MLB Stadiums

[The_Admiral]

From an architectural standpoint would it be that difficult to build a new Fenway or Wrigley? Isn't the new Yankee Stadium basically an updated copy of the old one? Citi Field incorporated aspects of Ebbets Field. Why not build new parks with all the same quirks, the Green Monster, the ivory, the centerfield scoreboard, etc., but with all the new technology and amenities?

Fenway's not my wheelhouse, so I can't/won't speak for that one, but building a facsimile of Wrigley Field would be pretty hard. First of all, consider that any new Wrigley Field would be packed to the gills with luxury boxes, and possibly even a third deck. I'm sure we've all seen the infamous cross-section of The Two Comiskeys, but as a refresher, the tier of skyboxes pushed the upper deck so far up and back that the worst seat in Old Comiskey was closer to the field than the best upper deck seat in the new one. Despite the impressive capacity, the Comiskey upper deck was a nightmare for years until they finally capitulated and lopped so much of the damn thing off that Wrigley now fits more people by about a thousand or so. Say what you will about the current Wrigley deck and some obstructed-view seats, but it's that or not even being in the same ZIP code as the game. Another detail is that so many of Wrigley's dimensions are grandfathered in and would not be allowed in any modern ballpark. It's just like trying to rebuild any other building that's no longer up to code. The rake of the seats is probably too steep, the power alleys would be laughably shallow, dead center would probably come up a bit short as well, and there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to have brick-and-ivy outfield walls. They'd have to be padding, probably with the brick and ivy pattern screenprinted on them.

So it would be hard. Also, owing to the lack of space on the North Side and the Ricketts' growing dissatisfaction with the city, a new Wrigley would probably be plunked in the middle of a suburban parking lot, which is not only sort of a fundamentally offensive idea but would also lead to horrible traffic jams at a time when we really should be getting everybody back in the city using public transportation. I'm not in favor of this at all.

[Gothamite]

The Rays' lease runs through 2027. St Pete isn't going to let them out of it so they can play in Tampa. That will severely hamper their search for a new ballpark, since their scope is limited to one city.

They'll have to find a way to fix their failed market, not run to a new one.

Is it really a "failed market" though. Their attendance isn't that far off the league average despite playing in a downed space ship with no big name players. If anything I'd say they've finally established themselves in their market.

I'd dispute that Evan Longoria is somehow not a big name player.

But even so, who cares? The Rays have one of the best young rosters in baseball playing before rows of empty seats, even with the artificial attendance boost provided by all those unbalanced-schedule home games against the Red Sox and Yankees, two of the best road-drawing teams in baseball over the past decade. Is Johnny Damon going to fix that?

If this is "established," then the Rays are in even more trouble. They're hovering near the bottom of the AL attendance standings, even with a great team. They're competitive every single day of the season, with a pennant not so far in the rear-view mirror, and players are still forced to call out their fans for not showing up.

[ltjets21]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

The Ballparks I've attended have been Both Yankee Stadiums, Shea, Citi, and Fenway. What I liked about Fenway was liken you said the Charm, the seats were squeezed together but I appreciated its location being in the city and, I loved the area outside the stadium, I guess its a one time thing but if they had a new stadium with Yawkey way it would be unbeatable. Citi Field Is beautiful but the atmosphere around it is awful, bunch of Junk Yards,and the Bronx is a little skektchy at night.

[bosrs1]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

The Ballparks I've attended have been Both Yankee Stadiums, Shea, Citi, and Fenway. What I liked about Fenway was liken you said the Charm, the seats were squeezed together but I appreciated its location being in the city and, I loved the area outside the stadium, I guess its a one time thing but if they had a new stadium with Yawkey way it would be unbeatable. Citi Field Is beautiful but the atmosphere around it is awful, bunch of Junk Yards,and the Bronx is a little skektchy at night.

They almost did in the late 90's with Fenway Park II not unlike what the Yankees did. But in the end they realized it made no sense. You're going to tear down a park that is both a cash cow, and beloved by at least part of your fanbase, a tourist destination on it's own, and replace it with nothing but a modern day clone that would be no different than the 23 other parks that have been built or remodeled to look as much like Fenway as modernly possible possible. It would have been like tearing down the very template that everyone else has been copying. And as they found out, all Fenway needed was a renovation to make it even more of a cash cow and a better fan experience.

