PDA

View Full Version : RIP Veterans Stadium


Fenway
03-21-2004, 07:38 AM
Always sad to see a ballpark die even a bad one
http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0321/2938188.jpg
http://images.ibsys.com/2004/0321/2938186.jpg

http://abclocal.go.com/images/32104-imp-est.jpg
http://abclocal.go.com/images/32104-imp-1.jpg
http://abclocal.go.com/images/32104-imp-pre3.jpg
http://abclocal.go.com/images/32104-imp-3.jpg
http://abclocal.go.com/images/32104-imp-4.jpg
http://abclocal.go.com/images/32104-vetcrater.jpg

PHILADELPHIA (AP) March 21, 2004 — It's gone. In just a few minutes the home of the Phillies and the Eagles for more than 30 years comes has been reduced to rubble.

Some 25-hundred pounds of explosives was loaded into the columns of Veterans Stadium. All went as planned. It was detonated at 7 a-m and now what was once a state-of-the-art facility is no more than a pile of concrete. It took about 62 seconds.

A large area around the sports complex in South Philadelphia is closed off for the implosion, and airspace above the stadium is restricted to a 15-hundred-foot elevation for a quarter-mile radius.

Crowds gathered a few blocks away to view the implosion, and pre-blast events got under way about 6:40 a-m with various city V-I-Ps taking part.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Railsplitter
03-21-2004, 07:47 AM
Considering it's turf was so bad, especially for football, I doubt they were lacking in volunteers to blast the place.

StepsInSC
03-21-2004, 09:13 AM
Makes me think of "When buildings fall down" from the Simpsons.

sas1974
03-21-2004, 09:14 AM
Thanks for the cool pics, but I don't think anyone is going to miss The Vet.

mantis1212
03-21-2004, 10:15 AM
:b&b

hehhehhehheh explosions are cool hehhehheh

WinningUgly!
03-21-2004, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by Railsplitter
Considering it's turf was so bad, especially for football, I doubt they were lacking in volunteers to blast the place.

I hope former Bears WR, Wendell Davis was there to help. Remember back in 1993, when he blew out both of his knees there, on the same play?

CubKilla
03-21-2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by sas1974
Thanks for the cool pics, but I don't think anyone is going to miss The Vet.

The same will be said when they put USCF out of it's misery.

Huisj
03-21-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
The same will be said when they put USCF out of it's misery.

i hope that was supposed to be in teal

CubKilla
03-21-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
i hope that was supposed to be in teal

Nope. USCF does not and could never compare to Comiskey Park. Letting JR's greed destroy the world's oldest ballpark in 1991 to make a parking lot was a travesty.

I won't give a rat's ass when USCF goes down.

batmanZoSo
03-21-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
Makes me think of "When buildings fall down" from the Simpsons.

The best part was when the building fell down.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-21-2004, 12:26 PM
It is truly amazing how disposable our culture has become. The Vet was considered a state of the art facility back in the early 70's, and it cost the taxpayers plenty to build it, too.

And why did it need to come down? Answer: so the owners can have more skybox revenue.

After over ten years of building these bloated monstrosities, haven't we learned that these new high-priced "baseball amusement parks" ultimately fail to generate new revenue for the city's tax base, fail to make the team more competitive, and ultimately only succeed in lining the owners' pocket through increased franchise value? What a waste of government resources...

Milwaukee... Pittsburgh... Cincinnati... even Cleveland... I'm sure Philadelphia will be next, too.

batmanZoSo
03-21-2004, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It is truly amazing how disposable our culture has become. The Vet was considered a state of the art facility back in the early 70's, and it cost the taxpayers plenty to build it, too.

And why did it need to come down? Answer: so the owners can have more skybox revenue.

After over ten years of building these bloated monstrosities, haven't we learned that these new high-priced "baseball amusement parks" ultimately fail to generate new revenue for the city's tax base, fail to make the team more competitive, and ultimately only succeed in lining the owners' pocket through increased franchise value? What a waste of government resources...

Milwaukee... Pittsburgh... Cincinnati... even Cleveland... I'm sure Philadelphia will be next, too.

