urbanSTL

okok, i was being a bit of sh*t disturber there, but..



damn, so much hating on old busch, maybe its a little 'outta style' but a dump! what kinda luxury do you want from a concrete structure with seats bolted to it.. and all this crap and crap and crap about how it's feng shui is better and how much we love bricks is just nonsense.. theres about 50 billion better places you could spend that money if you were serious about helping downtown or the cardinals. they could have built a 'village' any time they wanted & they could renovate old busch as well as they've held together yankee stadium & we might actually retain some history in this podunk town.



my only real beef here is, instead of doing something special with what we have, we are knocking it down and starting all over again ... without learning any lessons & with no public dialog. because new busch isn't built to last anymore than old busch was. your kids might talk about the house that albert built, but their kids wont



http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/nl/B ... tadium.htm

There has been plenty of dialogue on the new stadium, and old Busch where have you been? LOL. Good god I hope you were joking about the parking lot crap in Illinois. You can't build a village around an enclosed circle and expect it to somehow fit in. People in St. Louis love the Cardinals as much if not more then any other sports city in America. You put a good mixed use project together in that area, and it will flourish. Sure there are still the ok the games over let's head back to our little corner of the earth people, but there are more people who would love something to do, and keeping the people downtown,(along with residential) are the kinds of things you have to do to create vibrance. A winning club with three million plus fans every year creates a great opportunity. I only pray they get half the residential up because that's what supports the area between the seasons, and road trips etc. If I were a developer I would want that area more then any other in the city, as it's almost guaranteed success. You will probably have to fight to get in the high rises if at all affordable, and obviously eating establishments, pubs etc. In fact I may be one of the people fighting to get in myself LOL.

i wish they'd call it ballpark city instead.

I'm really excited about Ballpark Village, but I believe losing Busch Stadium (one of the few local buildings designed by an internationally recognized architect) is really going to hurt in 20 or 30 years.



The new stadium is the TRUE cookie cutter product. Probably the last lame attempt at this retro fad.

The old stadium is just as cookie cutter as the new one.



I went to the game on Tuesday and walked around the new ballpark before the game. It looks like the scoreboard is going to block the view of the Arch quite a bit. It doesn't look that way in the renderings but it definitely will. It apears you'll only be able to see a portion of the Arch from home plate.



With that said, the new ballpark is just part of the good change that is going on in STL right now. There is enough historic preservation going on and I'm glad to see something new added.



As for the comments about the Yankees...well, they are building a new stadium that will cost some insane amount of money. Wrigley Field will be there forever because that's the only thing the Cubs have to look forward to.



I just hope construction for BP Village takes off fast.

There's other reasons that the 'retro' baseball stadiums have been such a success. Because those stadiums were built for baseball. This new stadium will be built for baseball. At Busch, there are some terrible seats, even in the field box, you end up with a sore neck by the third inning because your seat faces shallow center field.



The seating will be so much better in the new stadium, you will have better views from every seat.



Also, the open ended outfield will make taking care of the field much easier. Right now the Cardinals field crew work twice as hard to take care of the grass because there isn't any wind, and heat just sits on the floor of the stadium. And the infastructure is very very poor, we couldn't have made it another 50 years without significant (read costly) internal improvements.



Not to mention that the additional revenue they can bring in with a new place, that will help us continue to field a competitive club for years. Making signing young players long term much easier.



And we want to talk history? Baseball was meant for these types of stadiums. You'll notice that the new ballpark won't have a bunch of the crap thats around the other ballparks, like carnivals and the like. It's a stadium built for baseball people. Great views, and much more the way baseball was meant to be played. Not in an enclosed concrete slab.

too bad.. we could have waited a few more years and futuristic spaceship stadiums could be all the rage again...



Washington ballpark design bucks "retro" trend







WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Washington officials bucked a recent trend toward old-fashioned "retro" ballparks and unveiled drawings on Tuesday for a $611 million baseball stadium fashioned from stone, glass and steel.



The new Washington Nationals stadium, the subject of political wrangling on the city council and tough negotiations with team owner Major League Baseball, is scheduled for completion in April 2008.



"We felt D.C. deserved to distinguish itself. Another red brick ballpark would be just like those in other cities," said project architect Joseph Spear, referring to numerous designs over the past dozen years that evoke historic parks.



"We wanted something of this time and of this place," he added.



The stadium, to be built about a mile south of the U.S. Capitol building on the Anacostia River, will feature an angular facade of white limestone of the type used on many federal buildings and monuments in Washington, expanses of glass and exposed steel support beams on the upper deck.



Many seats, particularly those on the first base side, will have an outfield view of the Capitol dome.