[CubsFanBudMan]

From an architectural standpoint would it be that difficult to build a new Fenway or Wrigley? Isn't the new Yankee Stadium basically an updated copy of the old one? Citi Field incorporated aspects of Ebbets Field. Why not build new parks with all the same quirks, the Green Monster, the ivory, the centerfield scoreboard, etc., but with all the new technology and amenities?

Fenway's not my wheelhouse, so I can't/won't speak for that one, but building a facsimile of Wrigley Field would be pretty hard. First of all, consider that any new Wrigley Field would be packed to the gills with luxury boxes, and possibly even a third deck. I'm sure we've all seen the infamous cross-section of The Two Comiskeys, but as a refresher, the tier of skyboxes pushed the upper deck so far up and back that the worst seat in Old Comiskey was closer to the field than the best upper deck seat in the new one. Despite the impressive capacity, the Comiskey upper deck was a nightmare for years until they finally capitulated and lopped so much of the damn thing off that Wrigley now fits more people by about a thousand or so. Say what you will about the current Wrigley deck and some obstructed-view seats, but it's that or not even being in the same ZIP code as the game. Another detail is that so many of Wrigley's dimensions are grandfathered in and would not be allowed in any modern ballpark. It's just like trying to rebuild any other building that's no longer up to code. The rake of the seats is probably too steep, the power alleys would be laughably shallow, dead center would probably come up a bit short as well, and there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to have brick-and-ivy outfield walls. They'd have to be padding, probably with the brick and ivy pattern screenprinted on them.

So it would be hard. Also, owing to the lack of space on the North Side and the Ricketts' growing dissatisfaction with the city, a new Wrigley would probably be plunked in the middle of a suburban parking lot, which is not only sort of a fundamentally offensive idea but would also lead to horrible traffic jams at a time when we really should be getting everybody back in the city using public transportation. I'm not in favor of this at all.

Many great points here. Good reasons why Wrigley will be rebuilt/renovated on the spot like the bleachers already were.

However, I missed the recent news that the Schaumburg Flyers were kicked out of Alexian Field and that the ballpark will have no team this year. That location was an often-rumored destination for the Cubs. The city is promising a team will return next year. Could it finally be the Cubs? I'm kidding, but they do have a year to get that expansion that's always been rumored done.

Funny how things change over time.

[njmeadowlanders]

Another detail is that so many of Wrigley's dimensions are grandfathered in and would not be allowed in any modern ballpark. It's just like trying to rebuild any other building that's no longer up to code. The rake of the seats is probably too steep, the power alleys would be laughably shallow, dead center would probably come up a bit short as well, and there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to have brick-and-ivy outfield walls. They'd have to be padding, probably with the brick and ivy pattern screenprinted on them.

I know there are rules on dimensions on new parks built after 1950-something but um, New Yankee Stadium opened way way back in 2009 and it's a mere 314 and 318 down the lines, short of the minimum of 325'. That's OK if the wall is higher (see, Pittsburgh, SF) but it's not.

Also, those were the post-1976 renovation dimensions, which also were post-1950 something.

Oh I forgot, they're the Yankees.

But my point is, I'm sure they'd allow a renovated Wrigley or a hypothetical Wrigley II to keep the same dimensions and basket and whatnot.

And is it possible to grow ivy over a padded wall, or would it not "take"?

[raysox]

I'm tellin ya Rays... Build it here...

• New Stadium
  
• Still in St. Pete, north part.
  
• About 5 miles-15 minutes closer to Tampa
  

[ltjets21]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

The Ballparks I've attended have been Both Yankee Stadiums, Shea, Citi, and Fenway. What I liked about Fenway was liken you said the Charm, the seats were squeezed together but I appreciated its location being in the city and, I loved the area outside the stadium, I guess its a one time thing but if they had a new stadium with Yawkey way it would be unbeatable. Citi Field Is beautiful but the atmosphere around it is awful, bunch of Junk Yards,and the Bronx is a little skektchy at night.

