Well, on Sunday we came closer to living in a world free from the monstrosities known as multi-purpose/cookie-cutter stadiums, those relics of the late 60's/70's that attempted--and failed in every single case--to accomodate both baseball and football. Once The Vet is gone next year, that'll leave (I think) only Busch Stadium in St. Louis and Shea Stadium in New York.

You can revel in the destruction of Riverfront/Cingery here.

Add the Skydome to the list of baseball and football stadiums.

Do they play football in the Skydome? The CFL Toronto team?

Though it wasn't built until the '80s, I'd love to see the Metrodome go with these others. Except the Twins would lose that terrific home field advantage!

And Shea Stadium has nothing on Sunnydale when it comes to being a Hellmouth (Buffy the Vampire Slayer reference). What a pit!

[ December 30, 2002: Message edited by: George_vikingfan ]

I have a soft spot for Riverfront Stadium (Busch Stadium too for that matter) so I was sorry to see it go. Those were the stadiums I saw my first major league games back in the mid-late 70s. I run the risk of death by stoning, but I much prefer the cookie-cutter stadiums to Wrigley Field, where I had a bad first impression--lousy seats, couldn't see the scoreboard or hear the announcer. The cookie-cutters may lack the character of the classic ballparks but I think they have served their purpose well. I realize I am in the minority on this one...

Kill Indy Mike! Kill him DEAD! Stone him! Blasphemer! Heretic! Kill the infidel!

*Cough*

I wasn't too thrilled with my one experience at Wrigley--sitting directly behind a pole tends to lessen the love you feel for a stadium--but compared to places I've visited like Shea, The Vet and so on, it was paradise. I was wondering when I started this thread if anyone was going to stick up for Riverfront.

There's also the example of Anaheim Stadium when it was expanded to accomodate the Rams. A great, Dodger Stadium-like baseball-only design turned in to a tomb when they enclosed it. It was horrible for baseball (if you sat in the upper deck in the outfield it was like you were sitting in a different time zone) and the layout for football meant that a majority of the seats were miles away in the end zones. A monstrosity and it was great to see it return to life as The Ed.

Someone more local to the situations would know this but are the Cardinals new park in St. Louis and new football and baseball stadiums in Minneapolis all dead issues due to taxpayer unwillingness to fund them? I'm too lazy right now to do a Google search and I'd appreciate any insight you might have.

George wrote:

Do they play football in the Skydome?

Yes George, for what they are worth, the Toronto Argonauts of the CFL play at Sky Dome. Their average attendance at games has been under 10,000 for the past several years. The Blue Jays haven't drawn well either. But in both cases, I think it's more to do with team mediocrity breeding apathy among fans, rather than anything terribly wrong with the stadium itself. Haven't actually been to a game there, but I toured it when it first opened in the late 80s.

I would like to defend the maligned SkyDome. Frankly, to go to the expense of building a multi-million dollar field for 81 baseball home games a year OR 8 football home games a year seems a blatant waste of (sometimes taxpayers) money to me. Are you Americans that rich that you can have a separate stadium for everything? The SkyDome is home to the Blue Jays, Argonauts, plus concerts (Rolling Stones, Backstreet Boys), trade shows (auto show), special events (the Pope, Nelson Mandela, New Year's and Halloween attractions), misc. sporting events, etc. It's a multi-purpose facility, next door to the convention centre and the CN Tower and walking distance to the financial district. It contains a hotel, fitness club, Hard Rock cafe. It's not as pretty as Camden Yards and will never be as historic or homey as Wrigley, but I think it's quite a nice place, thank you very much.

[ December 30, 2002: Message edited by: canmark ]

[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
I would like to defend the maligned SkyDome. Frankly, to go to the expense of building a multi-million dollar field for 81 baseball home games a year OR 8 football home games a year seems a blatant waste of (sometimes taxpayers) money to me.

---

I'll second that, if only because the SkyDome inspired the retractable roof on Miller Park (in my original hometown, where drivers would rather yield than collide, unlike here). In a northern climate, snow can and occasionally does cancel games (and close schools) in April.

