Which Major League ballpark has the best background?

[Gothamite]

11 hours ago, kimball said:

I've been to Dodger Stadium a number of times and while I don't mind the view from the outfield, I always felt if it faced downtown it'd be a much better view. I can't be the only one that thinks so?

 

 

I don't know how much you'd be able to see - notice the ridge of Chavez Ravine, which might block the view.  There's also the small problem that downtown is actually slightly west of Dodger Stadium, so re-orienting it would cause sunset issues.

[tigerslionspistonshabs]

I've only ever visited Comerica, PNC,  Rogers Center and GABP. 

 

PNC is by far the best. Comerica's view is nice as well, but maybe I'm just too used to it to truly appreciate it. 

 

Rogers Centre has literally no view, but when the roof is open, looking straight up the CN Tower is pretty cool.

 

I've heard St. Louis is quite nice.

[CS85]

I was always a fan of Camden Yard, but that Rockies sunset photo is amazing.  There's something breathtaking and magical when a baseball stadium has the perfect golden hour vista showcase of both its landscaping/architecture contrasted against the vivid colors of the dying day painted across the skyline.  

 

Even the stupid Cardinals and the admittedly-great Busch Stadium does this wonderfully:

 

 

This is why it's very disappointing to watch games in domes or mostly-enclosed horseshoes and the like.  Baseball is an outdoor game.

[kroywen]

I know the topic specified major league parks, but figured to give a shout-out to some of the best backgrounds within the minors. BB&T Ballpark in Charlotte has an incredible view of the Charlotte skyline:

 

 

 

Smith's Ballpark in Salt Lake City has a downright breathtaking view of the mountains beyond the outfield fence:

 

 

I've always been rather fond of the view from Raley Field in Sacramento, especially that beautiful bridge out in the distance in right field:

 

 

And I'd be remiss as a New Yorker and a Yankee fan if I didn't mention Richmond County Bank Ballpark in Staten Island, which has a view of the Jersey City, Lower Manhattan, and Brooklyn skylines off in the distance across New York Harbor (and the Statue of Liberty, if you're sitting in the right spot):

 

[kroywen]

Apologies for the double post, but since the thread was about major league parks, figure I'd post two backgrounds that I've always loved that I haven't seen in this thread yet. The two oldest parks in baseball definitely had wonderful backdrops develop around them over the years.

 

The Back Bay skyline beyond Fenway's right field stands is a terribly underrated backdrop:

 

 

And while it's sadly been marred by the construction of video scoreboards (or, more to the point, modern-day spite fences), Wrigley pre-renovation had a great backdrop that tied it in with its neighborhood perfectly:

 

 

I love(d) being able to see the row houses directly across the street. A view that's unfortunately been largely lost to those damned video boards.

 

That said, PNC takes the cake for the all-time best backdrop in baseball (at any level, major or minor). The bridges, the skyline, the river... it is sheer perfection, and brought much-deserved attention to the fact that Pittsburgh is actually quite a beautiful city, which I'm sure 99% of Americans didn't realize prior to the opening of PNC Park.

[ChicagoOakland]

19 hours ago, kimball said:

Oakland, definitely, Oakland ...

 

 

As an A's fan, it's so tragic that our stadium is such a damn dump.

The sad thing is before the renovations, the Coliseum would have definitely been right at home on this list:

[Sport]

With the Raiders leaving is there any way the A's renovate the Coliseum to a complete tear down of Mount Davis and bring it up to modern standards?

 

The angels did a pretty good job turning a dual purpose stadium into a baseball only park. 

[ChicagoOakland]

1 minute ago, McCarthy said:

With the Raiders leaving is there any way the A's renovate the Coliseum to a complete tear down of Mount Davis and bring it up to modern standards?

 

The angels did a pretty good job turning a dual purpose stadium into a baseball only park. 

The A's ownership is actually pushing really hard for a bayside ballpark, so I think we'll get an announcement for our own version of Pac Bell Park before they think about using money to tear down Mount Davis.

Don't get me wrong, I really wish they would though...

[raysox]

2 minutes ago, McCarthy said:

With the Raiders leaving is there any way the A's renovate the Coliseum to a complete tear down of Mount Davis and bring it up to modern standards?

 

The angels did a pretty good job turning a dual purpose stadium into a baseball only park. 

I've thought of that, but It's probably cheaper to start fresh, especially with the land the stadium sits on being a big parking lot and a soon-to-be-replaced arena

[kroywen]

Honestly, the Coliseum is not worth saving at this point, IMO. It would be incredibly expensive to bring it up to modern standards, complete with luxury suites and the amenities that are standard for a modern ballpark. Even with massive improvements, it probably still wouldn't generate quite as much revenue as most brand new parks, while it wouldn't have the historical charm or tradition that Fenway, Wrigley, or Dodger Stadium have.