They almost did in the late 90's with Fenway Park II not unlike what the Yankees did. But in the end they realized it made no sense. You're going to tear down a park that is both a cash cow, and beloved by at least part of your fanbase, a tourist destination on it's own, and replace it with nothing but a modern day clone that would be no different than the 23 other parks that have been built or remodeled to look as much like Fenway as modernly possible possible. It would have been like tearing down the very template that everyone else has been copying. And as they found out, all Fenway needed was a renovation to make it even more of a cash cow and a better fan experience.

Yeah I heard of this, one weird thing about Fenway is theres not one main entrance.

[Gothamite]

What exactly would you expect to see? A Jackie Robinson Rotunda? In my experience, that's the rule, not the exception.

[FiddySicks]

I've been to Wrigley a few times, and went to Fenway last summer. I was by myself, so I was just talking to random people who were sitting around me. They were all season ticket holders and had all had been to CBP the last time the Red Sox played there, and said that despite the history and everything, they'd trade parks in a heartbeat. Basically, once the one-time novelty wears off, it's a hole. They liked being able to see the field from the concourse no matter where you were at, the width of the concourses, the number of bathrooms, the sightlines, the efficiencies provided by the technology used in the food / beer stands, etc. Having those types of conveniences doesn't take away from the actual baseball experience at all (you could argue that there are other things that take away from it, but that's a different discussion.) I think that Wrigley is much better than Fenway, but still could use a major renovation to bring it up to even close to the level of some newer parks. I'd hate to see either park go, but as a fan, once you get past the history, you're really not getting nearly as much for your money as at the newer parks.

Exactly. From an architectural standpoint would it be that difficult to build a new Fenway or Wrigley? Isn't the new Yankee Stadium basically an updated copy of the old one? Citi Field incorporated aspects of Ebbets Field. Why not build new parks with all the same quirks, the Green Monster, the ivory, the centerfield scoreboard, etc., but with all the new technology and amenities?

Couldn't be more true. I went to a game at old Yankee Stadium five or six years ago and was so disappointed at how much of a heap the place was. The novelty and history wore off after the first inning it was so bad. I expected this massive coliseum of wonder that was a fitting home for a team with as much history as the Yankees. Instead I discovered it was more like an old abandoned building that thousands of squatters had overtaken. Last summer I toured the new Yankee Stadium and was absolutely blown away at how nice the place was. It isn't much different than the old place in concept, but it has all of the state of the art features and is a MUCH better design. It really does have that grandiose feel that you'd expect from the home of the Yankees. I mean you get a good look at the place and you really get the feeling that the park could be around for a century and not look like a trash pit like the old building did towards the end. It was honestly the first extremely impressive ballpark I've been to that didn't have some interesting building quirk (Other than the whole billion dollar thing) or gimmick that didn't have anything to do with baseball.

This summer I'll be attending games at Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and Citizens Bank Park, and I really hope that Wrigley and Fenway aren't dilapidated to the point where it takes away from the experience like old Yankee Stadium. CBP I'd expect to be an extremely nice park, though.

[Saintsfan]

It amazes me how short the lifetime of a baseball stadium can be. Iconic names like Ebetts Field can last less than half a century.

I guess maybe the way a baseball stadium is constructed makes a soccer like redevelopment impossible maybe? Given that most of the seats are relatively close together around the diamond?

[TheOldRoman]

From an architectural standpoint would it be that difficult to build a new Fenway or Wrigley? Isn't the new Yankee Stadium basically an updated copy of the old one? Citi Field incorporated aspects of Ebbets Field. Why not build new parks with all the same quirks, the Green Monster, the ivory, the centerfield scoreboard, etc., but with all the new technology and amenities?

