<strong>The city gets a cut from the income of the place. If, as the Mayor says, it pays for itself in the long run, it will help pay for those books and mothers who can't get off their ass and get a fscking job.
If it were 100% private then the city would only get the sales tax on stuff sold there. With public funding they get a much bigger chunk.
Of course you'd know that of you'd bother to READ the NYT article before popping off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
exactly. almost all sports stadiums are funded by taxpayers. the only one that im aware of that is completely private is PacBell in frisco. thats because the city voted on the stadium and voted no. so the team either had to pay for it on there own, or move to another city. was there a vote for this deal??? i sure hope the public was aware of this before they find out they have to pay for it...
from what ive heard, there was no vote. ive lived in both frisco and houston during times when stadiums were under votes. im kind of surprised that NY is just saying this deal is done w/ no vote at all on the matter...
they have no choice, but hey...i dont live there, so oh well.
[quote]from what ive heard, there was no vote. ive lived in both frisco and houston during times when stadiums were under votes. im kind of surprised that NY is just saying this deal is done w/ no vote at all on the matter...<hr></blockquote>
No vote, but I bet there will be some opposition to this plan. A vote would be a little to democratic for our autocratic mayor.
No vote, but I bet there will be some opposition to this plan. A vote would be a little to democratic for our autocratic mayor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm...every sports venue ive known required a vote...
oh well, i guess since money really isnt an issue for u people over there, then its no big deal, eh?
How anyone could even think of replacing Yankee Stadium is beyond me. If I were mayor, I wouldn't settle for anything other than a primo renovation. But replacement? Never. I guess Wrigley Field is next? If so, the Cubs will die as a franchise the following season. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>How anyone could even think of replacing Yankee Stadium is beyond me. If I were mayor, I wouldn't settle for anything other than a primo renovation. But replacement? Never. I guess Wrigley Field is next? If so, the Cubs will die as a franchise the following season. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
the sad fact is that it is costing a hell of a lot of money a year to maintain both ballparks. and the city is paying it. building new would either be equal to or maybe even less than renovation. there is only so much you can do to renovate a stadium.
the numbers sound large but its over an extended period of time and they are using bonds and loans to pay for it. in the long wrong this will only benefit the city, even if it means tearing down Yankee Stadium. And its the long term that matters now, not the short.
Best "modern" ballpark is Camden Yards -- started the most recent stadium boom and it's still better than all the ones that have followed. Why? Well, for one, it incorporated the existing context into its own architecture.
I'd love it if they were able to salvage at least some part of the shell of Yankee's Stadium. the stuff done in the 70's was kinda poor (back in the days of those cavernous stadiums). Hey, they're doing it in Chicago, one of the other great stadia in our nation, so maybe they could learn a lesson from Scott and company. The result might be even more expensive, but dare I say it's money well-spent.
Oh, and these things really should be paid for by the teams, not the taxpayers. These organizations more or less use extortion and blackmail so governments will foot the bill. We're supposed to say, "Oh, please don't leave, you soooo important to us! Where would we ever be without you?!" Sure, it creates jobs and stimulates the local economy, but I think it's only fair to hand over at least some of the ownership to the municipalities in such a case. For all they invest in infrastructure, they should get some collateral ownership to see that their investment is secure.
<strong>the sad fact is that it is costing a hell of a lot of money a year to maintain both ballparks. and the city is paying it. building new would either be equal to or maybe even less than renovation. there is only so much you can do to renovate a stadium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you're right on that last count. I just wish there were a way to preserve all that history. For example, the city of Boston (or whoever they hired) moved the parquet floor from the old Boston Garden to the Fleet Center, but even so a lot of history was lost. I'd almost rather see them turn Yankee Stadium into a new MLB museum or something. To think it might be a parking lot in a few years just makes me ill - and I'm not even a Yankee fan....
<strong>I think it's quite sad that old stadiums like the yankee and fenway are going to be replaced. They are antiques, and are beautiful.
But look at the bright side, maybe the yankees will fall along with their stadium and the red sox will rise!@ bwhaha</strong><hr></blockquote>
that would be nice, but w/ the payroll the yanks have, and their constant signing of outside help, they wont let themselves fall. even the mets are getting in on the big signings. id like to see what their payroll is for next year, cause theyre signing more big names than even the yankees this offseason. theres too much money floating around over there...