Spear, a senior principal at stadium architects HOK Sports, based in Kansas City, Missouri, said he was striving for a design that could endure on the Washington skyline in the same manner as the city's monuments.



Among HOK's inspirations were the sharp-angled, I.M. Pei-designed East Wing of the National Gallery of Art, which Spear said "still looks fresh and timely after 30 years."



Nationals President Tony Tavares said the new stadium would be a "pitchers park," with generous field dimensions similar to those in Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Stadium, where the team will play the next two seasons.



Foul poles will be 335 feet to the right field fence and 332 feet to left, and the outfield will be symmetrically angled with deepest points at 409 feet and power alleys at about 378 feet.



Tavares said the exterior was "different than anything in baseball. I think it's unique in its look."



"But from a ballplayer's standpoint I guarantee you he cares more about the grass, the dirt and the field dimensions than the outside skinning of the stadium," he added.



The District of Columbia is expected to launch the sale of $535 million in revenue bonds backed by team rent, concessions sales taxes and a gross receipts tax on larger businesses over the next few weeks to finance the project. City officials said they plan to break ground in April.





http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060314/sp_ ... Nzc3JlbA--

Sorry, but I am not impressed with the renderings of DCs new ballpark.



It doesn't look all that modern to me. Looks like 1980s suburban offices to me. Maybe they can move the Bowling Museum building to DC, it would fit right in with this theme.



I am not against a modern style stadium, but come on, this DC park is boring!!!!! If anyone is missing the boat, it is DC. But it isn't over yet, we will see what really happens.



And I am not against a modern ballpark in STL either, but I think the one we are getting will fit in nicely with its neigbhorhood and be an asset to downtown. Now that I have mourned Busch, I am looking forward to the new one, especially because of the surrounding village.

I really like the new ball parkk for the following reasons:



It fits in with cupples



It opens up to the city - allowing for great views both into and out of the park



it creates a smaller, more intimate atmosphere (if you've ever been to fenway or wrigley you know how cool this is) and



(admittedly this could be true of any new park) it is stimulating construction of nearby real estate



someone asked me why old busch didn't lead to the creation of a ballpark village and I think the reason is the design. Busch 1 was a fortress ... you simply could not see inside unless the neighboring buuilding was REALLY tall. This design is different.

markofucity, I agree on all counts. Today, I looked at some pictures on the ballpark construction website and was impressed at how good the streetscape looks in relation to Cupples. This is important for many reasons. It appears that this new design will create a comfortable environment for those attending a ball game or just walking near it from the Metro station to other things. It appears to be part of the neighborhood. That makes it better than a monumental statement in my opinion.



Of course, I haven't seen it in real life or in action.

anyways, the new stadium/village is turning out 1000 times better than i ever dreamed. it could be more 'unique', but i guess this is the midwest..



anyone know what they're doing to the stadium east/west parking decks? they're a little butt-ugly as they are.. maybe draw some brick lines on them



i like the DC ballpark, though it'd be alot cooler if it was actually on the mall

The stadium will feature an angular facade of white limestone of the type used on many federal buildings and monuments in Washington, expanses of glass and exposed steel support beams on the upper deck.

It's impossible to tell what the Washington Park really looks like, the rendering isn't good enough to see the details. But I like the concept.



The new Cards ballpark will do much to relate to the city around it, and I'm happy about that. But I lean towards shinpickle's view on this. In a city constantly criticized for being obsessed with the past, building a ballpark that looks like it was built in 1904 (and about the 12th one at that) isn't the best move. It would be cool to see St. Louis show some cajones with some modern design. All of the things that people love about the new stadium - the views, wide concourses, relating to buildings around it - could be done with a more modern design as well. In 30 years those cheap imitation brick panels will be popping off, and people will be clamoring for something more current. Hopefully the owners at that time will just update the stadium instead of building a new one; at some point we have to let stuff sit around for a while so a cool history can develop.

Where the new Busch departs from other new major league venues is that it has fewer corporate luxury boxes.



Instead, the new park has more "party rooms," places where fans can host a game-day party or an office function. The setup is a nod to a culture of dedicated fans who would want nothing more to hold a wedding reception or anniversary celebration at the stadium.

Whats the difference between a party room & a corporate box?



this is a good article:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument

First post. Anybody know why the new Busch has less seating than the old one?



By the way, I also like "Ballpark City" better than "Ballpark Village," and the same goes for the planned Gateway complex at the Bottle District.



This is a great forum and I really appreciate the energy and work that goes into it. Nice to see so many people loving St. Louis.

stl555, I have seen clearer & bigger renderings and I don't like the new DC stadium for a lot of reasons, including the way it relates to its surroundings & transit, and I have talked to other people that have the same reaction (yawn). Sorry, I will get back on topic....