Fenway's not my wheelhouse, so I can't/won't speak for that one, but building a facsimile of Wrigley Field would be pretty hard. First of all, consider that any new Wrigley Field would be packed to the gills with luxury boxes, and possibly even a third deck. I'm sure we've all seen the infamous cross-section of The Two Comiskeys, but as a refresher, the tier of skyboxes pushed the upper deck so far up and back that the worst seat in Old Comiskey was closer to the field than the best upper deck seat in the new one. Despite the impressive capacity, the Comiskey upper deck was a nightmare for years until they finally capitulated and lopped so much of the damn thing off that Wrigley now fits more people by about a thousand or so. Say what you will about the current Wrigley deck and some obstructed-view seats, but it's that or not even being in the same ZIP code as the game. Another detail is that so many of Wrigley's dimensions are grandfathered in and would not be allowed in any modern ballpark. It's just like trying to rebuild any other building that's no longer up to code. The rake of the seats is probably too steep, the power alleys would be laughably shallow, dead center would probably come up a bit short as well, and there's no way in hell they'd be allowed to have brick-and-ivy outfield walls. They'd have to be padding, probably with the brick and ivy pattern screenprinted on them.

So it would be hard. Also, owing to the lack of space on the North Side and the Ricketts' growing dissatisfaction with the city, a new Wrigley would probably be plunked in the middle of a suburban parking lot, which is not only sort of a fundamentally offensive idea but would also lead to horrible traffic jams at a time when we really should be getting everybody back in the city using public transportation. I'm not in favor of this at all.

I would say that is true. If they were to build a new Wrigley, they would throw in so many extras that it would bastardize Wrigley more than the Bud Light Bleachers and triangle building combined. It would have the reserved section of super expensive tickets around the backstop (like new Yankee Stadium), but it would also have luxury skyboxes. And you can't have just one row, so they would make two or three, pushing the upper deck even further up. I have been to Wrigley a handful of times, and while it isn't clean, comfortable or even really a good place to watch a game, it certainly has its place in history. The quirks of the park combined with the neighborhood make it what it is. Rebuilding it elsewhere would be more of a "hey, this is sorta what baseball used to look like if you ignore the 300' LED screen and the skyboxes" feel that would be as cheap and gimmicky as every other new park having contrived outfield dimensions for the hell of it. The Tribune did a great job squeezing revenue out of the park. Tom Ricketts appears to be a buffoon, so I don't know if he will be able to maximize it further.

[Gothamite]

Couldn't be more true. I went to a game at old Yankee Stadium five or six years ago and was so disappointed at how much of a heap the place was. The novelty and history wore off after the first inning it was so bad. I expected this massive coliseum of wonder that was a fitting home for a team with as much history as the Yankees. Instead I discovered it was more like an old abandoned building that thousands of squatters had overtaken. Last summer I toured the new Yankee Stadium and was absolutely blown away at how nice the place was. It isn't much different than the old place in concept, but it has all of the state of the art features and is a MUCH better design. It really does have that grandiose feel that you'd expect from the home of the Yankees. I mean you get a good look at the place and you really get the feeling that the park could be around for a century and not look like a trash pit like the old building did towards the end. It was honestly the first extremely impressive ballpark I've been to that didn't have some interesting building quirk (Other than the whole billion dollar thing) or gimmick that didn't have anything to do with baseball.

And that's why there wasn't any great outcry to save the old Yankee Stadium the way there was for Fenway or Lambeau Field. The classic Yankee Stadium was destroyed in the 1970s and replaced with a monstrosity. Shame about that, but the damage was long done.

[The_Admiral]

I don't understand why people feel that ballparks should be Coliseums Of Wonder® in the first place. An edifice built for the purpose of getting 40,000 people to watch baseball and drink beer should never be terribly more than that. I mean, I like when you have some nice architectural quirks and panoramas, but in terms of amenities, perhaps we as a nation have asked too much. Pissing contests to see who can have the biggest HD screen or the widest food court or whatever have only made things way too expensive for customers and cities. New Yankee Stadium would really be wondrous if they could sell any tickets to the damn place.

[Gothamite]

New Yankee Stadium would really be wondrous if they could sell any tickets to the damn place.

They sold 3,765,807 tickets last year, and 3,674,495 the year before that. Yes, they had some empty seats in the ludicrous price range, but still I think they're doing just fine.