Comments on: What Makes A Good Ballpark?

By: blmeanie

blmeanie — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:07:57 +0000

Ted, Eric and Beth all hit on it – the neighborhood feel.

I grew up in the burbs of Boston, enjoyed many many games there, took it for granted that there was no massive parking lots surrounding the stadium, that you generally needed to that the T to get close and walk the rest of the way in to Fenway.

In my mid 20′s I moved to Atlanta. Fulton County Stadium was one of the many dumps at that time that sprung up together in the 60′s, along with Three Rivers, Riverfront, Busch, and Veterans these fields/stadiums lacked any character at all.

Even today in Atlanta with the freebee Turner Field, you park a 1/4 mile away in huge parking lots and walk in, across said parking lots. Even when the team was doing well, there is a blandness that overcomes you walking in.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 14 May 2009 00:07:38 +0000

What makes a good ballpark?

…a toasted bun, stone ground mustard, and mounds of relish…

By: Beth

Beth — Thu, 07 May 2009 05:57:50 +0000

I think it’s an intangible factor that makes a really great stadium. Once you’ve accounted for all the tangibles you mentioned (history, atmosphere, food, sightlines, comfort, parking), there’s still an intangible factor that you can’t really describe. It’s like everything in life.

I think you’re right though that one of the reasons Fenway and Wrigley seem special is because the cities grew around them. It contributes to the way the people, the fans, see them and as you said at first, the fans are, perhaps, the key factor.

By the way, Safeco can be great even when it’s 2/3 empty but only if you’re sitting in the bleachers. Even when it’s full I think the bleachers are the place to sit there.

Sometimes I miss the Kingdome. Maybe that’s just childhood nostalgia, mostly. I mean the Kingdome did have a huge flaw as a baseball venue in that baseball wasn’t it’s only purpose (or even primary purpose). It was interesting though, I’d say special…the would set of fireworks (from the rafters) for every home run and fireworks in doors are pretty fun.

By: Eric

Eric — Thu, 07 May 2009 03:38:14 +0000

Fountains are good. So are cities. That was actually something I thought about with Citi Field. It looks like it was designed to rise between brownstones in Jackson Heights or Fort Greene or some other leafy outer borough neighborhood, not sit alone in a that massive complex. It doesn’t look like that part of Queens. Safeco meanwhile, looks like the South Downtown neighborhood it rises from. Petco and Pac Bell do a good job of this and from tv it looks like so does Camden Yards.

But maybe Fenway and Wrigley are special because they’ve been around so long that the neighborhoods have evolved around them. Instead of being built to fit into a city, they become the pillar. It might be fair not to judge the newer parks until the communities they’re in have time to undertake that kind of organic growth.

By: Reeves Wiedeman

Reeves Wiedeman — Thu, 07 May 2009 02:53:07 +0000

Fountains.

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:39:16 +0000

To me, the greatest ballparks, Wrigley and Fenway, are great because there is very little distinction between the stadium and the city. In both cases, one minute you’re walking down a stimulating city street, the next you are in the shadow of the ballpark. Part of the fun of being inside each of them is that the city is just outside.

Given that, you can build a great physical park, but if it’s the centerpiece of a suburban parking lot, much of the pleasure is negated, as you note in this post with Citi Field. In other words, getting to and leaving Wrigley and Fenway is as much a part of the experience as the parks themselves.