Regarding new Busch: I agree the things that I like about new Busch could have been done with a modern design. But, since my interest is related more to the neighborhood and the health of downtown, new Busch satisfies. And its too late to change it, so I embrace it. But, I understand the critics.

^ yes, all things considered the new stadium/village is a net gain for the city. Sure, it would've been nice to see St. Louis buck the retro trend instead of DC. But if ballpark village succeeds, we won't have much to complain about.

Blzhrpmd2 wrote:I guess I am not sure if the following applies to this thread but.........I 've been reading on KMOV, KTVI et al. the fan reports about Busch and I have been surprised to read some of the animocity towards it. I find it really disheartening. People have already complained of bad views, "cheesy" looking advertisement, and concerns about the overall user friendliness. Some have already chalked it up as worse then similarly constructed parks around the league. I realize that this was a dry run to help work out kinks, but I hope the attitude improves. I also think that Ballpark Village's importance just skyrocketed to help people who already have ill will toward the park swallow the transition. I know that I have been on pins and needles for two years tracking this thing and it has been a bit of a blow to the confidence after reading some of the negativity. I was not ready for it. I would hate to think that the best fans in baseball have gotten less than they bargained for.

I was there Tuesday night, and it was perfect! A wonderful place! I mentioned to my friend at the bar later that I couldn't conceive of any possible complaint anyone could have about the place, to which she reminded me that there are some very bitter people who can't let go of the old place and will come up with all sorts of "problems", even if they have to make them up.

As for the animosity and complaints about the new park, this might be the case for some at first, but after the first Cardinal game, it will feel like home again. The kinks will soon be worked out and the negative comments will soon turn to great memories of the stadium. The thing is that St. Louis has serious baseball fans who focus on the game and not no the silly little things that can be found around other baseball stadium such as Houston?s tooting train. Once those redbirds take the field, the new stadium will come alive. I was also there last Tuesday and thought it looked great. Can?t wait for opening day!



I have mixed feelings about the latest info on Ballpark Village. I think that the original plan was to start construction of BV this summer, but now by the end of the year. It also looks like the residential units have decreased from 1200 to 1000. Anyway, if they need to take more time to plan a better BV, then so be it. I?m sure the final product will be a great success.

I am going to the open house tomorrow, so I haven't been inside. But I do work across the street and have seen the place go up.



People who complain about advertising around the park are dead wrong. Before the advertising went up the park seemed antiseptic and very plain. The advertising adds color and interest to a ballpark. And anyone who has seen old films of MLB shows there was probably more advertising in old ballparks than today.



After walking around the outside, I have one complaint. Upfront they kept touting the fact that you could see a limited view of the game from certain spots on the street/sidewalk outside the park, just like the old "knot hole gang" in Sportsmans Park. I wasn't able to find one spot where you could see home plate or even a limited portion of the field from outside the stadium. This would have been a neat unique feature, and they shouldn't have promoted it if they weren't acutally going to do it.

MattonArsenal wrote:People who complain about advertising around the park are dead wrong. Before the advertising went up the park seemed antiseptic and very plain. The advertising adds color and interest to a ballpark. And anyone who has seen old films of MLB shows there was probably more advertising in old ballparks than today.

Precisely.

I was there Tuesday night and my experience was far from perfect. I'm very excited about the new stadium (I have season tickets so I'll be there a lot!). Tuesday night was just a dry run so hopefully they do get the kinks out but I think there were a lot more problems than they anticipated and this was just a crowd of 32,000. If opening day doesn't go more smoothly then there will be plenty of complaints.



From what I observed, most of the issues were not with the stadium per se, but with the whole ball park experience. There were huge traffic bottlenecks in some areas for no apparent reason. The consession stands were unacceptably slow - and like I mentioned this is with only 32k fans. The wait was sometime over 2 innings long. One of the Men's restrooms was completely filled with smoke. Somehow the grills from a kitchen were venting directly into it. The signage for where things are was inadequate. Placement of trashcans, condiments, things like that were not well thought out and hard to get to.



Overall, I think it was mostly little things, but things you would hope they would have thought of.



Plus, most of the people there on Tuesday were there JUST to evaluate the ballpark. I saw very few people actually interested in the game between the 2 minor league teams. On Monday I imagine most people there will be there to see the Cardinals and maybe many of the issues I mentioned will be resolved.

Heres the problems with the ballpark. This was the first time the concession workers actually cooked anything, and nobody was in their seats or knew where anything was at. That's most of the problems right there. I'll be inside tomorrow, so I can give a more personal review then. From what I saw outside on Tuesday it looked generally good. I also noticed that even from where you are supposed to be able to see in, there were to many people in the way standing.