Are mlb teams building new stadium too quickly

[Gothamite]

Right - now instead of being tenants in their big brother's home, they're part-owners of their big brother's home.

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.

Oh, nonsense.

Sure, the bastard :censored:head Dolans killed the West Side Stadium. But that doesn't add up to "decades" of snubs.

New York has kept the Jets alive for decades. See how well they would fare without New Yorkers crossing the border.

How many clubhouse shops do they have in Jersey (other than the stadium), anyway?

[bosrs1]

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

Sorry but as someone who grew up and continues to occasionally watch my A's in the last of the stadiums that someone above incorrectly termed a "cookie cutter" (note: The Oakland Coliseum while multipurpose is not one of the cookie cutters), they needed and need to go. The multipurpose stadiums were terrible stadiums for sight lines, had terrible fan amenities, terrible player amenities, and they were even bad for simple things like walking to your seats due to small concourses. And most of them were falling apart by the end or are still falling apart (ie: the Coliseum). Enjoy the last of the the traditional multipurpose parks in the US while you can because the Coliseum's days are numbered with the Raiders and A's trying desperately to get the heck out. And it'll be good riddance IMO particularly when you consider the gems they destroyed to build them. Thank god the Cubs and Sox have had the foresight to keep their old jewel box parks intact and in the Sox case, even improve them to include many of the modern touches.

[McCall]

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

Sorry but as someone who grew up and continues to occasionally watch my A's in the last of the stadiums that someone above incorrectly termed a "cookie cutter" (note: The Oakland Coliseum while multipurpose is not one of the cookie cutters), they needed and need to go. The multipurpose stadiums were terrible stadiums for sight lines, had terrible fan amenities, terrible player amenities, and they were even bad for simple things like walking to your seats due to small concourses. And most of them were falling apart by the end or are still falling apart (ie: the Coliseum). Enjoy the last of the the traditional multipurpose parks in the US while you can because the Coliseum's days are numbered with the Raiders and A's trying desperately to get the heck out. And it'll be good riddance IMO particularly when you consider the gems they destroyed to build them. Thank god the Cubs and Sox have had the foresight to keep their old jewel box parks intact and in the Sox case, even improve them to include many of the modern touches.

Most of the old multipurpose stadiums were built primarily with concrete, which can start to fall apart after time. The new ones are built with steel and some brick. A little better combination that should last for a longer period of time.

[pmoehrin]

To be fair to cookie cutter stadium they served their purpose for their time.

White flight was in full effect and alot teams had to get out of the areas they were playing in.

Teams wanted ballparks built right off the highway with easy access in and out. Cities weren't into spending the kind of money on stadiums that they are now, so why not just have the football and baseball team share the stadium?

Its easy to knock cookie cutter stadiums now, but hindsight is 20/20. Teams had to get out of the inner cities and this was the best solution available at the time.

[bosrs1]

To be fair to cookie cutter stadium they served their purpose for their time.

White flight was in full effect and alot teams had to get out of the areas they were playing in.

Teams wanted ballparks built right off the highway with easy access in and out. Cities weren't into spending the kind of money on stadiums that they are now, so why not just have the football and baseball team share the stadium?

Its easy to knock cookie cutter stadiums now, but hindsight is 20/20. Teams had to get out of the inner cities and this was the best solution available at the time.

Actually that isn't entirely accurate. The best solution at the time was pioneered by the Dodgers and Giants and copied by the Angels and Royals. Yes build your then "modern" suburban concrete stadium. But make it a baseball only park. And to three of the four venue's credit they're still around and thriving today as some of the best and most unique venues in the game. Even in the 50's and 60's most ofthe mulipurpose stadiums, and the RFK/Shea/Fulton Co./Riverfront/Three Rivers/Vetrans/Busch II style cookie cutters in particular, were mistakes.

[The_Admiral]

Its easy to knock cookie cutter stadiums now, but hindsight is 20/20. Teams had to get out of the inner cities and this was the best solution available at the time.