We're really living in a unique time in baseball history with all these parks popping up since we started it all in 1991. And it isn't like the cookie-cutter boom of the 60s and 70s where these things will be knocked down in 30 years. These new parks were all built to be memorable works of art that the fans will cherish much like people grew to love the Fenways and Tiger Stadiums and Comiskey parks that stood for almost 100 years. Only a handful of teams have utterly bad parks that will come down soon and after that we may not see a new park for several decades.

Although in 10 years we might be the exception because JR will finally take Mariotti's advice and build a new, state-of-the-art park with his own money in the south loop. :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
03-21-2004, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
.... These new parks were all built to be memorable works of art that the fans will cherish much like people grew to love the Fenways and Tiger Stadiums and Comiskey parks that stood for almost 100 years....

I checked your profile ZoSo, so I know you're in your early-20's, too young to remember what rave reviews these state-of-the-art donut facilities got when they opened in the 60's and early 70's.

It's very hard to predict what owners and fans of the future will want. (Note that owners come first, not fans.) Just as these steel and concrete municipal centerpieces were designed to last 100+ years, the new "theme park" ballparks will become obsolete and unloved, too. Book it.

The trend for stadium replacements is getting shorter, not longer. I doubt any of these new monstrosities (save perhaps the granddaddy of them all, Camden Yards) will last even as long as the 30+ years Veteran Stadium served before being imploded.

I know all the stories about how great these new ballparks are supposed to be, now and for the future. Don't believe the hype.

RedPinStripes
03-21-2004, 01:08 PM
"Concerte Bowls" dont stand a chance to last 80 years like Comiskey and Fenway. Nothing beats early teens american steel and brick. USCF will be lucky to last 40 years especially when whatever owner the Sox have in that time decides he needs to follow the other new stadiums because they have a money maker USCF dont.

ChiWhiteSox1337
03-21-2004, 02:33 PM
Former white sox player from the the early 80s, Greg Luzinski, was the one who pressed the button. I just thought that was a cool thing and I decided to mention it here.

Brian26
03-21-2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by CubKilla
Nope. USCF does not and could never compare to Comiskey Park. Letting JR's greed destroy the world's oldest ballpark in 1991 to make a parking lot was a travesty.

I won't give a rat's ass when USCF goes down.

Wow,
I'm not one to defend JR or his financial interests, but getting a new park for the Sox included many other advantages. How about incredibly improved facilities for weight training for the players? How many free agents wanted to come to Chicago with the dingy, old accomodations in Old Comiskey? The new park was state-of-the-art. How about the fact that JR was pouring millions of dollars into the old park every year, which was money that could go towards player contracts instead.

Champs2004
03-21-2004, 02:48 PM
Milwaukee... Pittsburgh... Cincinnati... even Cleveland... I'm sure Philadelphia will be next, too.

The Jake serves the Indians very well. As for Philadelphia...i doubt that the Phillies will let Citizens Bank Park turn into a burden rather than a blessing. Texas, Cleveland, Baltimore, San Francisco, Seattle, Houston, and the White Sox for the most part have succeeded in doing well with their new ballparks. Petco Park in S.D. will easily sell itself. The New Cardinals ballpark will also sell itself.

munchman33
03-21-2004, 02:59 PM
The Vet was easily the worst ballpark I've ever been to. I'm not going to miss sitting in that giant teacup any time soon.

Phillie cheesesteak there wasn't bad though...

R.I.P. Phillie cheesesteak. I hope the new park's cheesesteak is at least half as good as you were....

mmm...Phillie cheesesteak

TornLabrum
03-21-2004, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
The Vet was easily the worst ballpark I've ever been to. I'm not going to miss sitting in that giant teacup any time soon.

Please, it was an ashtray, not a teacup.

batmanZoSo
03-21-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I checked your profile ZoSo, so I know you're in your early-20's, too young to remember what rave reviews these state-of-the-art donut facilities got when they opened in the 60's and early 70's.

It's very hard to predict what owners and fans of the future will want. (Note that owners come first, not fans.) Just as these steel and concrete municipal centerpieces were designed to last 100+ years, the new "theme park" ballparks will become obsolete and unloved, too. Book it.

The trend for stadium replacements is getting shorter, not longer. I doubt any of these new monstrosities (save perhaps the granddaddy of them all, Camden Yards) will last even as long as the 30+ years Veteran Stadium served before being imploded.

