago.  It was around 35 degrees, cloudy, breezy, and just enough moisture in the air for said breeze to bite you and be annoying (especially watching a game between two teams you're not a fan of...though one was a rival that we gladly rooted against).

[BBTV]

1 minute ago, ICTknight said:

Honest question here. Who are they building them for then? I don't understand.

 

People who go not just to watch baseball. 

[ICTknight]

Just now, BringBackTheVet said:

 

People who go not just to watch baseball. 

Thanks. That makes a lot of sense. And just to be clear all 6 of them were good. Maybe it could be because I don't have a truly bad one to compare it with like Tropicana.

[The_Admiral]

38 minutes ago, HedleyLamarr said:

a post that's close enough to mine that I needn't quote it in full

 

I'd have more sympathy if the Rangers hadn't recently won back-to-back pennants and built a very strong organization, or if the Braves hadn't thrived in a climate that has to be just as miserable as Dallas if not worse. Reminds me of the whining that Red Wings fans would do about what an ordeal it was to play in the Western Conference, but then when you bring up the four Stanley Cups and six conference championships in fifteen years, they say "sure, but there could have been more." Well, then I'm quite glad that so far there haven't been, and I'll probably feel the same way about the roofed Rangers.

[HedleyLamarr]

The only bad thing about Tropicana Field is the location of the building.

 

I've been there for three games, and enjoyed the ballpark each time.  Having the air conditioning is nice, the Rays have done a lot to liven up the place to be a little more than resemble a Sam's Club warehouse.  It's not ideal, and it does always feel a bit weird watching a baseball game with a roof....but it's not that bad, really.  It's certainly better than Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium...now that was a lifeless building.

[chrysleraspen08]

I have to agree with Hedley about the location being the only bad thing about the Trop. I would still say that it was the worst of the 8 current ballparks that I've been to if I had to choose one, but that's just because the other ones that I've been to are pretty good (the 8 being the Trop, Rogers Centre, New Yankee Stadium, Comerica Park, GABP, PNC Park, US Cellular Field, Wrigley). The only park that I've ever been to that was worse was Dolphins Stadium when the Marlins were there. That place was crappy, and made even worse by the fact that it was also in the middle of nowhere and only 10,000 people were there, making the building super quiet.

As for the whole roofed baseball debate, I'm for it. Keep in mind that I'm a Jays fan and love traveling to games knowing that I'm gonna get to actually see a game and not sit in the rain for 3 hours to have to drive back home without a game being played.

[Sykotyk]

I've been to Progressive Field (before latest renovation), PNC Park, Great American Ballpark, Coors Field, Comerica Park, Kauffman Stadium (since latest renovation), Turner Field,  and Tropicana Field. Also at the old Three River Stadium in Pittsburgh.

 

Of the current parks, the only really 'bad' one was probably Tropicana because it just doesn't 'feel' like a baseball park. The A/C is nice, but the circular mode of construction with the sweeping upper deck seats and visible walls, etc, just look drab. I walked the whole field, and actually liked the outfield seats the best from about right-center.

 

Other than that, the other parks seem almost interchangable. They all want views of the field from the concourses, exposed steel structure in places, scores of concessions, beer stands, merch booths, kids games, etc.

 

For worst location, would probably be Tropicana. Turner Field seems to be isolated, but public transit got me there without much fuss. The 'underground' thing to get to the shuttles was a bit of a nuisance. But, it beat driving to the stadium (which in Atlanta driving anywhere is a nuisance), and trying to park nearby.

 

I just didn't like that the game against the Red Sox was billed as a sellout and it was maybe 75% full and a ton of scalpers working the corners. Bought one from a scalper. The guy I sat next to sold it to the scalper for half what I paid for it. Go figure.

[The_Admiral]

13 hours ago, AstroBull21 said:

I am hoping that the next phase of retractable roofs can include the roof technology of the Vikings US Bank Stadium.  Despite being a fixed roof, US Bank Stadium will have a translucent portion (about 60%) that will allow stadium users to view the sun and sky throughout the year while staying in a climate-controlled environment.

 

The clear portions is made of ETFE.  ETFE is a co-polymer resin that is extruded into a thin film. The plastic-like material is transparent but can be treated to be translucent, is extremely light-weight, very durable and resistant to corrosion.

 

The renovated BC Place uses ETFE and so will the Rams' new stadium. I'd love to see Toronto do some renovations with an ETFE roof and have a true SkyDome again.