urbanSTL

jfknet wrote:Honestly, and not to offend as it's all a matter of preference, but that looks like an entrance to an amusement park, and IMO is cheesy. It is a matter of preference though and I realize some do like these kinds of things, but that's my take on it. I also think that one of things that seperates our fans is that kids go to watch and learn the game, and not worry about all the other stuff. I think that sort of thing is best fit for the village which should include many family activities.

agree. well said!

I've come around to the same conclusion that most of you have about the stadium. We've come to expect stadiums to work as giant sculpture as well as a ballpark, partly because they are so prominent, and partly because ballparks like the old Busch stadium were sculptural as well as functional. But maybe it is OK for baseball to be baseball and not public art as well. Baseball is a business. We don't require other business to build sculpture -- we just let them build big square glass boxes that maximize cost per squre foot.



Maybe we should turn to public funded buidings to be great architecture -- like museums, amphitheaters, and monuments. Then stadiums can just be stadiums that optimize the viewing experience for the fans at the expense of inspiration. Nobody will drive through downtown St. Louis to view the new stadium for its architecture the way they did the old Busch with its crown. But if they stop into Ballpark village for a brewsky, and visit the Arch, that can work too on a more average tourist level.



We always had the Arch and Busch Stadium that told anyone who saw a picture of our downtown that this was St. Louis. At least we still have the Arch to distinguish our downtown from dozens of other look-alike square tower downtowns in the Midwest.

^ good points GK, the stadium was built to please the fans, not architecture critics. Considering the Cardinals put up almost all the money themselves, I say more power to them.



I also agree with those who prefer the new busch to Comerica. I subscribe to the Dragnet theory of stadium design:



"Just the baseball, ma'am"

I understand that some don't appreciate Comerica Park. I'll tell you that it is a fun place if you ever go. The mammoth size of the tiger sculptures are fantastic in person and you feel like you are someplace special.



One thing I can't figure out. It seems like every city that builds a new stadium gets a big event. Comerica Park had the All Star game last year. Ford Field had the Super Bowl this year. Usually MLB makes a deal that if a new stadium is built they'll bring the All Star game there. It's an incentive for the city/owners. Is the new Busch Stadium on the schedule yet? The All Star game hasn't been played in St. Louis since 1966.

Some say the ball park shouldn't look like an "amusement park" but what is a Ball park -- you got the name "park" already in the name - and last time I checked Baseball was supposed to be "amusing" to watch ? or dare I say fun. So to say Comerica looks like an amusement park is correct. Another name for ?amusement parks? is ?theme parks? If you go to 6 Flags or Cedar Point or Disney - they all have different themes ? different feels ? all with the same goal. Busch III should have a more distinct theme to it ? it?s a beautiful park but it isn't - IMHO - individualized yet ? the goal is clear ? but the nuances aren?t. Busch II was clearly STL - Busch III is nearly there - but needs some fine touches.



And I disagree that "it?s a business - let the Cardinals play where they want" That to me really negates the purpose of having the park is such a centralized location. If it HAD been built in St. Charles - then make it look like a cheesy strip mall ? make it conducive to baseball and winning and maximizing profit only - but in a architecturally rich area of downtown St. Louis - it needs to fit its location.

I think in time the stadium will be known as a Cardinals stadium. Right now, it's very generic, but they aren't finished with it as well. I was reading on Bernie Miklasz's forum that even Bill DeWitt was slightly underwhelmed by the presentation of history in the park.

I used to complain too that we were the last city in line for a "retro park" but as I believe Framer said, "these parks are the best way to watch baseball." Baseball only- not concerts or football. and not watch some freaking ferris wheel, fake train, or people in jacuzzi's. This is St. Louis, not some half wit city that just got at team 10 years ago.. We attract people/ families for the GAME, not "amusement" -man that statement made me projectile vomit.



As for the look itself, google images of Bejing's Olympic stadiums (2008), very modern, very cool, but I'm sorry would NOT be a good place for Baseball. The focus then becomes the structure and not the game.

And to the person that said people would drive downtown to just LOOK at Busch II but won't for Busch III... have you been downtown recently?

When they're broadcasting games with the skyline and arch in the background all over the country/ world there couldn't be a better advertisement for the city.