I know all the stories about how great these new ballparks are supposed to be, now and for the future. Don't believe the hype.

You're right somewhat. There is a middle ground for both our sides, but in addition to Camden, Pac Bell, Jacobs, Coors and Arlington will be around a long, long time.

I'm not impressed with Enron, Cincy, San Diego, AZ.

The new Philly park is outstanding.

But I don't see too many parks coming down 30 years from now. They're built to bring in a lot of money, there's really nothing they could do to improve them. They have the excuse now about the skyboxes but they won't have that one in the future. Every stadium built since 91 has multiple levels of skyboxes.

Brian26
03-21-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I checked your profile ZoSo, so I know you're in your early-20's, too young to remember what rave reviews these state-of-the-art donut facilities got when they opened in the 60's and early 70's.

It's very hard to predict what owners and fans of the future will want. (Note that owners come first, not fans.) Just as these steel and concrete municipal centerpieces were designed to last 100+ years, the new "theme park" ballparks will become obsolete and unloved, too. Book it.

I highly doubt the parks that have been built in the past 10 years will be gone as quickly. I think everyone has seen the light, so to speak, in regards to baseball-only facilities. I just can't imagine the trend will ever go back in the other direction.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-21-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
I highly doubt the parks that have been built in the past 10 years will be gone as quickly. I think everyone has seen the light, so to speak, in regards to baseball-only facilities. I just can't imagine the trend will ever go back in the other direction.

I'm not talking about "going back" to anything. I'm simply noting that ballparks are becoming obsolete at an ever increasing rate. Ballparks of the vintage of Forbes Field and Old Comiskey lasted 60+ years. The donut stadiums of the 60's lasted barely half of this. It's just silly to believe the bull**** the owners and municipal supporters want everyone to believe about how these new ballparks will pay for themselves and be an economic boon to the local economy for decades to come. It's hype and it's bull****. The trend is to replace them quicker, not longer.

A new ride at Great America has nearly as much staying power as some of these new baseball-themed adult amusement parks. SURPRISE! The real attraction of these monstrosities is their novelty. Once the novelty is over, it's time to replace them with something new. P.T. Barnum was right... there *is* one born every minute.

If the cities weren't so broke from having just built new ballparks, I guarantee Milwaukee and Pittsburgh would be spending money to "fix" what is wrong with their baseball amusement parks right now.

Which reminds me of great old episode of The Simpsons. Everyone sing along with me...

"Monorail... Mono-Rail... MONORAIL!!!"

Daver
03-21-2004, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not talking about "going back" to anything. I'm simply noting that ballparks are becoming obsolete at an ever increasing rate. Ballparks of the vintage of Forbes Field and Old Comiskey lasted 60+ years. The donut stadiums of the 60's lasted barely half of this. It's just silly to believe the bull**** the owners and municipal supporters want everyone to believe about how these new ballparks will pay for themselves and be an economic boon to the local economy for decades to come. It's hype and it's bull****. The trend is to replace them quicker, not longer.

A new ride at Great America has nearly as much staying power as some of these new baseball-themed adult amusement parks. SURPRISE! The real attraction of these monstrosities is their novelty. Once the novelty is over, it's time to replace them with something new. P.T. Barnum was right... there *is* one born every minute.

If the cities weren't so broke from having just built new ballparks, I guarantee Milwaukee and Pittsburgh would be spending money to "fix" what is wrong with their baseball amusement parks right now.

Which reminds me of great old episode of The Simpsons. Everyone sing along with me...

"Monorail... Mono-Rail... MONORAIL!!!"

I agree with PHG,and I offer a non baseball example,Old Chicago Mall in Bolingbrook was supposed to be the thing of the future when built,an indoor amusement park surrounded by a shopping mall,it had a fairly sound business plan,a place where parents could deliver their kids to play while they shopped.The novelty of it died after about two years and they were never able to attract a store to anchor the mall portion,the building has long since been leveled and now is the home of a used car auction facility.

IronFisk
03-21-2004, 10:49 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
Thanks for the cool pics, but I don't think anyone is going to miss The Vet.

Actually....