I suppose you're right on that last count. I just wish there were a way to preserve all that history. For example, the city of Boston (or whoever they hired) moved the parquet floor from the old Boston Garden to the Fleet Center, but even so a lot of history was lost. I'd almost rather see them turn Yankee Stadium into a new MLB museum or something. To think it might be a parking lot in a few years just makes me ill - and I'm not even a Yankee fan....
i agree wholeheartedly. that stadium has been around almost as long as baseball itself, w/ some of the greatest ever prowling the turf that will forever be legendary.
<strong>CC, haven't you been to Miller Park yet? It's beautiful.
Now, there is some criticism of the high tech roof sitting on the retro-look base.
The real cost was around $450M, even though the team kept saying $250M.
And it is being financed in large part by a local (a few counties) sales tax.
It's a great place to see a ballgame, if you know where to sit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was there for a game this year. I'm sure it's impressive from a technological standpoint, and there is a certain beauty to it, but what it lacks is intimacy. The place is enormous. It's probably OK if you can pay $25 and up for a ticket and get decent seats (or your company has season tickets). We sat in $12 "Terrace" seats in the upper deck behind third base. I wish I'd brought my binoculars. It was like watching a game from the roof of a neighboring 15-story building. And the sightlines... we couldn't see into the left-field corner! In a brand-new ballpark!
In my Milwaukee days I had a mini-season ticket package in the Upper Grandstand right behind home plate at the old County Stadium ... now that was a ballpark.
I agree with the poster above praising Camden Yards ... they did that one right. Great place to watch a ballgame, no matter where you sit.
'Course here in Minnesota watching a major-league game may soon become a once-a-year event that includes air fare ... sigh.
Well, you have to be critical about what is worth saving. the seating at Yankee stadium was less than ideal, and obviously most modern "perks" weren't viable in that shell. I just imagine keeping or moving some piece of the shell, the memorials, etc. and either make it part of the entrance or some part of the field.
In the case of Fenway, what was always so fun about that place was why the Green Monster existed in the first place. It would be hard to reproduce the dynamic of that footprint since it was a result of the street pattern in plan and elevation. Simply moving the Green Monster would make more of a folly, insubstantial.
Camden Yards respected the warehouse. Everything else including the interiors of the warehouse were new. Camden Yards is also far more of an urban-friendly ballpark than even Yankee's stadium today. Fenway and Camden Yards are both great urban ballparks, shaped by their contexts. I'd like to see the new Yankee Stadium return to this idea.
I was there for a game this year. I'm sure it's impressive from a technological standpoint, and there is a certain beauty to it, but what it lacks is intimacy. The place is enormous. It's probably OK if you can pay $25 and up for a ticket and get decent seats (or your company has season tickets). We sat in $12 "Terrace" seats in the upper deck behind third base. I wish I'd brought my binoculars. It was like watching a game from the roof of a neighboring 15-story building. And the sightlines... we couldn't see into the left-field corner! In a brand-new ballpark!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's one of the reasons why I love PacBell Park. It's cozy. It seats ~40,000 people instead of ~50,000 or more. It's also got a fantastic location that is surprisingly easy to access. The views around the park and outside the park are stunning...the water, the east bay, the Bay Bridge...You can watch the game and not miss a thing from the concessions stands.
Plus, the thing was half as expensive as most of the other ballparks in the league.
I was there for a game this year. I'm sure it's impressive from a technological standpoint, and there is a certain beauty to it, but what it lacks is intimacy. The place is enormous. It's probably OK if you can pay $25 and up for a ticket and get decent seats (or your company has season tickets). We sat in $12 "Terrace" seats in the upper deck behind third base. I wish I'd brought my binoculars. It was like watching a game from the roof of a neighboring 15-story building. And the sightlines... we couldn't see into the left-field corner! In a brand-new ballpark!
In my Milwaukee days I had a mini-season ticket package in the Upper Grandstand right behind home plate at the old County Stadium ... now that was a ballpark.
I agree with the poster above praising Camden Yards ... they did that one right. Great place to watch a ballgame, no matter where you sit.
'Course here in Minnesota watching a major-league game may soon become a once-a-year event that includes air fare ... sigh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, ...if you know where to sit. You've compared apples to oranges. Think about the geometry of a baseball field. It's a pie. Where's the best place to sit if you want to see the whole field? Behind home plate, like you remember doing at County Stadium. Those are the best seats in the house, any house. Where's the worst place to sit if you want to see the left field corner? Behind third base, like you did at Miller Park. You won't see that corner from there in any major league ballpark, unless you're in the front row or three on the field. The geometry won't allow it, not to mention the wall down the foul line. I know there will be a skeptic out there, but go back to your ballpark first! I'm talking seeing the foul line all the way to the wall and up the foul pole. It simlply can't be done in both corners in any ballpark unless you're behind the plate.
