Sports Traditions

[VitaminD]

Wow, I've never seen such a self-contradicting argument in my life.  First, you say that "small details" (such as outfield fence height, batters-eye color and scoreboard location) mean that the old multi-purpose stadiums that were not "cookie-cutter," then, in the very next breath, you argue that large details are irrelevant in modern retro ballparks, and that only the "contrived quirkiness" shared by all (the Train in Houston, the Liberty Bell in Philly, etc.), condemn these to "cookie cutter" status.  So which is more important?  Small details, like paint color, or fence height, or large details, like contrived quirkiness, or odd shaped playing-surfaces?  You can't hold the multi-purpose stadiums to one standard, then the retro parks to another.

Moose

Not quite, Moose.

The first post was in response to the lament that in the days of multipurpose stadiums, you couldn't tell what stadium the game was being played in - presumably because they were so identical in every way. Yet, each of the supposedly identical parks had several visual cues that made discerning one from another quite easy. In that regard, the small details can't be all that insignificant - otherwise they couldn't be features salient enough to tell 2 "identical" entities apart. Moreover, I asked if you could tell what stadium an NFL game was being played in if a punt went up in the air; while some can, my point is that all NFL stadiums have identically-sized playing surfaces and bear resemblances certainly as similar as the old multipurpose stadiums did to each other.

The second post - not quite in the next breath - was in response to Gothamite's assertion that the new parks aren't cookie cutter, because the only similarities in all of the retro parks is that they have exposed brick and green paint somewhere. In truth, "cookie cutter" may be a poor choice of words on my part. But the retro parks are all painfully derivative of Oriole Park in many ways beyond the exposed brick and the green paint. I went on to list many of the general traits the vast majority of these parks share. Again, if the criterion "If someone hits a deep fly ball, can I tell which park I'm watching?" is used, you can absolutely tell one retro park from another with very little difficulty. My argument is that these parks have become so derivative that only the exceptional handful - Baltimore, San Diego, San Francisco and Pittsburgh, all of whom took advantage of natural features or neighboring structures - stand out, and that the rest are a mix & match of overlapping elements. Each sought to be a unique homage to the past, but in reality, they're all as similar to one another as the multipurpose stadiums were. So other than improved visual aesthetics and better seating, MLB has done nothing to solve one of the problems posed by multipurpose "cookie cutter" stadiums: that they all look more or less like the others.

Did I make it any clearer/less contradictory? I wasn't trying to contradict myself (obviously), and I hope that made my point a little better.

P.S. Leopard - I mentioned the hill in my first post on the subject. I don't like repeating myself. And I don't like repeating myself. And I don't like irony.

[hecticbro]

I went to school in Minneapolis during the Twins' resurgence and went to quite a few games.... There was nobody in that dump until the team started winning consistently.

Winning, obviously, is the best "promotion" any team in any sport can offer.

I didn't really mean to bring up ball-park giveaway types of promotions earlier, since, as you've pointed out, they're done in all kinds of sports.

Baseball is the sport in which the look of the stadium and the characteristics of the field are the most important to a franchise's identity and also with ticket sales. All football fields look exactly the same. Hockey rinks (at the NHL level) are all the same size and most teams have pretty much the same ice (though it's better in some places, like Edmonton, and crappy in a lot of others), basketball courts don't vary much....

But in baseball, you can be very creative and fans appreciate that.

[no97]

Not quite, Moose...

Perhaps that is a better explanation. One thing i don't understand, however, is how, as you put it,

So other than improved visual aesthetics and better seating, MLB has done nothing to solve one of the problems posed by multipurpose "cookie cutter" stadiums: that they all look more or less like the others.

Um, what's so bad about "improved visual aestetics and better seating"? Isn't that what it's all about, in terms of fan interest? So what if Cincy's ballpark is a bit repetative/blah? I agree that it isn't one of the top new ballparks out there, but it's a hell of a lot better than Cynergy/Riverfront, isn't it?

Moose

[VitaminD]

Not quite, Moose...