Truth is, I did live in the Philly area in the mid-70's, and my dad took me to this concrete-hellhole several times. However, the NEAT thing about the place then is that the entire upper rim was a walkway - it was so cool, at least to a 6-year old.

I went back in 2002, and about everything changed. Skyboxes, jumbotrons, BLUE SEATS (which was a huge improvement over old, horrid colors of red, orange and yellow...PUKE!). No walkway though, and even with the "updates", it still felt real cold...but NOT AS BAD AS THE KINGDOME!!!

StillMissOzzie
03-21-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Wow,
I'm not one to defend JR or his financial interests, but getting a new park for the Sox included many other advantages. How about incredibly improved facilities for weight training for the players? How many free agents wanted to come to Chicago with the dingy, old accomodations in Old Comiskey? The new park was state-of-the-art. How about the fact that JR was pouring millions of dollars into the old park every year, which was money that could go towards player contracts instead.

To expand your support of what is now USCF even further, if it wasn't there now, I believe we'd be discussing the St. Petersburg White Sox, or whatever they'd shamelessly change their names to.

SMO
:gulp:

ChiWhiteSox1337
03-21-2004, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by StillMissOzzie
To expand your support of what is now USCF even further, if it wasn't there now, I believe we'd be discussing the St. Petersburg White Sox, or whatever they'd shamelessly change their names to.

SMO
:gulp:
and they'd be playing in that dump known as tropicana field. The worst place in the majors. I'd rather have the sox play in wrigley than in that dump!!!!

IronFisk
03-21-2004, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not talking about "going back" to anything. I'm simply noting that ballparks are becoming obsolete at an ever increasing rate. Ballparks of the vintage of Forbes Field and Old Comiskey lasted 60+ years. The donut stadiums of the 60's lasted barely half of this. It's just silly to believe the bull**** the owners and municipal supporters want everyone to believe about how these new ballparks will pay for themselves and be an economic boon to the local economy for decades to come. It's hype and it's bull****. The trend is to replace them quicker, not longer.

A new ride at Great America has nearly as much staying power as some of these new baseball-themed adult amusement parks. SURPRISE! The real attraction of these monstrosities is their novelty. Once the novelty is over, it's time to replace them with something new. P.T. Barnum was right... there *is* one born every minute.

If the cities weren't so broke from having just built new ballparks, I guarantee Milwaukee and Pittsburgh would be spending money to "fix" what is wrong with their baseball amusement parks right now.

Which reminds me of great old episode of The Simpsons. Everyone sing along with me...

"Monorail... Mono-Rail... MONORAIL!!!"


I guess when the pessimism train gets rolling, it's hard to stop!

I REALLY feel that the new stadiums will be around for many moons. The reason so many are being torn down is because, yes, they didn't have the "revenue" producing attributes, but also....they were UGLY and without any redeeming value. This has a nasty tendency to keep fans away.

Now, I can't say much about Milwaukee, but using Pitt's PNC as an example of a "flawed" ballpark needing fixing is ridiculous! I visited this so-called "amusement park", and was absolutely blown away! I predict PNC will stand as one of the finest ballparks anywhere in short time, and will be revered as much.

Also, comparing Old Chicago Mall to this ballpark thing is a bit weak. Old Chicago was a first of its kind - "classic" ballparks have been around for over a century - and attracting fans and creating memories in the process. Yeah, money was a factor too, but to make money, you have to give people a product to come to - and these retro parks have hit a deep nerve.

mantis1212
03-21-2004, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

If the cities weren't so broke from having just built new ballparks, I guarantee Milwaukee and Pittsburgh would be spending money to "fix" what is wrong with their baseball amusement parks right now.

Which reminds me of great old episode of The Simpsons. Everyone sing along with me...

"Monorail... Mono-Rail... MONORAIL!!!"

"What about us braindead slobs??"

"You'll be given coushy jobs!!"

Huisj
03-21-2004, 11:43 PM
There's an interesting thing in the ESPN article. It says that the Phillies plan to paint the outline of the playing field on the parking lot that is built there, and that they'll place granite markers at each base location an at home plate.

Isn't it pathetic that the tribute given to old Comiskey Park is the same as the tribute that's going to go to a big piece of crap like the Vet?