As far as intimacy, Miller Park is vertical, very vertical. It only holds about 41,000... but County Stadium held about 53,000. All seats at the new park are closer to the field than their corresponding seats in the old one, and then there were 12,000 more even farther away from the action. The first row in the balcony at County was so much farther horizontally from the action to start with, the lower hight was negligible. I think the roof enclosure at Miller, even when in the open position down the foul lines, contributes to the feeling of being in a large space, but it is in fact more compact than County Stadium was, including less foul area behind the plate.
That said, there are a limited number of seats on the top (terrace) level with a full unobstructed view of the field. (I have a list!) The numerous handrails are a major source of obstruction, and it's nearly impossible to avoid that unless you're 7 ft. tall and can see over them while seated. The lower levels offer better seats, at a higher cost, of course. (But you're still not going to see both corners if you sit down the line.) At County Stadium, the major obstructions were the columns holding up the upper deck and canopy. Many more seats had major obstructed views. (But, since no one came, you could always sit out in front of the columns.) It also boasted what SI rated the second worst seat in baseball a few years ago.
The only other new park I've been to is Coors Field in Denver. It's a vertical place too. I think that's the trend nowadays. You've got to get those luxury boxes in under the cheap seats!
<strong>Like I said, ...if you know where to sit. You've compared apples to oranges. Think about the geometry of a baseball field. It's a pie. Where's the best place to sit if you want to see the whole field? Behind home plate, like you remember doing at County Stadium. Those are the best seats in the house, any house. Where's the worst place to sit if you want to see the left field corner? Behind third base, like you did at Miller Park. You won't see that corner from there in any major league ballpark, unless you're in the front row or three on the field. The geometry won't allow it, not to mention the wall down the foul line. I know there will be a skeptic out there, but go back to your ballpark first! I'm talking seeing the foul line all the way to the wall and up the foul pole. It simlply can't be done in both corners in any ballpark unless you're behind the plate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just not true. Take <a href="http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/county.htm"; target="_blank">County Stadium</a> as an example. The front row of seats was at field level almost all the way to the foul pole. There was no sloping wall 50 feet down the line that obstructed the corner as there is at Miller Park. At County Stadium, if you were in the upper deck down the line, you couldn't see the corner because you couldn't see under the overhang of the deck. But down closer to third base you could see everything.
(P.S. You can also see the left-field corner from pretty much everywhere in the Metrodome, but that's mostly because of the crappy football-oriented sightlines. )
[quote]Originally posted by Gregg:
<strong>As far as intimacy, Miller Park is vertical, very vertical. It only holds about 41,000... but County Stadium held about 53,000. All seats at the new park are closer to the field than their corresponding seats in the old one, and then there were 12,000 more even farther away from the action. The first row in the balcony at County was so much farther horizontally from the action to start with, the lower hight was negligible. I think the roof enclosure at Miller, even when in the open position down the foul lines, contributes to the feeling of being in a large space, but it is in fact more compact than County Stadium was, including less foul area behind the plate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The seats on average are closer than those at County Stadium. That's because the seats at the back of the lower deck at the old stadium (and I'll agree that those were bad seats; that's why I preferred the Upper Grand) have been replaced by the pricey second-tier "club" seats at Miller Park.
But if you compare upper deck vs. upper deck -- apples to apples -- the front row of upper-deck seats are farther away at Miller Park than those at County Stadium. Not only are they higher, they've been pushed farther back because of the minimal overhang at the new stadium.
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate Miller Park. I remember the horrid concessions facilities at County Stadium, and I had my bladder well-trained so I didn't have to use the so-called restrooms. Miller Park is probably a great place to watch a game if you sit in the lower deck or have the $$$ to enjoy the suites and other new amenities. But for the fan like me who likes to sit in the cheap seats most of the time and is there just to watch some baseball, I miss County Stadium.
(edit: to add "P.S." and to change County Stadium references to past tense )
Comments
<strong>The city gets a cut from the income of the place. If, as the Mayor says, it pays for itself in the long run, it will help pay for those books and mothers who can't get off their ass and get a fscking job.
If it were 100% private then the city would only get the sales tax on stuff sold there. With public funding they get a much bigger chunk.