Perhaps that is a better explanation. One thing i don't understand, however, is how, as you put it,

So other than improved visual aesthetics and better seating, MLB has done nothing to solve one of the problems posed by multipurpose "cookie cutter" stadiums: that they all look more or less like the others.

Um, what's so bad about "improved visual aestetics and better seating"? Isn't that what it's all about, in terms of fan interest? So what if Cincy's ballpark is a bit repetative/blah? I agree that it isn't one of the top new ballparks out there, but it's a hell of a lot better than Cynergy/Riverfront, isn't it?

Moose

There's nothing wrong with better sightlines, better seating and improved atmosphere at the parks. Don't get me wrong, I've been more than happy with the recent upgrade from Veterans Stadium to Citizens Bank Park. My childhood memories of the Vet are fine, but I'm thrilled to have the new yard to watch my games from now on.

I was still referring to the complaint that you couldn't tell where a game was being played in the era of multipurpose stadiums (while in fact you could), which really hasn't been solved now that so many teams have essentially traded the multipurpose "cookie cutters" for retroparks that all borrow heavily from one another. All the new parks are certainly an improvement, but the casual fan will have the same identification problems they always had - we've simply traded mulitpurpose stadium features for retropark features.

[no97]

I was still referring to the complaint that you couldn't tell where a game was being played in the era of multipurpose stadiums (while in fact you could), which really hasn't been solved now that so many teams have essentially traded the multipurpose "cookie cutters" for retroparks that all borrow heavily from one another.

So, you're entire point all this time was that the "cookie-cutter" multi-purpose stadiums weren't exactly the same buildings, that they had some differences, such as seat color, scoreboard location, etc. Correct? Well, I could have told you that. I don't think there's anyone here that thought Veterans was exactly the same as Jack Murphy, and Busch was exactly the same as Riverfront... The each were basically the same as each other (something I still contend can't be said for, say, Comerica and Ameriquest, or Minute Maid and Chase).

And as far as the complaint that you couldn't tell which ballpark you were at, it came direct from a player, not a fan. I don't remember who it was, but in the late '70's or early '80's, a ballplayer on a long roadtrip made a comment in an interview that he didn't know what town he was in because all the multi-purpose stadiums he had visited all looked alike...

Moose

[VitaminD]

So, your entire point all this time was that the "cookie-cutter" multi-purpose stadiums weren't exactly the same buildings, that they had some differences, such as seat color, scoreboard location, etc. Correct? Well, I could have told you that. I don't think there's anyone here that thought Veterans was exactly the same as Jack Murphy, and Busch was exactly the same as Riverfront... The each were basically the same as each other (something I still contend can't be said for, say, Comerica and Ameriquest, or Minute Maid and Chase).

My point all along, if it could be distilled to its essence, would be this:

The cookie-cutter multipurpose stadiums of the 1970s were similar but had appreciable differences between them that made easy identification of any given stadium relatively easy for anyone paying attention. And for as much as people rip on the old parks for their general similarities, and for as much as people praise today's new retroparks for their uniqueness, nearly every one of them borrows from the others at a level deeper than "exposed brick and metal painted green".

I'm simply pointing out what I perceive as a hypocritical disparity, and to discern where the breakpoint is. It's not that I don't prefer the newer parks, which are conducive to a better experience and are more pleasing to the eye. But I can't accept the position that the new parks are better because they're all so different... when in fact, they're all examples of "theme and variation" repetition.

The multipurpose stadiums weren't so identical that they couldn't be distinguished one from another, and today's parks aren't as unique as people like to think. So why do so many people trash the old stadiums for their similarities while basically giving a pass to today's parks when they're guilty of being similarly alike?

[cranium]

Face it. Riverfront, Three Rivers, Busch I, and the Vet were essentially the same park. Clearly other parks of that era shared similarities to the main 4. But really, they were circles with essentially the same bowl set up inside and had very similar exteriors. They had different colored seats, perhaps a few other minor differences, but otherwise, they were the same soulless round multi-purpose stadiums. A regular sports fan could probably tell the subtle (I would not call them "appreciable") differences between them, but what did it really matter? They were big, round, and blah. While current stadium designers clearly borrow some elements from Camden yards, and more historic stadiums, they do try to make each one unique for the most part, which the same could not be said about Riverfront, Three Rivers, Busch I, and the Vet.