Fenway
03-22-2004, 06:56 AM
http://www.philly.com/images/philly/inquirer/8243/67950444116.jpg

Bring back McCuddy's

There is a new book out about Baseball Roadtrips and it is sad how many of the old parks are totally forgotten.

ewokpelts
03-22-2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not talking about "going back" to anything. I'm simply noting that ballparks are becoming obsolete at an ever increasing rate. Ballparks of the vintage of Forbes Field and Old Comiskey lasted 60+ years. The donut stadiums of the 60's lasted barely half of this. It's just silly to believe the bull**** the owners and municipal supporters want everyone to believe about how these new ballparks will pay for themselves and be an economic boon to the local economy for decades to come. It's hype and it's bull****. The trend is to replace them quicker, not longer.

A new ride at Great America has nearly as much staying power as some of these new baseball-themed adult amusement parks. SURPRISE! The real attraction of these monstrosities is their novelty. Once the novelty is over, it's time to replace them with something new. P.T. Barnum was right... there *is* one born every minute.

If the cities weren't so broke from having just built new ballparks, I guarantee Milwaukee and Pittsburgh would be spending money to "fix" what is wrong with their baseball amusement parks right now.

Which reminds me of great old episode of The Simpsons. Everyone sing along with me...

"Monorail... Mono-Rail... MONORAIL!!!"

How True. Look at our own ballpark(ball mall to some media) for further proof. Not even 14 years old, and whatit's cost ing to "rennovate" is more than half of what it cost to build the "state of the art" facilty in the first place. And dont get me started on "Soldier Field".
Gene

ewokpelts
03-22-2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Wow,
I'm not one to defend JR or his financial interests, but getting a new park for the Sox included many other advantages. How about incredibly improved facilities for weight training for the players? How many free agents wanted to come to Chicago with the dingy, old accomodations in Old Comiskey? The new park was state-of-the-art. How about the fact that JR was pouring millions of dollars into the old park every year, which was money that could go towards player contracts instead.

Like that money's going to player contracts NOW.....
Gene

Baby Fisk
03-22-2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
The new Philly park is outstanding.


I'm not so impressed with the new Philly Park. It's been mentioned in previous threads that it looks like a copy of Jacobs Field and I agree. There's nothing eye-popping about it. Dare I say "Boooooring"?! Granted, it is a glorious new palace compared to the Vet, but it's middle-of-the-road compared to ballparks in other cities.

JoeyCora28
03-22-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by mantis1212
"What about us braindead slobs??"

"You'll be given coushy jobs!!"




"I call the big one Bitey..."

Fenway
03-22-2004, 12:05 PM
I was sad to see the Vet blown up yesterday because of personal memories I had of going there, which are as recent as last Labor Day when the Red Sox rallied in the 9th to beat the Phillies.

I remember like it was yesterday, getting off the Ryan in July of 1991 to see only half of Comiskey standing. I knew the park was being torn down but still wasn't ready to see it.

The worst I ever felt was when the Boston Garden was torn down 7 years ago, Being right downtown there was no way to avoid seeing it and it was painfully slow. Outside of Fenway, the Garden was one of the biggest parts of my life.

http://www.bpl.org/store/IMGs/STMedium/tm_st11136.jpg

http://12.16.132.26/sa/graphics/csbgarden1.jpg

Brian26
03-22-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm not talking about "going back" to anything. I'm simply noting that ballparks are becoming obsolete at an ever increasing rate. Ballparks of the vintage of Forbes Field and Old Comiskey lasted 60+ years. The donut stadiums of the 60's lasted barely half of this.

George, by your logic, the new stadiums built recently (PNC, Petco, Citizens, GABP, etc) will be torn down in 15 years. These parks will be replaced by structures that will only last 7.5 years, and then replaced again by structures to last only 3.25 years. This logic is totally flawed.

My theory is that the classic parks of the early to mid 20th century (ie Forbes, Shibe, Crosley, etc) were replaced by poorly conceived, multi-functional stadia that paid no homage to baseball's tradition. These are now currently being replaced by awesome structures that will last for 75+ years because of the better construction methods, better materials, better design, better community planning, and gorgeous nods to baseball's past and its history.