But most of the cookie cutters were downtown.

[pmoehrin]

Its easy to knock cookie cutter stadiums now, but hindsight is 20/20. Teams had to get out of the inner cities and this was the best solution available at the time.

But most of the cookie cutters were downtown.

Yes but they were out of the neighborhoods.

You look at places like where Shibe Park and Ebbetts Field once stood they aren't the best of places to hang around following a game and driving there was a pain.

As for the earlier comment that's not entirely accurate either. The only city that built a new stadium for both the baseball and football team was Kansas City. It was the right call at the time and it took a long time to figure that out, but I still say hindsight is 20/20. It was a cheap option, nobody was really aware of how having a multipurpose stadium would effect either sport, and it was better then what status quo was most of the time.

And what happened to Candlestick Park and Anaheim Stadium? They were eventually retrofitted for football as well. So if it was that clear at the time that having a seperate stadium for baseball and football was the way to go, then why didn't the city of San Francisco and Anaheim give the Rams and 49ers new stadiums rather then moving them into baseball stadiums and retrofitting them for football?

[DuckFats]

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

Veterans Stadium was considered an absolute :censored:hole going all the way back to the early 1980's in no small part due to the :censored:hole so called 'fans' of the Eagles and Phillies who would regularly savagely beat and brutalize opposing fans who simply wanted to watch the game. But beyond that, the facilities were for and the Vet refused to upgrade them. And there was no way they would have installed a grass field, that would have cost way too much money.

[The_Admiral]

Yeah. They should bring it back.

[BBTV]

Nobody wants that.

Nobody.

[bosrs1]

Its easy to knock cookie cutter stadiums now, but hindsight is 20/20. Teams had to get out of the inner cities and this was the best solution available at the time.

But most of the cookie cutters were downtown.

Yes but they were out of the neighborhoods.

You look at places like where Shibe Park and Ebbetts Field once stood they aren't the best of places to hang around following a game and driving there was a pain.

As for the earlier comment that's not entirely accurate either. The only city that built a new stadium for both the baseball and football team was Kansas City. It was the right call at the time and it took a long time to figure that out, but I still say hindsight is 20/20. It was a cheap option, nobody was really aware of how having a multipurpose stadium would effect either sport, and it was better then what status quo was most of the time.

And what happened to Candlestick Park and Anaheim Stadium? They were eventually retrofitted for football as well. So if it was that clear at the time that having a seperate stadium for baseball and football was the way to go, then why didn't the city of San Francisco and Anaheim give the Rams and 49ers new stadiums rather then moving them into baseball stadiums and retrofitting them for football?

Well can't speak for Anaheim, but in SF Candlestick was enlarged and enclosed for football out of necessity. It was so poorly built that by 1970 Candlestick was already falling apart (shoddy teamster craftsmanship coupled with bad basic design). The city had already spent the money to build it ten years prior and had 16 million set aside to replace or repair it (their entire stadium budget). The Niners saw their chance to get out of the 1946 vintage Kezar Stadium and asked to be included. The city, not having enough money left to repair Candlestick/replace Candlestick AND build a football stadium agreed. If Candlestick had been built properly in the first place the stadium landscape in San Francisco might look a fair bit different today (and they might not be losing their football team to Santa Clara) as the Niners in 1970 might have been able to lobby for their own stadium.

As I understand Anaheim however their expansion was purely a self interest move trying to steal the Rams away from LA. And was a mistake they quickly rectified after they all but invited the Rams to GTFO of Anaheim.

[raysox]

Here.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Stadiums_by_Class.html

Neoclassical is the classification of the post-Camden Yards stadiums. The 20 stadiums since have all similarities. State of the art, beautiful ballparks. The park that opened before this was US Cellular. Like the link shows, it's modern 20th century, up there with KC, Anaheim, LA, and Oakland. Tropicana, and the Rogers Center are Doughnuts, which were popular in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but have since been replaced. Then there are the Wrigley and Fenway group.