As for waste of money, check out the "renovation" of Soldier Field in the City of Windy Politicos. "Close Encounters of the Tax-Funded Kind" would be a better description of the UFO-inspired "addition" ... even if the tax is on Loop hotels (which, BTW, are half empty, between the pre-9/11 recession and latent post-9/11 travelphobia). The Bears wouldn't accept a multipurpose all-weather stadium attached to McCormick Place (so it could be used for conventions), saying they'd rather move to the burbs (where nobody wanted them) or even Gary than play in "McDome" . Actually, the most memorable part of the decade-long melodrama was the reaction of everyone but the pols to the Bears' threat to leave town if they didn't get a new stadium (essentially "Make our day, ya bums!").

On the whole, however, the politics of sports facility financing in the US is, well, loony, eh? It's less a case of wealth than of highly debatable priorities for what to do with that wealth.

There. I feel better now.

Jim Allen,

Personally, I find nothing wrong with Busch Stadium. It is a pleasure working there, and St. Louis has one of the best baseball fan bases anywhere. Plus, I love the place at which we occasionally stay: The Hyatt at Union Station. When the Marriott is booked, I'm usually at the Hyatt Union Station, and it has a great charm.

As far as the now demolished former home of the Reds, well, I won't miss it. Miserably uncomfortable it was, in many respects.

Growing up in the 70's, as a Cleveland fan...Rivals close to us- Pittsburgh and Cincinnati both got the new 'cookie cutter' stadiums. Cleveland was stuck with the 1930's dinosaur stadium; I was sooooo jealous. Not only did Pitts and Cincy have new digs, but they won championships (70's Reds, 70's Stillers). Cleveland had lousy teams, PLUS a lousy stadium, plus no money to put in the franchises.

SO FINALLY, in the late 90's Cleveland gets it's act together to get new stadiums, and now Pittsburgh and Cincy get new ones also - come on those stadiums weren't that old ! IT DOESN'T SEEM FAIR

[quote]Originally posted by canmark:
Frankly, to go to the expense of building a multi-million dollar field for 81 baseball home games a year OR 8 football home games a year seems a blatant waste of (sometimes taxpayers) money to me. Are you Americans that rich that you can have a separate stadium for everything? The SkyDome is home to the Blue Jays, Argonauts, plus concerts (Rolling Stones, Backstreet Boys), trade shows (auto show), special events (the Pope, Nelson Mandela, New Year's and Halloween attractions), misc. sporting events, etc.

---

Other than money, the reasoning behind baseball and football teams wanting their own stadium is that they can build it to conform to the shape of the playing field. Baseball and football are played on radically different-shaped fields. This causes a number of seats that are in undesirable locations. There are seats that are right next to the field for Phillies games that are horrible for Eagles games because they're on field level and directly behind a team's bench, so with everyone standing on the sidelines you don't have a good view of the game.

Also, it won't be just the 81 (plus postseason) MLB and 8 (plus preseason and postseason) NFL games that are played. A lot of the other events you mention, like concerts, will still take place in the new buildings. And there will be other sporting events as well. The first event to be held in the Eagles' new stadium will be a soccer game involving Britain's Manchester United team.

I just wonder how long these new stadiums will last until teams want even newer ones. The Vet opened in 1971 and will be history after the 2003 baseball season. Meanwhile, in Seattle, they already blew up the Kingdome.

I'm jealous. Because this got me thinking once again how sick I am that my favorite team is still playing in that toilet bowl in Flushing, Queens. Have you ever tried watching a game from the mezzanine and upper decks. The seats rise up so steeply and the view to the field is so distant. Their attempt to try and modernize the park has been so lame. Have you ever visited those ridiculous luxury boxes. You call that luxury?

Come on now! Let's step into the present. We need a freakin' new ballpark already! Hey Mr. Mayor Bloomberg! Mr. Millionaire baseball fan! Help us out here. Can't you do something about this? I want a new ballpark during my lifetime, thankyou.
And I am serious when I say I get nausea in the upper decks. If I am sitting behind home plate in the upper deck I always feel nausea when I glance out to the right or left field sides of the upper decks.

And not only the Padres but the lowly Pirates and Brewers get new parks. And the Phillies not only get a new stadium for their baseball team but one for the football team too just like Cinicinnati.

Come on! It's 2003! Time for a new innovative stadium.
I wanna be there when they bring down ol' Shea!

C'mon Amazin -- Bloomberg is cutting VITAL stuff like schools and library hours, and you want NYC to blow a wad on a freakin' stadium? Let's keep Shea for now and scrap that Olympic bid too (when pigs fly)...