The test set of data you're using to come to your conclusion consists of only 2 samples. You can't tell me that parks are being torn down at an ever-increasing rate when you only have two samples from the past for each city (ie Forbes and then Three Rivers). This makes no sense. There is no reason to believe that PNC is going to be torn down and replaced in less than 30 years. I'm blown away that you're coming to such a flawed conclusion. Step away from this argument and think about this a bit.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-22-2004, 01:05 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
George, by your logic, the new stadiums built recently (PNC, Petco, Citizens, GABP, etc) will be torn down in 15 years. These parks will be replaced by structures that will only last 7.5 years, and then replaced again by structures to last only 3.25 years. This logic is totally flawed.

My goodness, where on earth did you get the idea I was straight-lining the trend? I merely noted that ballparks are getting replaced at an accelerating rate. Would it make you feel any better if I conceded that the trend will follow something akin to a normal bell curve? Will this finally help you accept the reality of what I've been noting here?

Originally posted by Brian26
My theory is that the classic parks of the early to mid 20th century (ie Forbes, Shibe, Crosley, etc) were replaced by poorly conceived, multi-functional stadia that paid no homage to baseball's tradition. These are now currently being replaced by awesome structures that will last for 75+ years because of the better construction methods, better materials, better design, better community planning, and gorgeous nods to baseball's past and its history.

Your theory is predicated on today's economics of baseball, which is exactly what today's ballparks are designed to take advantage of. Unfortunately nobody can predict the future, least of all economics. For example, what if Congress did away with the 50 percent write-off that corporations get for skybox expenses? What is the cost of maintaining hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of skyboxes designed into these stadiums that no longer do anything but drag down the bottom line? The solution? NEW BALLPARK!

I wouldn't be so cock sure about predicting what the future holds. I'm not running to Vegas placing bets against historic trends based on what you want me to believe in your theory.

Originally posted by Brian26
The test set of data you're using to come to your conclusion consists of only 2 samples. You can't tell me that parks are being torn down at an ever-increasing rate when you only have two samples from the past for each city (ie Forbes and then Three Rivers). This makes no sense. There is no reason to believe that PNC is going to be torn down and replaced in less than 30 years. I'm blown away that you're coming to such a flawed conclusion. Step away from this argument and think about this a bit.

I have history on my side. Other than a lot wind and bluster from owners and new stadium proponents, what are you claiming to base your theory upon?

BTW, Jacobs Field is half-empty these days. Camden Yards, too. You want to fill your ballpark? Field a winner. Skip right past all this silliness about needing a new ballpark.

ewokpelts
03-22-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
I'm not so impressed with the new Philly Park. It's been mentioned in previous threads that it looks like a copy of Jacobs Field and I agree. There's nothing eye-popping about it. Dare I say "Boooooring"?! Granted, it is a glorious new palace compared to the Vet, but it's middle-of-the-road compared to ballparks in other cities.

for philly, that's superman like leaps and bounds
Gene

ewokpelts
03-22-2004, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
George, by your logic, the new stadiums built recently (PNC, Petco, Citizens, GABP, etc) will be torn down in 15 years. These parks will be replaced by structures that will only last 7.5 years, and then replaced again by structures to last only 3.25 years. This logic is totally flawed.

My theory is that the classic parks of the early to mid 20th century (ie Forbes, Shibe, Crosley, etc) were replaced by poorly conceived, multi-functional stadia that paid no homage to baseball's tradition. These are now currently being replaced by awesome structures that will last for 75+ years because of the better construction methods, better materials, better design, better community planning, and gorgeous nods to baseball's past and its history.

The test set of data you're using to come to your conclusion consists of only 2 samples. You can't tell me that parks are being torn down at an ever-increasing rate when you only have two samples from the past for each city (ie Forbes and then Three Rivers). This makes no sense. There is no reason to believe that PNC is going to be torn down and replaced in less than 30 years. I'm blown away that you're coming to such a flawed conclusion. Step away from this argument and think about this a bit.

better community planning? tell that to illinois and wisconsin taxpayers
Gene

ewokpelts
03-22-2004, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


BTW, Jacobs Field is half-empty these days. Camden Yards, too. You want to fill your ballpark? Field a winner. Skip right past all this silliness about needing a new ballpark.