Any non Neoclassical park should be replaced eventually. Sure you have a few stadiums, Wrigley, both SoCal, Boston, and KC, that are either classic, or really not bad. But the Doughnuts should be replaced about now.

[bosrs1]

Here.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Stadiums_by_Class.html

Neoclassical is the classification of the post-Camden Yards stadiums. The 20 stadiums since have all similarities. State of the art, beautiful ballparks. The park that opened before this was US Cellular. Like the link shows, it's modern 20th century, up there with KC, Anaheim, LA, and Oakland. Tropicana, and the Rogers Center are Doughnuts, which were popular in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, but have since been replaced. Then there are the Wrigley and Fenway group.

Any non Neoclassical park should be replaced eventually. Sure you have a few stadiums, Wrigley, both SoCal, Boston, and KC, that are either classic, or really not bad. But the Doughnuts should be replaced about now.

And of the three "doughnuts" stadiums that are left 2 are slated to be eliminated sometime in the next decade in St. Pete and Oakland. US Cellular which was original built as a Dodger Stadium style 20th century park has since been extensively modified to in essence be one of the neo-classical style parks not unlike what happened in Anaheim which was also heavily modified to resemble the neo-classical parks. That'll leave only Rodgers Centre as the last multipurpose park in MLB, and the last of the Modern 20th Century stadiums that is not either a modern classic like KC and LA or heavily modified to be neo-classic like Anaheim and US Cellular. And as you point out Wrigley and Fenway are just plain classics and in Fenway's case have already been extensively renovated to quote, "last another 50 years."

Once Oakland and Tampa Bay are situated I suspect that'll be the end of any major building for a while at least. For all of Rodger's Centre's deficiencies and the fact it'll be the last multipurpose, it's also not that bad of a park beyond it's fake grass. After all it was the first stadium with a working retractable roof, and is uniquely Canadian in many of its amenities. Not to mention it contains most of the modern things that drove the new stadium boom in the first place such as luxury suites and other sources of ancillary revenue.

[BBTV]

and is uniquely Canadian in many of its amenities.

What does this mean? Are there maple syrup dispensers everywhere? Murals of John Candy?

[Gothamite]

Lots of orderly queues for the restrooms.

And of the three "doughnuts" stadiums that are left 2 are slated to be eliminated sometime in the next decade in St. Pete and Oakland.

Wishful thinking. The Rays are stuck in that dump, they're not going anywhere.

[bosrs1]

Lots of orderly queues for the restrooms.

And of the three "doughnuts" stadiums that are left 2 are slated to be eliminated sometime in the next decade in St. Pete and Oakland.

Wishful thinking. The Rays are stuck in that dump, they're not going anywhere.

They'll be in a new stadium be it in St Pete or somewhere else. When the players, manager, owner, and commissioner are saying you need a new stadium, it'll happen. It's a matter of when not if.

[Gothamite]

If it's not St. Pete, it'll be in Portland or Montreal. As unlikely as that is, Tampa is less likely. There's no way St. Petersburg lets them out of that lease to move across the bay, and that lease is the only thing keeping them in town.

As far as staying in St. Pete, they've been trying for years with zero success. Why should St. Pete spend any public money on a team that the public doesn't care about?

[bosrs1]

If it's not St. Pete, it'll be in Portland or Montreal. As unlikely as that is, Tampa is less likely. There's no way St. Petersburg lets them out of that lease to move across the bay, and that lease is the only thing keeping them in town.

As far as staying in St. Pete, they've been trying for years with zero success. Why should St. Pete spend any public money on a team that the public doesn't care about?

Would be amazing if they ended up in Montreal of all places.

[McCall]

Nobody's going to Montreal. They didn't want to build a new stadium for the Expos, they're not going to want to build one for another team.

[Gothamite]

I don't think Montreal is likely, although sometimes it takes losing a team to make a city serious about building a facility.

Still, Montreal is more likely than Tampa or a new stadium in St Pete.