How long do you think the current wave of baseball stadiums will last?

[BadSeed84]

By current wave I basically mean camden yards and on.

The last wave...the cookie cutters lasted about 30 years, give or take from some.

I think tho that the current crop of stadiums shouldn't need to be replaced for a good while. Hell some should become like wrigley and fenway.

Like my hometown team the phillies, I don't see why citizens bank park shouldn't last 50 years at least.

The most recent stadiums that need replacing are from the late 80s, marlins and rays.

Of course I'm sure in the 60s and 70s people were probably thinking the same thing about the multi-purpose stadiums then.

[BrySmalls]

Let's see, since Camden Yards opened in 1992, two thirds of the MLB teams have or will have gotten new stadiums (MLBStadiumTimeline). There are a few teams in a dire need for an upgrade and a handful of teams that have remained in their original digs. To answer your question (without going into foreseeable and unforeseeable factors), the current baseball stadiums should have a shell life of 60-70 years.

[The_Admiral]

The SkyDome has about ten years maximum before they decide it's too big and clunky for baseball. The Blue Jays could be in an actual park by 2018, even. As for the rest of them, I'd like to think they were built to last at least another fifty years.

[OnWis97]

Let's see, since Camden Yards opened in 1992, two thirds of the MLB teams have or will have gotten new stadiums (MLBStadiumTimeline). There are a few teams in a dire need for an upgrade and a handful of teams that have remained in their original digs. To answer your question (without going into foreseeable and unforeseeable factors), the current baseball stadiums should have a shell life of 60-70 years.

That's a great link.

[BrySmalls]

Let's see, since Camden Yards opened in 1992, two thirds of the MLB teams have or will have gotten new stadiums (MLBStadiumTimeline). There are a few teams in a dire need for an upgrade and a handful of teams that have remained in their original digs. To answer your question (without going into foreseeable and unforeseeable factors), the current baseball stadiums should have a shell life of 60-70 years.

That's a great link.

Thanks, though raysox originally linked it on here; however, I forgot which thread.

[B-Rich]

By current wave I basically mean camden yards and on.

The last wave...the cookie cutters lasted about 30 years, give or take from some.

I think tho that the current crop of stadiums shouldn't need to be replaced for a good while. Hell some should become like wrigley and fenway.

Like my hometown team the phillies, I don't see why citizens bank park shouldn't last 50 years at least.

The most recent stadiums that need replacing are from the late 80s, marlins and rays.

Of course I'm sure in the 60s and 70s people were probably thinking the same thing about the multi-purpose stadiums then.

The opening of Camden Yards really was a milestone in baseball stadia design and implementation. Like you, I can see the post-Camden Yards era stadiums lasting 50-75 years.

Unfortunately, you've got three (more-or-less) baseball-only stadiums which preceded Camden Yards by just a few years, and although they are barely older than Camden, they probably will not stand the test of time: new Comiskey Park and Tropicana Field (those two stadiums' history are actually intertwined), and the Rogers Centre/Skydome.

With the opening of Target Field, you've got only two multi-purpose stadiums left: Joe Robbie/LandShark./Sun Life/Pro Player Stadium, which the Marlins will soon leave for a baseball-only facility, and the Oakland-Alameda, which the A's have discussed leaving and will likely leave at some point.

Then you've got the Anaheim Stadium, which is pretty old but had a major renovation post-Camden. Not sure how long much longer that renovation will hold....Anaheim was odd in that it was baseball-only, then multi-, then back to baseball only.

You then have four "classics": two urban/historic (Fenway and Wrigley) and two that are probably the best example of subruban sixties-style baseball-only stadia (Dodger Stadium and Kauffman/Royals)

The rest are ALL post-Camden.

[raysox]

I'm just hoping the Rays get their stuff together and build a stadium on the St. Pete side, just across the bridge connecting. But the stadiums build in the 80s just missed the new wave of architecture so they'll be replaced soon. Most new stadiums are great and will last a long time.

[BBTV]

Right now the thing is to have a "Baseball Only" facility that has a ton of luxury boxes. All it will take is for someone to invent something else (I don't know, floating over-field seating) and for it to become a "must have", and then everyone will complain that they can't compete without that feature, and that these parks can't be retro fitted, then it they'll push for new ones.

I think it also comes down to who runs / maintains the facilities and how well they're maintained. Municipalities vs. private teams can make a big difference there.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah, Yankee Stadium is already falling apart. No longer economically viable.

