Jump to content

Are mlb teams building new stadium too quickly


uuh70

Recommended Posts

i have always wondered why some teams build new ballparks who really dont need one. The only reason they do this is so they can follow in the new trend for example

1. Phillies- i am still wondering why they left veterans stadium. Before 2008 it was the place where they won their first ws. It was only opened in 1971, it wasn't that old. after the eagles left they could have made it traditional baseball only by replacing the turf with grass and making a complete diamond

2. Yankees-it was renovated in 1977 why on earth why the build a new stadium when that one had so much history

3. Busch stadium- ok its a little older it was built in 1966 but it had history and it was a beautiful looking ballpark.

i have more but ill leave it at these for now..i mean at the rate we wont have any iconic stadiums around. Fenway is still in use same with Wrigley. I know most people like the new retro type trend going on but its played out already i mean read this stat "Since Camden Yards opened, 2/3 of all major league teams have opened new ballparks" and there all the retro style its old already

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 74
  • Created
  • Last Reply

All the parks you mentioned were outdated and didn't have the revenue generators (or enough of them) compared to newer stadiums being built. If someone finds a new way to generate revenue, then these current stadiums will be replaced or renovated eventually. It's all about what ideas can be successful enough to get any untapped revenue; that will determine whether or not/when new stadiums replace these current new stadiums (or become renovated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the cookie-cutter stadiums (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Shea, Cincinnati, Atlanta, St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland, and I guess you could also include Houston, Minnesota and Seattle) were built to combine baseball and football and save money in the 60s and 70s. Most of these places were ugly and had bad sight lines though, so there's no way financially-stable teams would stay in them once it was feasible to get their own places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the cookie-cutter stadiums (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Washington, Shea, Cincinnati, Atlanta, St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland, and I guess you could also include Houston, Minnesota and Seattle) were built to combine baseball and football and save money in the 60s and 70s. Most of these places were ugly and had bad sight lines though, so there's no way financially-stable teams would stay in them once it was feasible to get their own places.

Not to mention over capacity. And Yankee stadium was ruined with the 70's renovations. I loved Busch stadiums renovations that made the outfield area look more like that of an non-cookie cutter ballpark. However after working there during the 2005 playoffs and going down into the "underworld" of Busch stadium, it was structurally past it's time. Loved going there but a new one was needed. The ones built nowadays are more built to last for a long time than the ones they replaced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i have always wondered why some teams build new ballparks who really dont need one. The only reason they do this is so they can follow in the new trend for example

1. Phillies- i am still wondering why they left veterans stadium. Before 2008 it was the place where they won their first ws. It was only opened in 1971, it wasn't that old. after the eagles left they could have made it traditional baseball only by replacing the turf with grass and making a complete diamond

2. Yankees-it was renovated in 1977 why on earth why the build a new stadium when that one had so much history

3. Busch stadium- ok its a little older it was built in 1966 but it had history and it was a beautiful looking ballpark.

i have more but ill leave it at these for now..i mean at the rate we wont have any iconic stadiums around. Fenway is still in use same with Wrigley. I know most people like the new retro type trend going on but its played out already i mean read this stat "Since Camden Yards opened, 2/3 of all major league teams have opened new ballparks" and there all the retro style its old already

Yankeee Stadium was falling apart.

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/14/sports/baseball-yankee-stadium-closed-as-beam-falls-onto-seats.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at one game at Veterans Stadium and it was without question the worst place I've ever watched a baseball game. MLB, Minor League or amateur.

Just a huge mostly empty concrete bowl with zero personality to it.

Fenway Park has also seen hundreds of millions of dollars poured into it, but I think if you asked the majority of Red Sox fans what they would have wanted, most would probably answer a new stadium down by the waterfront ala AT&T Park. They would have had much more land and it would be in a much better area both in terms of entertainment options and accessibility. You cannot drive into Fenway unless you want to pay through the nose for a parking space which may or may not exist.

The park really is just too small to be hosting a team as popular as the Red Sox are right now and you can't expand it without having to rewrite the city traffic grid which is already an abomination. They should be playing in at least a 45,000 seat stadium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always wanted to visit many of the old ballparks as a kid, and I got a graduation gift of being able to go to Yankee Stadium to watch the Rangers in what ended up being their final victory there. When you see the photos of these places, you see mostly the good side of things and remember the nostalgic memories of the events there. When I went to Yankee Stadium, it was a little more than a dump. The concourses were narrow, the lines for anything were long, and God help you if you suffer from claustrophobia. Yankee Stadium died in 1977 due to the renovations, and it was a wasteland when I went there in 2008.

I think this is the way many people think of ballparks. There are these memories that people have of their team and their stadium, and it adds this nostalgic feeling whenever they visit. However, many of these ballparks that are held onto because of these values are way past their prime. I'm sure that over time, the new Yankee Stadium will have just as many memories as the old. The same would be true of any other team in baseball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yankee Stadium was an absolute dump by the end, and so was the Vet. And coming from somebody who went to an Expos game at Olympic Stadium and enjoyed it, I don't use the word "dump" lightly.

Terrible sight lines as well. Forget sitting in the lower deck if your were much past first or third base. Your neck would be feeling it by the end of the day because your seat is looking directly at the outfield as opposed to home plate.

The thing I don't like the most about the new Yankee Stadium is how they hid monument park. You mean to tell me for all the billions of dollars they spent on this place they couldn't have designed a better location for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fenway Park has also seen hundreds of millions of dollars poured into it, but I think if you asked the majority of Red Sox fans what they would have wanted, most would probably answer a new stadium down by the waterfront ala AT&T Park. They would have had much more land and it would be in a much better area both in terms of entertainment options and accessibility. You cannot drive into Fenway unless you want to pay through the nose for a parking space which may or may not exist.

