PDA

View Full Version : Time For A New Park


Crash Course
04-30-2004, 10:34 AM
How old should a park be built for?
I mean, it seems, sans Fenway and Wrigley, when a park hits around 40 years of age, it seems it's time for a new one - or talk of a new one?

When they build a park, should they construct it with the intention that it should only last 40 or so years - or, should they build it with the intention that it should last 100 years?

Man, if houses only had a 40 year lifespan, think about all the demo work to be had!

sweaver
04-30-2004, 12:50 PM
I don't think you can set a limit like that. Some things are designed to fail after a certain number of years, and so they do. Other things are built for the ages. Proper maintainence is necessary. Law of entropy and all that.

KCBOOMER
04-30-2004, 01:16 PM
If the owners had to pay to get a park you can bet they would last longer than 40 years.

Crash Course
04-30-2004, 07:47 PM
Good point Boomer!

TimmyB
05-05-2004, 02:43 PM
It was probably just as well the cookie-cutters of the late '60s/'70s had a mere 30-40 year shelf life. (Of course, I'm not paying for the building of any of the new parks, so it's easy to be cavalier.)

I agree with Boomer. And, given the fiscal realities in most major metropolitan areas, most owners had better wrap their arms around the fields they now have.

Further, the "build us a park, we'll give you a contender" routine is played out what with the ineptitude being shown in Pittsburg, Milwaukee (a special case, for sure), Detroit, Cincinatti and so forth.

KCBOOMER
05-05-2004, 03:39 PM
You know for all the media flack Jesse Ventura took before, when, and after he was governor, he had one policy I thought was absolutely on target. It was in reference to building a new stadium for the Twins. He said, "We don't build new schools after using them for 15 years".

On the other hand forty years is a long time, but if they could build stadiums that last for 80+ years in the first third of the 20th century, surely we can build one to last 50 years.

mgoettsche
05-05-2004, 11:04 PM
I think that you build the ballpark with the intention of it being around forever...its up to the civic community to determine whether or not the ballpark is worthy of saving.

It seems to me that if city planners integrate new ballpark construction with an overall neighborhood plan, the ballpark stands a better chance at survival after 30 or 40 years...like one post said, we don't design houses to be built for only 30 or 40 years.

Of course, folks can never (but now perhaps should) account for all those O'Malley's in the world...

SmedIndy
05-06-2004, 12:19 AM
The ashtrays had to go - it was an experiment that failed. I think in the end it will be looked at as an anomalous era - the ashtray / dome era.

WiredTiger
05-06-2004, 08:30 AM
I think you should definitely try to build a stadium that will last for a long time. I think Camden Yards, PNC Park, Comerica and the like have a got shot at being around 50 years from now. Stadiums that were built a little bit before this era probably won't last long. I could see Comiskey getting torn down and the Twins won't play in the Metrodome forever.

captain_napalm
05-07-2004, 11:31 AM
Of course, folks can never (but now perhaps should) account for all those O'Malley's in the world...

I think that was a special case of where O'Malley saw what was going on in Milwaukee, and there was nothing NY could've done to keep him.

As for topic, here are my 5

Yankee Stadium: The more I think of it (with perfect 20/20 hindsight, mind you) the more I think they never should have renovated it. With what the Yanks have now, playing up the aura & mystique, an old Yankee Stadium would've been bigger than Fenway and Wrigley combined.

Olympic: Fix the roof

Shea: Actually, I kinda like the artsy players on the outside of the stadium. However, the park looks like it could stand to lose a couple of the upper-deck levels. It just seems a bit too tall

Comerica: The park itself just seems expansive. A few overhangs over the playing field couldn't hurt.

I can't think of anything else right now. I haven't been to Anaheim since 92 (and even then, I thought that it should've remained the way it was before the Rams came to town), Fenway since '97, Baltimore since 98, and I can't think of anything I'd like to change about the Skydome.

If anything, this thread shows how many old parks have gone by the wayside over the last 15 years (Met, Murph, Vet, Kingdome, Old Comiskey, Tiger Stadium, Memorial Stadium, Comiskey, Mile High, Arlington, Municipal, Three Rivers, County, Riverfront and Fulton County)