[NJTank]

I think the newer parks will last around 50 years

[OMMF]

Unfortunately, you've got three (more-or-less) baseball-only stadiums which preceded Camden Yards by just a few years, and although they are barely older than Camden, they probably will not stand the test of time: new Comiskey Park and Tropicana Field (those two stadiums' history are actually intertwined), and the Rogers Centre/Skydome.

With the opening of Target Field, you've got only two multi-purpose stadiums left: Joe Robbie/LandShark./Sun Life/Pro Player Stadium, which the Marlins will soon leave for a baseball-only facility, and the Oakland-Alameda, which the A's have discussed leaving and will likely leave at some point.

Rogers Centre belongs in the second group, not the first one.

[mania]

I could see the Rangers angling for a replacement for RBiA in a few years (read 10-15)... although it's not an old park (17 years, I think), it was built right before the age of retractable roofs and there aren't very many luxury boxes.

[aci]

Unfortunately, you've got three (more-or-less) baseball-only stadiums which preceded Camden Yards by just a few years, and although they are barely older than Camden, they probably will not stand the test of time: new Comiskey Park and Tropicana Field (those two stadiums' history are actually intertwined), and the Rogers Centre/Skydome.

With the opening of Target Field, you've got only two multi-purpose stadiums left: Joe Robbie/LandShark./Sun Life/Pro Player Stadium, which the Marlins will soon leave for a baseball-only facility, and the Oakland-Alameda, which the A's have discussed leaving and will likely leave at some point.

Rogers Centre belongs in the second group, not the first one.

Darn, you beat me to it. I guess cuz it's CFL football, people can forget about it. They also hosted the Raptors for a little while, though I can only imagine how horrible that was.

[Dilbert]

Im wondering why build baseball only parks and then try to squeeze football fields in a park built only for baseball sightlines.I know you make money but it just doesnt make sense to put a football field into dimensions built for baseball only. (Yankee Stadium, Tropicana Field, AT&T Park,Chase Field did it for a while, even Safeco Field had the NCAA Seattle Bowl for one year.)

[dfwabel]

I could see the Rangers angling for a replacement for RBiA in a few years (read 10-15)... although it's not an old park (17 years, I think), it was built right before the age of retractable roofs and there aren't very many luxury boxes.

They have 120 compared to AT&T Park's 68, Minute Maid Park's and Safeco Field's 63. How many more do they need?

It has already been paid for so that is something in the team's favor, but due to Cowboys Stadium, Arlington is not coughing up any more money. The city of Dallas could be an option, but in 10-15 years.

[mania]

I could've sworn that one of the reasons attributed to the Rangers financial problems was luxury boxes, but I must be misremembering.

[BrySmalls]

Unfortunately, you've got three (more-or-less) baseball-only stadiums which preceded Camden Yards by just a few years, and although they are barely older than Camden, they probably will not stand the test of time: new Comiskey Park and Tropicana Field (those two stadiums' history are actually intertwined), and the Rogers Centre/Skydome.

With the opening of Target Field, you've got only two multi-purpose stadiums left: Joe Robbie/LandShark./Sun Life/Pro Player Stadium, which the Marlins will soon leave for a baseball-only facility, and the Oakland-Alameda, which the A's have discussed leaving and will likely leave at some point.

Rogers Centre belongs in the second group, not the first one.

Darn, you beat me to it. I guess cuz it's CFL football, people can forget about it. They also hosted the Raptors for a little while, though I can only imagine how horrible that was.

I went to one Raptors game against the Knicks at the then SkyDome and lets just say that my family and I had great seats for a baseball game.

[njmeadowlanders]

The Marlins play in the 3rd oldest National League Stadium...that's just wrong...

Soon it'll be the Rockies with that distinction...

[CubsFanBudMan]

I think the renovations that the White Sox have done to U.S. Cellular Field since the All-Star Game in 2003 will keep it viable longer than some might think. It is not a bad place to see a ballgame.

[Swiss]

Let's see, since Camden Yards opened in 1992, two thirds of the MLB teams have or will have gotten new stadiums (MLBStadiumTimeline). There are a few teams in a dire need for an upgrade and a handful of teams that have remained in their original digs. To answer your question (without going into foreseeable and unforeseeable factors), the current baseball stadiums should have a shell life of 60-70 years.

That's a great link.

Thanks, though raysox originally linked it on here; however, I forgot which thread.

A great graphic...! Thanks! I'm noticing that there the author put the alternative logo for the Indians instead of the Chief face.