The park really is just too small to be hosting a team as popular as the Red Sox are right now and you can't expand it without having to rewrite the city traffic grid which is already an abomination. They should be playing in at least a 45,000 seat stadium.

Back around the late 90's, early 2000's, they had a proposal for a new Fenway, just beyond the right field area of the current one. It was supposed to mimic Fenway with just some improvements and better infrastructure. However, I believe most fans were against it and just wanted them to upgrade the current one, which is what they ultimately did.

Here's a link to the page on ballparks.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fenway Park has also seen hundreds of millions of dollars poured into it, but I think if you asked the majority of Red Sox fans what they would have wanted, most would probably answer a new stadium down by the waterfront ala AT&T Park. They would have had much more land and it would be in a much better area both in terms of entertainment options and accessibility. You cannot drive into Fenway unless you want to pay through the nose for a parking space which may or may not exist.

The park really is just too small to be hosting a team as popular as the Red Sox are right now and you can't expand it without having to rewrite the city traffic grid which is already an abomination. They should be playing in at least a 45,000 seat stadium.

Back around the late 90's, early 2000's, they had a proposal for a new Fenway, just beyond the right field area of the current one. It was supposed to mimic Fenway with just some improvements and better infrastructure. However, I believe most fans were against it and just wanted them to upgrade the current one, which is what they ultimately did.

Here's a link to the page on ballparks.com

Yeah that was the one that got more publicity but the one I'm referring to was the original one that really never got off the ground due to costs. It was planned for around south station and the planning goes all the way back to the 1960's, so if you dig a little I'm sure you can find some info on it, although very little exists again due to the fact that it never got much past the planning stages.

If you've ever been around the area, you can tell that it was pointless to build another new park right there, so it was the right call to renovate Fenway versus doing that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these stadiums were built wrong in the first place. The Metrodome, for example, could be considered a fire trap because of its narrow concourses. It was cheaply built, and you can tell it. And that's not even speaking about the roof, which everyone knows about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay maybe i used bad examples but what i was trying to say was i wish at least 2 or 3 teams would still be using their cookie cutter stadium. Maybe its a bias i have toward them because i grew up watching most teams have them. Part of me really loves the turf look like in Rogers Centre (Toronto Blue Jays) and wish some teams would still have it. But i must say as much as i love the Cookie cutter turf field look I still say PNC is way better than three rivers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

okay maybe i used bad examples but what i was trying to say was i wish at least 2 or 3 teams would still be using their cookie cutter stadium. Maybe its a bias i have toward them because i grew up watching most teams have them. Part of me really loves the turf look like in Rogers Centre (Toronto Blue Jays) and wish some teams would still have it. But i must say as much as i love the Cookie cutter turf field look I still say PNC is way better than three rivers

Actually, your title is even the poorer part of your topic/question.

MLB teams (the most common offenders) do not "build" new stadiums, they run to municipalities and demand that they get a new sport-only facility or they will leave to somewhere else who will build them one.

Within the average age of the CCSLC forum group, outside of the Dolphins, SF Giants, Cowboys and Jets/Giants, no teams construct their own outdoor facility. Illitch paid about 53% of costs for Comerica Park, but when MLB owned the Nationals and got Nationals Park approved, they only gave $20M of the $600M construction costs.

If you share a stadium, you share the revenues. The NBA/NHL venues split premium seating revenues most of the time, so why should a MLB team who is there for 81 dates split money with an NFL team who is there for just ten?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you share a stadium, you share tje revenues".

Maybe it is high time for Jets fans to tell Woody Johnson to bolt out of East Rutherford and move to Queens or Uniondale so the J-E-T-S JETS!JETS!!JETS!!! can FINALLY have a stadium of their own built!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you share a stadium, you share tje revenues".

Maybe it is high time for Jets fans to tell Woody Johnson to bolt out of East Rutherford and move to Queens or Uniondale so the J-E-T-S JETS!JETS!!JETS!!! can FINALLY have a stadium of their own built!

Not all that easy, especially when the Jets contributed somewhere in the neighborhood of $800 million to get what's now MetLife Stadium to be built. Blame Cablevision and that ass Jimmy Dolan for the Jets not having their own stadium in midtown Manhattan like they planned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you share a stadium, you share tje revenues".

Maybe it is high time for Jets fans to tell Woody Johnson to bolt out of East Rutherford and move to Queens or Uniondale so the J-E-T-S JETS!JETS!!JETS!!! can FINALLY have a stadium of their own built!

Read the public leases or the current NHL CBA which has provisions for teams to split revenues with NBA teams or other non-NHL tenants.

NHL teams will lose revenue on suites and advertising under their CBA if there are games lost with an NBA lockout. That money impacts the salary cap since it is lost revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the main reason for the boom in new MLB construction is the fact that the newer venues have more amenities that provide additional revenue. With the Rays, A's, and Jays being in probably the last 3 stadiums to be replaced, I don't think we'll see another boom on MLB stadiums for a solid 40-50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you share a stadium, you share tje revenues".

Maybe it is high time for Jets fans to tell Woody Johnson to bolt out of East Rutherford and move to Queens or Uniondale so the J-E-T-S JETS!JETS!!JETS!!! can FINALLY have a stadium of their own built!

New York has snubbed their nose at the Jets for decades now. Westside Stadium was the last straw. They aren't going back to NY, they are now an all NJ team since leaving Hempstead for Florham Park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.