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

[crashcarson15]

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.

And the vastly superior 1997-2002 Blue Jays logo.

[DEAD!]

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

You and Roger Clemens I presume....

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.

I hope it does last a long time. It does looks better then what they originally had. I never did like having the foul poles at 347 feet from home plate. I think the park, much like the White Sox, are underappreciated. I like a field that has relatively uniform dimensions, but more importantly, a uniform wall height. It seems like every new ballpark has the same feature, a high scoreboard wall on one side of the field which people sitting in the bleachers can't view the scores.

[The_Admiral]

I agree. I think symmetry is underrated. The new Washington park should've been deep and symmetrical, something like 340-385-410-385-340. All those jagged high-low-HIGH-high-low-high fences are really chapping my ass, too.

Personally, I think they brought in the fences too much at Comiskey, given that wind patterns and elevation (800ish feet above sea level) already help hitters out a ton without a gimme like 330 down the lines, and they're dead-set on being a pitching/defense team. Of course, Hawk Harrelson tried to deepen the outfield for their pitchers in the '80s and it was an unmitigated disaster, so maybe they're fine with things the way they are. As for its lifespan, I'd probably give it another 45ish years?

[ltjets21]

We got 2 Jewel Box parks Fenway and wrigley how much longer will they last??? I've been to both and the only problems are those obstruction poles.

Multi Purpose OAKLAND COLISEUM and Joe Robbie which will be replaced, A's are looking for a new stadium

The modern parks in the 60's and 70's which are awesome Kaufmann Stadium, Dodger Stadium, and Angels Stadium whose renovation is just as good as a new park.

Domes only 1 the trop which will soon be repalced

Retro classic Pac Bell, New Busch, Citi Field, Citizens Bank Park ,Comerica Park, Coors FIeld, Camden Yards, PNC park, Rangers park. Turner Field .the retractables Safeco Field, Minute Maid park, Miller park,and since renovation us cellular can be considered.

Retro Modern Target Field, Great american park ,nationals park, Petco park, Jacobs Field, Chase Field and Rogers centre.

IMO Multi purpose are gone within 6 years along with the trop and i give the rogers center about 10 years. The ?'s are 60 and 70's modern parks all of them and the jewel boxes. The rest will last for about 50 years or more for all we know we can be looking at future Fenways.

[ZapRowsdower8]

I would love if all of these places would last 50+ years, but I have a feeling BBTV is right in saying that owners are always going to find some new feature they want but aren't willing to shoehorn into "outdated" stadiums. However, all of the cookie cutters of the 70s were bad baseball stadiums the day they opened, and that just isn't true with the new breed. Maybe they will last longer.

What teams do people consider to be the most in need of a new stadium? Tampa, Oakland, and Florida for sure. I think the new Marlins stadium is going to be nice, but it's going to be in a typical Florida neighborhood, stripmalls and low rent housing. I like the Trop for watching a game, it's not as bad as people say, but it's big downside is location. For an area thats based on car culture people sure don't like to drive to get to a game.

After those three I think the most likely to get a new home will be the Red Sox. Sooner or later all of the money they are losing from playing in such a small stadium is going to prompt the owners to start talking about building.

[The_Admiral]

They're not losing money.

[ltjets21]

I agree but it's a shame that will happen to fenway and wrigley .

[The_Admiral]

It's not going anywhere. The playing field and bleachers at Wrigley are only four years old. How they'll renovate the grandstand, I don't know, but they'll figure something out. The only shame about Wrigley is that it's being littered with really garish advertising.

[rams80]

I agree but it's a shame that will happen to fenway and wrigley .

No.

The only way Wrigley is getting replaced is if it burns down or collapses into a bunch of acid-rain eroded concrete. The dumbass Cubs fans got that place declared a National Historical Site, and there's no way the Cubs are going to be allowed to decamp elsewhere whilst that place is still standing, since you can't just tear down National Historical Sites.

[The_Admiral]

I don't think dumbass Cubs fans have that authority.

[ZapRowsdower8]

They're not losing money.

I should have worded that better. I know the Red Sox aren't losing money, they just aren't making as much as they could by playing in a newer stadium. They could easily add what? Maybe 10-15K seats and I'm not sure how many luxury boxes and still sell out every game. I'm not saying it's going to happen in the next few years, but it's only a matter of time. Fifteen or twenty years maybe.

(700 posts in just under 6 years!)

[ltjets21]

How exactly do they remove obstruction poles? They did it with yankee stadium.

[rams80]

I don't think dumbass Cubs fans have that authority.

This guy disagrees.

[rams80]

How exactly do they remove obstruction poles? They did it with yankee stadium.

Is that referencing the mid-1970s "renovation"? If so, they did it by completely gutting the entire structure.

[ltjets21]

Ok, do you think they would do that to wrigley or fenway?

[The_Admiral]

They might have to significantly rebuild the Wrigley grandstand down the road. Red Sox fans will just crow that they're so intelligent that they don't need to see the field to know what's going on. NO ONE DENIES THIS.

[Sodboy13]

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.

I hope it does last a long time. It does looks better then what they originally had. I never did like having the foul poles at 347 feet from home plate. I think the park, much like the White Sox, are underappreciated. I like a field that has relatively uniform dimensions, but more importantly, a uniform wall height. It seems like every new ballpark has the same feature, a high scoreboard wall on one side of the field which people sitting in the bleachers can't view the scores.

I really, really enjoy New Comiskey/U.S. Cellular. It's not a faux-retro ballpark, but it doesn't have to be. You want retro? Go 9 miles north and pretend the manual scoreboard is "old-time baseball" while the video boards flash around you nonstop and the stench of urine leftover from the Jim Essian era crawls up your nostrils. The Cell is a well-designed modern ballpark. Now, it took 14 years for it to become that, but the end result is pretty stunning. Great sightlines all around, plenty of amenities and good food, and a ballfield that serves the game well without getting all gimmicky and dumb. The green seats, the flat roof, and filling in the outfield bullpen caverns really cozied the place up, plus, unlike the old park, I don't have to pee in a circle with 7 other guys. Oh, and as someone who once climbed all 88 steps to the top of the 500 level, even before they sawed off the top 7 rows and added the roof, it wasn't that bad. Not good, but not the "oh my God, get your climbing axe and oxygen mask" so many made it out to be. Certainly not as bad as the plebian seats at Soldier Field.

The only part that can't be fixed is the alignment. If they'd had the stadium north/northeast so you could see the skyline, instead of east to see the (now destroyed) Robert Taylor Homes), the place would be perfect.

[friarcanuck]

My problem with replacing Rogers Centre is where are they going to build something that big downtown. It would have to go out in the burbs, Exhibition grounds or Don Lands for sure.

On another note, I've seen pics of where the old Maple Leaf stadium used to be and that stadium look magical.

[The_Admiral]

I think the bigger problem is that holy crap the Skydome cost like a billion dollars 20 years ago and it's already an outdated eyesore that's not explicitly built for baseball.

[Sodboy13]

I think the bigger problem is that holy crap the Skydome cost like a billion dollars 20 years ago and it's already an outdated eyesore that's not explicitly built for baseball.

Not built specifically for baseball and not big enough for the NFL. Double whammy, that. It looks nice enough from the outside, or when you're watching the roof close from above in the CN Tower, but when you're inside, it's all blue seats and concrete and dimly-lit concourses and holy crap they want to charge me 9 bucks for a Bud Light.