 

The sightlines are not ideal for baseball, since it's a donut, and the location is in the middle of a parking lot for a once-bustling sports complex (as opposed to be more downtown, centrally-located spot). There's a persistent sewage problem that would need to be fixed for good. A renovated Oakland Coliseum would basically be Angels Stadium with a potential sewage problem. While Angels Stadium is a serviceable major league stadium, it's not a top-tier stadium by any means, and is poorly located relative to most modern stadiums (granted, Anaheim doesn't have much of a downtown area, unlike Oakland). And I assume it's not generating as much revenue as a new ballpark would, given that the Angels are seeking to build a new park at the end of their current lease.

 

I know the Coliseum does have quite a bit of history behind it for A's fans, but Fenway or Wrigley it is not. A ballpark with mediocre sightlines, a dated design, poor location, and terrible infrastructure is not going to be viable in the 21st century. Better to build anew at a bayside location.

[CS85]

1 hour ago, kroywen said:

 

Smith's Ballpark in Salt Lake City has a downright breathtaking view of the mountains beyond the outfield fence:

 

 

 

Damn, that's incredible.  

 

1 hour ago, kroywen said:

And while it's sadly been marred by the construction of video scoreboards (or, more to the point, modern-day spite fences), Wrigley pre-renovation had a great backdrop that tied it in with its neighborhood perfectly:

 

 

I love(d) being able to see the row houses directly across the street. A view that's unfortunately been largely lost to those damned video boards.

 

Been there a couple times since the scoreboard and renovations were mostly done, and I gotta say - the scoreboard is awesome and the amenities within the ballpark are much, much better.  The bleacher experience was fantastic, and while some of the romance of the neighborhood surrounds was lost, I don't find it made the experience worse for ware.  

[kroywen]

Just now, CS85 said:

Been there a couple times since the scoreboard and renovations were mostly done, and I gotta say - the scoreboard is awesome and the amenities within the ballpark are much, much better.  The bleacher experience was fantastic, and while some of the romance of the neighborhood surrounds was lost, I don't find it made the experience worse for ware.  

 

I'll fully admit - I haven't been to Wrigley in over a decade, so I can't speak to the in-person experience. But looking at it via photos and on TV, the scoreboards do seem to detract from the overall attractiveness and historic nature of the ballpark, and cause the park to be more removed from its surrounding neighborhood, which was always one of the biggest appeals of Wrigley Field. 

 

I have no doubt that the various amenities in the ballpark have greatly improved the experience, and I think the renovation overall was a net positive for that reason (and since it made Wrigley economically viable as a modern-day park). But I still think it would've been even better without the big video scoreboards, or perhaps just with one small scoreboard in the LF corner. That would've been much cleaner visually, and better in keeping with the historic and neighborly feel of Wrigley Field.

[CS85]

2 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

I'll fully admit - I haven't been to Wrigley in over a decade, so I can't speak to the in-person experience. But looking at it via photos and on TV, the scoreboards do seem to detract from the overall attractiveness and historic nature of the ballpark, and cause the park to be more removed from its surrounding neighborhood, which was always one of the biggest appeals of Wrigley Field. 

 

I have no doubt that the various amenities in the ballpark have greatly improved the experience, and I think the renovation overall was a net positive for that reason (and since it made Wrigley economically viable as a modern-day park). But I still think it would've been even better without the big video scoreboards, or perhaps just with one small scoreboard in the LF corner. That would've been much cleaner visually, and better in keeping with the historic and neighborly feel of Wrigley Field.

 

 

Couple things:

1. I think the Cubs could've done much, much worse than what they did.  The WINTRUST on top of the left field scoreboard is the most garish part of it.  the Budweiser script above the RF scoreboard feels relatively natural.  While at the park it's really, really awesome to watch instant replays live on the modern LED screens and plus they'll bust out highlights of classic "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" with Harry from time to time or show clips of Sandberg/Williams/etc during pregame.  My brother and I got our Wrigleyville fix before and after the game since the ballpark is obviously ensconced in the neighborhood, so I don't feel like the scoreboards detracted from the experience whatsoever.  If anything it added to it.  Again - just my two cents.  I sympathize with purists; merely offering my take.  On that note...
2. The current scoreboard era of Wrigley is going to be forever associated with winning a World Series.  That alone must be taken into account.  The "new" nostalgia effect gave the Ricketts family all the reason they'll need to do more ad-related stuff so long as it doesn't take out the ivy or the marquee. 

[NeauXone]

Target Field.