Amen Brother.

Brian26
03-22-2004, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
My goodness, where on earth did you get the idea I was straight-lining the trend? I merely noted that ballparks are getting replaced at an accelerating rate. Would it make you feel any better if I conceded that the trend will follow something akin to a normal bell curve? Will this finally help you accept the reality of what I've been noting here?

Your previous post made it clear that you think parks will be replaced at an accelerating rate. A bell curve wouldn't define an ever-accelerating rate. A bell curve would define a change in trend that would, over time, go back to it's initial state.


Your theory is predicated on today's economics of baseball, which is exactly what today's ballparks are designed to take advantage of. Unfortunately nobody can predict the future, least of all economics. For example, what if Congress did away with the 50 percent write-off that corporations get for skybox expenses? What is the cost of maintaining hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of skyboxes designed into these stadiums that no longer do anything but drag down the bottom line? The solution? NEW BALLPARK!

No, because nobody would have a snowball's chance to ever get public funds to build a new stadium 6 years from now to get rid of skyboxes. It would be cheaper to keep the current stadium and just close the skyboxes up. Poor example.


I wouldn't be so cock sure about predicting what the future holds. I'm not running to Vegas placing bets against historic trends based on what you want me to believe in your theory.

I'm a hell of a lot more comfortable with my guess that PNC, Great American Ballpark, SBC Bell, and Citizens will be standing 25 years from now than with your theory - which says they'll be torn down and replaced by then (assuming your accelerating rate theory, the next batch of parks will need to come down within the next 30 years).

I have history on my side. Other than a lot wind and bluster from owners and new stadium proponents, what are you claiming to base your theory upon?

I'm basing mine on common sense. My point is that we're only talking about 2 generations of ballparks that have been torn down (not 7 or 8). I don't think there's a big enough sample set to start making assumptions that parks will be replaced quicker now. The parks that have been built recently are gorgeous. People have come to their senses, and there is no reason to believe these parks will be replaced anytime soon.


BTW, Jacobs Field is half-empty these days. Camden Yards, too. You want to fill your ballpark? Field a winner. Skip right past all this silliness about needing a new ballpark.

I agree.

batmanZoSo
03-22-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by Baby Fisk
I'm not so impressed with the new Philly Park. It's been mentioned in previous threads that it looks like a copy of Jacobs Field and I agree. There's nothing eye-popping about it. Dare I say "Boooooring"?! Granted, it is a glorious new palace compared to the Vet, but it's middle-of-the-road compared to ballparks in other cities.

It seems all the old cookie cutter teams are copying each other with their new stadiums. Pittsburgh, Philly, San Diego, and Cincinnatti all have pretty similar stadiums. The key thing is the 'little' upper deck in left field with the big scoreboard above it. All four have that feature.

I just disagree with yall. I love philly's stadium. They have some really cool angles in center field where the stands turn at a sharp angle and the fence in dead center gets about 4 foot higher. It's not much of a jacobs copy if you ask me...that itself was a camden copy. The one similarity is that it has the big upper decks in right field like the JAKE.

I also love the way it's shaped. Usually, home plate is at the corner of the city block on which it stands. Philly is set up like that armour field design someone made for the Sox (whereby home plate is positioned about dead center on one of the blocks sides) and the grandstands cut in sharply to the field to avoid the street. That should have some pretty excellent sight lines.

I think Cincy's park is bad. It's just kind of blah. Petco Park is very similar and that building in the lf corner is too much.

Fenway
03-24-2004, 07:40 PM
And there used to be a ballpark
Where the field was warm and green.
And the people played their crazy game
With a joy I'd never seen.
And the air was such a wonder
From the hot-dogs and the beer.
Yes, there used to be a ballpark right here.

And there used to be rock candy,
And a great big 4th of July
With the fireworks exploding
All across the summer sky.
And the people watched in wonder -
How they'd laugh and how they'd cheer!
And there used to be a ballpark right here.

Now the children try to find it,
And they can't believe their eyes
'Cause the old team just isn't playing,
And the new team hardly tries.
And the sky has got so cloudy
When it used to be so clear,
And the summer went so quickly this year.
Yes, there used to be a ballpark right here.