Of course you'd know that of you'd bother to READ the NYT article before popping off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
exactly. almost all sports stadiums are funded by taxpayers. the only one that im aware of that is completely private is PacBell in frisco. thats because the city voted on the stadium and voted no. so the team either had to pay for it on there own, or move to another city. was there a vote for this deal??? i sure hope the public was aware of this before they find out they have to pay for it...
from what ive heard, there was no vote. ive lived in both frisco and houston during times when stadiums were under votes. im kind of surprised that NY is just saying this deal is done w/ no vote at all on the matter...
they have no choice, but hey...i dont live there, so oh well.
No vote, but I bet there will be some opposition to this plan. A vote would be a little to democratic for our autocratic mayor.
<strong>
No vote, but I bet there will be some opposition to this plan. A vote would be a little to democratic for our autocratic mayor.</strong><hr></blockquote>
hmm...every sports venue ive known required a vote...
oh well, i guess since money really isnt an issue for u people over there, then its no big deal, eh?
<strong>How anyone could even think of replacing Yankee Stadium is beyond me. If I were mayor, I wouldn't settle for anything other than a primo renovation. But replacement? Never. I guess Wrigley Field is next? If so, the Cubs will die as a franchise the following season. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
the sad fact is that it is costing a hell of a lot of money a year to maintain both ballparks. and the city is paying it. building new would either be equal to or maybe even less than renovation. there is only so much you can do to renovate a stadium.
the numbers sound large but its over an extended period of time and they are using bonds and loans to pay for it. in the long wrong this will only benefit the city, even if it means tearing down Yankee Stadium. And its the long term that matters now, not the short.
One more thing: this is a tentative deal. Bloomberg can back out of it if he wants.
<strong>One more thing: this is a tentative deal. Bloomberg can back out of it if he wants.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But Bloomberg pretty much said he'd go with it.
Now, there is some criticism of the high tech roof sitting on the retro-look base.
The real cost was around $450M, even though the team kept saying $250M.
And it is being financed in large part by a local (a few counties) sales tax.
It's a great place to see a ballgame, if you know where to sit.
Replacing Yankee Stadium is a big deal.
The thought of knocking down Wrigley is, well, unthinkable.
In fact, the Cubs have plans to expand Wrigley.
...adding new bleacher seating on stilts over the sidewalk (killing the view from the rooftops)
...and stealing some space from behind home plate.
If Wrigley falls down from old age, they'll have to build a replica.
Go Cubs! All the way in '02!
(No, I'm not a Brewers fan.)
I'd love it if they were able to salvage at least some part of the shell of Yankee's Stadium. the stuff done in the 70's was kinda poor (back in the days of those cavernous stadiums). Hey, they're doing it in Chicago, one of the other great stadia in our nation, so maybe they could learn a lesson from Scott and company.
Oh, and these things really should be paid for by the teams, not the taxpayers. These organizations more or less use extortion and blackmail so governments will foot the bill. We're supposed to say, "Oh, please don't leave, you soooo important to us! Where would we ever be without you?!" Sure, it creates jobs and stimulates the local economy, but I think it's only fair to hand over at least some of the ownership to the municipalities in such a case. For all they invest in infrastructure, they should get some collateral ownership to see that their investment is secure.
But look at the bright side, maybe the yankees will fall along with their stadium and the red sox will rise!@ bwhaha
<strong>the sad fact is that it is costing a hell of a lot of money a year to maintain both ballparks. and the city is paying it. building new would either be equal to or maybe even less than renovation. there is only so much you can do to renovate a stadium.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I suppose you're right on that last count. I just wish there were a way to preserve all that history. For example, the city of Boston (or whoever they hired) moved the parquet floor from the old Boston Garden to the Fleet Center, but even so a lot of history was lost. I'd almost rather see them turn Yankee Stadium into a new MLB museum or something. To think it might be a parking lot in a few years just makes me ill - and I'm not even a Yankee fan....
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
<strong>I think it's quite sad that old stadiums like the yankee and fenway are going to be replaced. They are antiques, and are beautiful.
But look at the bright side, maybe the yankees will fall along with their stadium and the red sox will rise!@ bwhaha</strong><hr></blockquote>
that would be nice, but w/ the payroll the yanks have, and their constant signing of outside help, they wont let themselves fall. even the mets are getting in on the big signings. id like to see what their payroll is for next year, cause theyre signing more big names than even the yankees this offseason. theres too much money floating around over there...