[kroywen]

1 minute ago, CS85 said:

Couple things:

1. I think the Cubs could've done much, much worse than what they did.  The WINTRUST on top of the left field scoreboard is the most garish part of it.  the Budweiser script above the RF scoreboard feels relatively natural.  While at the park it's really, really awesome to watch instant replays live on the modern LED screens and plus they'll bust out highlights of classic "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" with Harry from time to time or show clips of Sandberg/Williams/etc during pregame.  My brother and I got our Wrigleyville fix before and after the game since the ballpark is obviously ensconced in the neighborhood, so I don't feel like the scoreboards detracted from the experience whatsoever.  If anything it added to it.  Again - just my two cents.  I sympathize with purists; merely offering my take.  On that note...
2. The current scoreboard era of Wrigley is going to be forever associated with winning a World Series.  That alone must be taken into account.  The "new" nostalgia effect gave the Ricketts family all the reason they'll need to do more ad-related stuff so long as it doesn't take out the ivy or the marquee. 

 

As someone who grew up going to ballparks with video boards, I totally get the appeal for Cubs fans of finally having one at Wrigley. They can be great for instant replays, showing highlights, and showing old clips. I just find the ones at Wrigley to be very intrusive, given that they essentially operate as spite fences to cut off the view from the houses across the street. A small video board near the LF pole would've been relatively unobstrusive, I think.

 

I do think the WS win will probably help with making the recent changes at Wrigley seem emblematic of a more successful 'post-curse' Cubs franchise. I wouldn't be surprised to see more ads at Wrigley, which I find a shame, but I understand the economics of the situation.

 

Altogether, I'm sure we can all agree that a Wrigley Field with video boards and some advertising is still immeasurably better than a new ballpark out in Schaumburg or wherever else, so if that's the price to pay to make Wrigley profitable, I can accept it (even as a purist when it comes to ballparks).

[Sport]

The thing that will take the most getting used to with Wrigley is the new bullpens which look more like an office than a place for a pitcher to warmup.

 

[CS85]

1 hour ago, McCarthy said:

The thing that will take the most getting used to with Wrigley is the new bullpens which look more like an office than a place for a pitcher to warmup.

 

 

 

I'd rather them do this than deal with the ragtag bullpen from the foul territory.  I get the benefits of them warming up in the elements, but it's not a good look.  

[kroywen]

1 hour ago, CS85 said:

I'd rather them do this than deal with the ragtag bullpen from the foul territory.  I get the benefits of them warming up in the elements, but it's not a good look.  

 

Yeah, this is kind of the best of a bunch of less-than-ideal options. Wrigley Field simply doesn't have space for modern bullpens out in the open. It was either this or being on the foul lines, which I've always found to be a tad dangerous (what with foul balls and all - I'm surprised there haven't been more injuries from that).

 

I do wish there were a better way for fans and coaches to see in the bullpens. If it were any other ballpark, I'd say they should've put clear plexiglass in where the bullpens are, so fans and coaches could at least see in them. But that would probably look terrible at Wrigley Field. Perhaps a simple chain link fence would've worked, rather than the Under Armour ad - it would've meshed better with the chain-link 'basket' above the fence. (A climate controlled seating area could've been placed inside the bullpen, like most ballparks have these days.)

[CS85]

38 minutes ago, kroywen said:

 

Yeah, this is kind of the best of a bunch of less-than-ideal options. Wrigley Field simply doesn't have space for modern bullpens out in the open. It was either this or being on the foul lines, which I've always found to be a tad dangerous (what with foul balls and all - I'm surprised there haven't been more injuries from that).

 

I do wish there were a better way for fans and coaches to see in the bullpens. If it were any other ballpark, I'd say they should've put clear plexiglass in where the bullpens are, so fans and coaches could at least see in them. But that would probably look terrible at Wrigley Field. Perhaps a simple chain link fence would've worked, rather than the Under Armour ad - it would've meshed better with the chain-link 'basket' above the fence. (A climate controlled seating area could've been placed inside the bullpen, like most ballparks have these days.)

 

 

Yeah, but that Under Armor ad = 1 Javy Baez contract, so gotta make sacrifices somewhere, haha.

[MadmanLA]

The bullpens in the Bay Area ballparks are also on the field of play...Oakland is somewhat understandable because it's multipurpose and at least has that ungodly amount of foul territory to compensate for the lack of actual bullpens, but I can't excuse AT&T Park though.  Even as small as it compared to most of the newer parks, I never quite understood they weren't actual bullpens build there.  Hell, just take out probably the first dozen rows in the left-field bleachers, build the bullpens in their place, and replace those lost seats by building an overhanging deck where the Coke bottle and glove are located.