Comments on: A theory behind the retro stadium craze

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 02:21:40 +0000

Nothing, but nothing will ever outdo the magnificence, simplicity, and grandeur of the old Yankee Stadium as it stood circa 1961 with its expansive center field, reddish clay warning tracks, cheap right field corner fence, big high black walls in center and the power alleys, two auxiliary scoreboards, unbelievably classic green facade, great old large scoreboard, monuments and flag pole on the field almost daring you to hit it there knowing if you weren’t Mickey, Harmon, Big Klu or some other lumberjack you couldn’t do so. Maybe it’s because it was the way baseball was in New York City when I was a small boy, but I don’t need fifteen restaurants and a 1,000 amenities now. All I need is a $.15 scorecard, a $1.00 Yankee Yearbook, a hot dog and to get back into the past. Even the Yankees’ uniform back then was more boldly cream colored, numbers more sublime, Yankee blue colors more royal and less blackish than now.

By: YankeesFaninDC

YankeesFaninDC — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 13:22:33 +0000

The alternative is something “modern” and “sleek” and “interesting.” Like we have here in Washington. The Nationals’ new stadium is filled with glass and angles and all kinds of stuff, and you know what, it is ugly. And it feels cold, with no character. There’s nothing that makes you feel like you are watching a historic game, nothing that moves you to think about baseball’s role in our country, nothing that connects you with the surroundings. It looks like a big office building from the outside. Lame.

Find me someone here in DC who thinks the $600mil stadium we’ve ended up with is good looking compared to Camden/AT&T/Petco/new Yankee Stadium/Citi-taxpayer/etc. It’ll be a struggle.

By: Januz

Januz — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 12:39:30 +0000

I agree to a point that team success plays a role in the success of a Stadium, but in certain cases, that does not apply (See Wrigley Field). The goal should be to have the best possible Stadium and best possible team, and having state of the art facilities helps when dealing with with prospective draft picks, and free agents. Mark Teixeira was shocked and impressed with the video package showing him at the new Stadium, with Twisted Sister in the background. Does that mean he would not have signed? No it does not, but it certainly did not hurt.
Finally, the new Stadium will be a major piece (Along with scouting, trading, drafting, and free agency), to building a future dynasty.

By: The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

The Honorable Congressman Mondesi — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:28:23 +0000

That was a shot at Jeter.

Heh, see what I did there?

(Making wanking motion)

By: tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside

tommiesmithjohncarlos a/k/a Ridiculous Upside — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:23:57 +0000

What is he, shaving? He SHAVES with money?

What a money-obsessed jerkface.

By: The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

The Honorable Congressman Mondesi — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:16:10 +0000

I totally agree, and that opinion (that designing a building to do only one thing (host a baseball game) is backwards and outdated) is short-sighted. You can have it both ways. The new park in DC is quite modern, and the designs for parks in Miami, Tampa and Minneapolis all have a very modern aesthetic and all look very cool and unique.

In any event, I agree with you about the tone of that article as you described it in your comment.

By: dkidd

dkidd — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:40:03 +0000

i agree with you. it’s easy to slide into a ken burns rose colored glasses way of thinking about stadium design. but the tone of the fast company article rubbed me the wrong way. as if designing a building to do only one thing (host a baseball game) is backwards and outdated. as if people everywhere are desperate for radical stadium design (no, just the architectural firms). a stadium’s function is to support the enjoyment of a game, not overshadow or distract from it.

By: The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

The Honorable Congressman Mondesi — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:23:22 +0000

That's a poor use of money.

By: The Honorable Congressman Mondesi

The Honorable Congressman Mondesi — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:21:14 +0000

All due respect to George Carlin… It isn’t about modern vs. retro so much as it is about good vs. shitty. Don’t blindly promote the retro thing and bash modern venues. Kauffman Stadium is an absolute gem that has stood the test of time, and it’s far from retro. The problem with most of the bad stadiums you mentioned was that they were multi-sport facilities not particularly well-suited for baseball, and they weren’t build with any design aesthetic in mind. They were designed (poorly) for utility, not for style. And as far as the retro parks go… There are definitely a few that are fun because they’re relatively new, not because they’re such sterling examples of stadium design. Don’t think that retro=good and modern=bad just because the Vet sucked.

By: dkidd

dkidd — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 23:05:34 +0000

the fast company article is ridiculous. a baseball stadium needs to be a futuristic shopping mall? football is the futuristic sport. baseball, like it or not, is the nostalgic sport. remember george carlin? baseball is played in a park. cement ashtrays like veterans stadium and three rivers were billed as “stadiums of the future” when they were built. 10 years later, they looked shoddy and dated. any attempt to build a “stadium of the future” now will suffer the same fate