<strong>
I suppose you're right on that last count. I just wish there were a way to preserve all that history. For example, the city of Boston (or whoever they hired) moved the parquet floor from the old Boston Garden to the Fleet Center, but even so a lot of history was lost. I'd almost rather see them turn Yankee Stadium into a new MLB museum or something. To think it might be a parking lot in a few years just makes me ill - and I'm not even a Yankee fan....
[ 12-29-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
i agree wholeheartedly. that stadium has been around almost as long as baseball itself, w/ some of the greatest ever prowling the turf that will forever be legendary.
<strong>CC, haven't you been to Miller Park yet? It's beautiful.
Now, there is some criticism of the high tech roof sitting on the retro-look base.
The real cost was around $450M, even though the team kept saying $250M.
And it is being financed in large part by a local (a few counties) sales tax.
It's a great place to see a ballgame, if you know where to sit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I was there for a game this year. I'm sure it's impressive from a technological standpoint, and there is a certain beauty to it, but what it lacks is intimacy. The place is enormous. It's probably OK if you can pay $25 and up for a ticket and get decent seats (or your company has season tickets). We sat in $12 "Terrace" seats in the upper deck behind third base. I wish I'd brought my binoculars. It was like watching a game from the roof of a neighboring 15-story building. And the sightlines... we couldn't see into the left-field corner! In a brand-new ballpark!
In my Milwaukee days I had a mini-season ticket package in the Upper Grandstand right behind home plate at the old County Stadium ... now that was a ballpark.
I agree with the poster above praising Camden Yards ... they did that one right. Great place to watch a ballgame, no matter where you sit.
'Course here in Minnesota watching a major-league game may soon become a once-a-year event that includes air fare ... sigh.
"'Mystique' and 'Aura'? Those are strippers at a night-club."
It may be The House that Ruth Built, but for God's sake, Babe Ruth played a loooong ass time ago.
Build a huge new fancy ballpark (with grass, astroturf is evil) and put a museum in it for all the memories.
In the case of Fenway, what was always so fun about that place was why the Green Monster existed in the first place. It would be hard to reproduce the dynamic of that footprint since it was a result of the street pattern in plan and elevation. Simply moving the Green Monster would make more of a folly, insubstantial.
Camden Yards respected the warehouse. Everything else including the interiors of the warehouse were new. Camden Yards is also far more of an urban-friendly ballpark than even Yankee's stadium today. Fenway and Camden Yards are both great urban ballparks, shaped by their contexts. I'd like to see the new Yankee Stadium return to this idea.
<strong>
I was there for a game this year. I'm sure it's impressive from a technological standpoint, and there is a certain beauty to it, but what it lacks is intimacy. The place is enormous. It's probably OK if you can pay $25 and up for a ticket and get decent seats (or your company has season tickets). We sat in $12 "Terrace" seats in the upper deck behind third base. I wish I'd brought my binoculars. It was like watching a game from the roof of a neighboring 15-story building. And the sightlines... we couldn't see into the left-field corner! In a brand-new ballpark!
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's one of the reasons why I love PacBell Park. It's cozy. It seats ~40,000 people instead of ~50,000 or more. It's also got a fantastic location that is surprisingly easy to access. The views around the park and outside the park are stunning...the water, the east bay, the Bay Bridge...You can watch the game and not miss a thing from the concessions stands.
Plus, the thing was half as expensive as most of the other ballparks in the league.
<strong>
I was there for a game this year. I'm sure it's impressive from a technological standpoint, and there is a certain beauty to it, but what it lacks is intimacy. The place is enormous. It's probably OK if you can pay $25 and up for a ticket and get decent seats (or your company has season tickets). We sat in $12 "Terrace" seats in the upper deck behind third base. I wish I'd brought my binoculars. It was like watching a game from the roof of a neighboring 15-story building. And the sightlines... we couldn't see into the left-field corner! In a brand-new ballpark!
In my Milwaukee days I had a mini-season ticket package in the Upper Grandstand right behind home plate at the old County Stadium ... now that was a ballpark.
I agree with the poster above praising Camden Yards ... they did that one right. Great place to watch a ballgame, no matter where you sit.
'Course here in Minnesota watching a major-league game may soon become a once-a-year event that includes air fare ... sigh.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Like I said, ...if you know where to sit. You've compared apples to oranges. Think about the geometry of a baseball field. It's a pie. Where's the best place to sit if you want to see the whole field? Behind home plate, like you remember doing at County Stadium. Those are the best seats in the house, any house. Where's the worst place to sit if you want to see the left field corner? Behind third base, like you did at Miller Park. You won't see that corner from there in any major league ballpark, unless you're in the front row or three on the field. The geometry won't allow it, not to mention the wall down the foul line. I know there will be a skeptic out there, but go back to your ballpark first! I'm talking seeing the foul line all the way to the wall and up the foul pole. It simlply can't be done in both corners in any ballpark unless you're behind the plate.