[Rocknjosie]

So, your entire point all this time was that the "cookie-cutter" multi-purpose stadiums weren't exactly the same buildings, that they had some differences, such as seat color, scoreboard location, etc.  Correct?  Well, I could have told you that.  I don't think there's anyone here that thought Veterans was exactly the same as Jack Murphy, and Busch was exactly the same as Riverfront...  The each were basically the same as each other (something I still contend can't be said for, say, Comerica and Ameriquest, or Minute Maid and Chase).

My point all along, if it could be distilled to its essence, would be this:

The cookie-cutter multipurpose stadiums of the 1970s were similar but had appreciable differences between them that made easy identification of any given stadium relatively easy for anyone paying attention. And for as much as people rip on the old parks for their general similarities, and for as much as people praise today's new retroparks for their uniqueness, nearly every one of them borrows from the others at a level deeper than "exposed brick and metal painted green".

I'm simply pointing out what I perceive as a hypocritical disparity, and to discern where the breakpoint is. It's not that I don't prefer the newer parks, which are conducive to a better experience and are more pleasing to the eye. But I can't accept the position that the new parks are better because they're all so different... when in fact, they're all examples of "theme and variation" repetition.

The multipurpose stadiums weren't so identical that they couldn't be distinguished one from another, and today's parks aren't as unique as people like to think. So why do so many people trash the old stadiums for their similarities while basically giving a pass to today's parks when they're guilty of being similarly alike?

Fine the "I could be anywhere" argument has holes because some people remember what seat color the Vet had versus Three Rivers. How bout, I prefer the new wave of ballparks because they're baseball specific, meaning better sightlines and less seats in undesireable areas. I prefer the new wave of ballparks because people sitting the grandstands have a view of something other than the other side of the stadium, given that baseball does have a lot of downtime and one can only watch a relief pitcher warm up for so long before their eyes roll back in their head. I prefer the new ballparks because it seems like many of them have more of a focus on families, giving kids a place to run around when they get antsy, and show appreciation for their female fans (being one of them, I love that the Giants have a female announcer). So while ballparks these days seem to be following *gasp* a trend, I like the direction the direction they show baseball going in, as opposed to the direction the concrete doughnuts showed.

[no97]

So, your entire point all this time was that the "cookie-cutter" multi-purpose stadiums weren't exactly the same buildings, that they had some differences, such as seat color, scoreboard location, etc.  Correct?  Well, I could have told you that.  I don't think there's anyone here that thought Veterans was exactly the same as Jack Murphy, and Busch was exactly the same as Riverfront...  The each were basically the same as each other (something I still contend can't be said for, say, Comerica and Ameriquest, or Minute Maid and Chase).

My point all along, if it could be distilled to its essence, would be this:

The cookie-cutter multipurpose stadiums of the 1970s were similar but had appreciable differences between them that made easy identification of any given stadium relatively easy for anyone paying attention. And for as much as people rip on the old parks for their general similarities, and for as much as people praise today's new retroparks for their uniqueness, nearly every one of them borrows from the others at a level deeper than "exposed brick and metal painted green".

I'm simply pointing out what I perceive as a hypocritical disparity, and to discern where the breakpoint is. It's not that I don't prefer the newer parks, which are conducive to a better experience and are more pleasing to the eye. But I can't accept the position that the new parks are better because they're all so different... when in fact, they're all examples of "theme and variation" repetition.

The multipurpose stadiums weren't so identical that they couldn't be distinguished one from another, and today's parks aren't as unique as people like to think. So why do so many people trash the old stadiums for their similarities while basically giving a pass to today's parks when they're guilty of being similarly alike?

We can go 'round and 'round like this a few more times, but I think it's time to just agree to disagree... I'm just not buying it.

Moose

[VitaminD]

We can go 'round and 'round like this a few more times, but I think it's time to just agree to disagree... I'm just not buying it.

Moose

I'll shake on that.