I agree that a retro look befits baseball's tradition. But for the architectural critics, a new soccer stadium could be an opportunity for super-modern design. If to the east of the arch, modern stainless steal curves could be incorporated into a new open-air soccer stadium with views of our famous modern sculpture.

Speaking of sculpture, does anyone know if the Cardinals will be placing the statues of ballplayers that were outside the old stadium someplace in the new one?

Yep, they are supposed to go right where a crane for the masons still working inside is right now.

They may be scattered now, but the original plans had them outside the circle gate at Clark and 7th/8th.

More editorializing on the stadium's design...

The exterior works

By Louis R. Saur





04/19/2006



Viewed from the street as an urban form, the new Busch Stadium reinforces the impression that St. Louis prefers the safety and conformity of traditional architecture. The articulated brick wall surrounding the interior stadium succeeds on that count, and the Eighth Street entrance will become a signature architectural element representing St. Louis on postcards and photos all across the country.



The scale of this exterior wall is exceptionally appropriate to the scale of the street and is visually compatible with such early 20th century commercial and industrial buildings as the nearby Cupples warehouses. The multiple small plazas surrounding the building present a valuable nostalgic image, while colorful signs and lights are both festive and evocative of the Cardinals history that comes alive with every home game.



The building's setting is by far its most successful quality. Thanks in large measure to its contextual design, the new stadium may energize the city and stimulate the development of Ballpark Village, which will help to attract even more people to a downtown currently enjoying a renaissance.



Read more

I like Saur's work, but I think he is wrong about the sitelines and seating areas in the stadium. I don't know where he sits, but the new park has much better seating and sitelines. Nevermind that the old stadium was crumbling. I think, like the last editorial, he is being too academic.

Dan and al were talking about how the birds are gonna replace the foul poles in may. They recieved many complaints about them blocking views from certain seats.



go birds!

Saur's mention of the lack of "flow" through the concourses is right on I think. The old one had much better flow, but maybe people are still trying to figure out where they are, etc. All I have to say is, it's a much better experience to watch a game at III.

JCity wrote:Saur's mention of the lack of "flow" through the concourses is right on I think. The old one had much better flow, but maybe people are still trying to figure out where they are, etc. All I have to say is, it's a much better experience to watch a game at III.

I suspect he is talking about how in II you could walk around the entire stadium while inside. I don't think you can do that in III.



He certainly can't be talking about the concourses, which are far wider in III.

Just saw my first game at the new stadium tonight. First of all, it's a great place to watch a game, which shouldn't get lost amidst some of the criticisms.



I will point out one thing that really stuck out to me and I haven't seen mentioned. As you're walking down/up the pedestrian ramps you can see clearly a cross-section of the 1/2" brick panels they used on the facade. I know that's what they used, but I didn't want to be reminded of it.



Also, the commercialism of the experience was really off-putting. I realize this is a trend in larger society and not the Cardinals fault, but to me they're a semi-public institution. I like Green Bay's situation with the Packers, where the fans basically own the team. This way perhaps you can avoid the overt commercialism, or if you can't, at least it's the shareholders (fans) that profit from it. How great would it be if we could buy shares of the Cardinals? I'll take two!

I actually disagree completely about the over commercialization. Yes, there are a couple of ads that irk me (the big bud light on the pressbox)

but, look at pictures of old stadiums...every square inch of usable space had ads on them...they were everywhere. THe modern parks don't have nearly the amount of advertising the old parks had

sure, I see what you're saying. Of course the old stadium had plenty of advertising, it's not really the signage I had a problem with. It was people hawking credit cards, "Ford Plaza" and the "Jack Buck" corporate box that kind of got on my nerves. I could just be overly sensitive to that kind of stuff.

Ford Plaza definitely pushes it. huge fan of the old style advertisments in the field though.



You CAN walk all the way around III, not completly covered, but you can make the full circle. And while it is extremely wide in some areas, it shrinks down. Still, one of the coolest ballparks in my opinion.

^Nice article. Very upbeat. That's what we like to hear!

ChrisInDownTown wrote:http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascit ... 827916.htm

That's a very positive article, and it's great to hear what current business-owners are thinking about BPV. But overall, it reads like the entire piece was culled from existing press releases. (Sorry if I'm drifting OT, but it's the writer/editor in me!)