As far as intimacy, Miller Park is vertical, very vertical. It only holds about 41,000... but County Stadium held about 53,000. All seats at the new park are closer to the field than their corresponding seats in the old one, and then there were 12,000 more even farther away from the action. The first row in the balcony at County was so much farther horizontally from the action to start with, the lower hight was negligible. I think the roof enclosure at Miller, even when in the open position down the foul lines, contributes to the feeling of being in a large space, but it is in fact more compact than County Stadium was, including less foul area behind the plate.
That said, there are a limited number of seats on the top (terrace) level with a full unobstructed view of the field. (I have a list!) The numerous handrails are a major source of obstruction, and it's nearly impossible to avoid that unless you're 7 ft. tall and can see over them while seated. The lower levels offer better seats, at a higher cost, of course. (But you're still not going to see both corners if you sit down the line.) At County Stadium, the major obstructions were the columns holding up the upper deck and canopy. Many more seats had major obstructed views. (But, since no one came, you could always sit out in front of the columns.) It also boasted what SI rated the second worst seat in baseball a few years ago.
The only other new park I've been to is Coors Field in Denver. It's a vertical place too. I think that's the trend nowadays. You've got to get those luxury boxes in under the cheap seats!
BTW, the plans are to save monument parl, transfer the facade (sp?) and take the soil form the old Yankee Stadium to the new one
<strong>Like I said, ...if you know where to sit. You've compared apples to oranges. Think about the geometry of a baseball field. It's a pie. Where's the best place to sit if you want to see the whole field? Behind home plate, like you remember doing at County Stadium. Those are the best seats in the house, any house. Where's the worst place to sit if you want to see the left field corner? Behind third base, like you did at Miller Park. You won't see that corner from there in any major league ballpark, unless you're in the front row or three on the field. The geometry won't allow it, not to mention the wall down the foul line. I know there will be a skeptic out there, but go back to your ballpark first! I'm talking seeing the foul line all the way to the wall and up the foul pole. It simlply can't be done in both corners in any ballpark unless you're behind the plate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's just not true. Take <a href="http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/county.htm"; target="_blank">County Stadium</a> as an example. The front row of seats was at field level almost all the way to the foul pole. There was no sloping wall 50 feet down the line that obstructed the corner as there is at Miller Park. At County Stadium, if you were in the upper deck down the line, you couldn't see the corner because you couldn't see under the overhang of the deck. But down closer to third base you could see everything.
(P.S. You can also see the left-field corner from pretty much everywhere in the Metrodome, but that's mostly because of the crappy football-oriented sightlines.
[quote]Originally posted by Gregg:
<strong>As far as intimacy, Miller Park is vertical, very vertical. It only holds about 41,000... but County Stadium held about 53,000. All seats at the new park are closer to the field than their corresponding seats in the old one, and then there were 12,000 more even farther away from the action. The first row in the balcony at County was so much farther horizontally from the action to start with, the lower hight was negligible. I think the roof enclosure at Miller, even when in the open position down the foul lines, contributes to the feeling of being in a large space, but it is in fact more compact than County Stadium was, including less foul area behind the plate.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The seats on average are closer than those at County Stadium. That's because the seats at the back of the lower deck at the old stadium (and I'll agree that those were bad seats; that's why I preferred the Upper Grand) have been replaced by the pricey second-tier "club" seats at Miller Park.
But if you compare upper deck vs. upper deck -- apples to apples -- the front row of upper-deck seats are farther away at Miller Park than those at County Stadium. Not only are they higher, they've been pushed farther back because of the minimal overhang at the new stadium.
Don't get me wrong. I don't hate Miller Park. I remember the horrid concessions facilities at County Stadium, and I had my bladder well-trained so I didn't have to use the so-called restrooms. Miller Park is probably a great place to watch a game if you sit in the lower deck or have the $$$ to enjoy the suites and other new amenities. But for the fan like me who likes to sit in the cheap seats most of the time and is there just to watch some baseball, I miss County Stadium.
(edit: to add "P.S." and to change County Stadium references to past tense
[ 12-30-2001: Message edited by: CaseCom ]</p>