Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why has Dodger Stadium always been looked at as some kind of classic, while Shea Stadium was always considered a dump? Dodger Stadium and Shea are nearly identical in style, the only major differences I could see were color scheme and Dodger Stadium having a nicer backdrop. That's it. Otherwise, they are the same style from the same era, just as the Vet, Three Rivers, Riverfront, Busch, etc were almost identical early 70's multipurpose bowls.
Explain that one to me, phil. it makes no sense. The cookie cutters were Busch, Riverfront, Veterans, 3 Rivers, Atlanta, Shea, Astrodome. All were built for football and baseball and all were based on a circular shape and movable stands.
Dodger Stadium is an original. It was built for baseball only. the stands follow the foul lines and the outfield is traditional bleacher. From its opening on up to the time of Camden Yards and the retroparks, DS was called the Taj Mahal of baseball and was considered, by many, the very pinacle of ballparks.
Where is the link between Shea and DS? I don't get it. Shea was never in DS's category and never a dedicated baseball stadium. And no one can look at a picture of DS and believe, like he could in a cookie cutter, he's in another ballpark.
DODGER STADIUM IS AN ABSOLUTE CLASSIC. You have every right to your opinion, Phil, but the truth is that the vast majority of the baseball loving public has always been enamoured with DS and have always given it top marks.
The "cookie cutter" style that was once condemned is now being more celebrated. That's how architecture works, first it's generally accepted, then it goes out of style, then it becomes a classic example of the times. A good example of another classic "cookie cutter" style stadium, one that is and was baseball only like Dodger Stadium, is Kaufman in Kansas City. I don't mind that style at all, actually preferred ATL-Fulton County over Turner Field. I love(d) the circular overhang roofs that went around the stadium. The "neo-retro" faze that constructors went through during the 90s up until recently is so fake and sterilized imo. I say Dodger Stadium is a gem. New Yankee Stadium, not so much....but maybe just yet.
Vol, I'd have to say that even The Cell, home of the White Sox, has actually improved with age. The park was unfortunate to come one line one year prior to Camden Yards, a fate no ballpark should have faced. Some of its problems have been nicely corrected: lopping off the top portion of an overly steep upper deck and putting a real, classic style roof on it. Other improvements have been made throughout the park, especially the outfield.
But part of how the ballpark improved goes along with your observations: the changes that time bring. The problem with the retropark era is that it good too cute, too over-the-top in differences of ballpark to ballpark (the opposite of the cookie cutter era). Retroparks became quirky-for-the-sake-of-quirkiness. While an old classic like fenway had strange angles and odd features due to the restrictions of a tight site (which is what "plagued" or brought joy to all all old parks - take your pick), the new ones use the oddities only to give a forced "personality" to the place. The Giants' AT&T differs in this respect as its short left field is actually dictated by the waters of China Basin, its odd dimiensions totally related to site. Look at the Rangers' ballpark in Arlington; to me, it looks like they threw every architectural feature they could find into it, creating a stadium on visual overload.
With all these forced oddities, US Cellular actually looks refreshingly basic in the clean, sweeping lines of its symmetry, just like Dodger Stadium does on a much higher and successful plane. And the other ballpark in my town, by far the more famous, Wrigley, is a classic due to its near symmetry, in contrast to the job that Fenway does with assymmetry.
Explain that one to me, phil. it makes no sense. The cookie cutters were Busch, Riverfront, Veterans, 3 Rivers, Atlanta, Shea, Astrodome. All were built for football and baseball and all were based on a circular shape and movable stands.
Dodger Stadium is an original. It was built for baseball only. the stands follow the foul lines and the outfield is traditional bleacher. From its opening on up to the time of Camden Yards and the retroparks, DS was called the Taj Mahal of baseball and was considered, by many, the very pinacle of ballparks.
This is true and I incorrectly lumped Dodger Stadium and Kauffman into the cookie cutter style, the reason being those now retro roof overhangs that favor the cookie cutter.
This is true and I incorrectly lumped Dodger Stadium and Kauffman into the cookie cutter style, the reason being those now retro roof overhangs that favor the cookie cutter.
Vol, the cookie cutter has happily faded into history. Unless I'm mistaken, the only one standing is the Astrodome and happily they keep a dome over it so we don't have to look at the inside. The rest were happily imploded.
Vol, the cookie cutter has happily faded into history. Unless I'm mistaken, the only one standing is the Astrodome and happily they keep a dome over it so we don't have to look at the inside. The rest were happily imploded.
Next, if we should all be so fortunate, there will dawn a new era of stadiums that have actual names, as opposed to corporate logos.
Next, if we should all be so fortunate, there will dawn a new era of stadiums that have actual names, as opposed to corporate logos.
Fred, you seem to be missing the pure cold, greedy, heartless, fanless, commercialized, bottom lined, corporate joy of it all. Think of it: you could start your own telephone company and next year in San Francisco, the Giants will be playing in the only possible succesor to Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Park:
FredFone Park!
I realize that if you were to choose Philly instead, it would be PhredPhone Park
Fred, you seem to be missing the pure cold, greedy, heartless, fanless, commercialized, bottom lined, corporate joy of it all. Think of it: you could start your own telephone company and next year in San Francisco, the Giants will be playing in the only possible succesor to Pac Bell/SBC/AT&T Park:
FredFone Park!
I realize that if you were to choose Philly instead, it would be PhredPhone Park
Remember the James Caan movie "Rollerball?" Teams were named for their sponsoring corporations. Tell me we're not heading in that direction.
Give professional sports time (and a couple more rises in ticket prices, so that those old-fashioned Neanderthals known as "fans" will be literally unable to attend games). Then there won't even be a need for stadiums. Games will be staged in huge studios strictly for television consumption.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The rest were happily imploded.
