Another solid stadium to be replaced - Rangers will announce plans for new one

[cutchemist42]

This should have been known back then.....

 

[garnetpalmetto]

This should have been known back then.....

Again, as has been addressed in the thread earlier, it most certainly was known but for a variety of reasons (retractable roofs still taking too long to close, Retro Modern stadiums not yet being in vogue, the Retro Classic style being the reigning design, etc) the decision was made to make do. They're approaching a decision point whether it makes sense to do a major renovation on a park that'll be 25-30 years old or build anew - rather than pour more money into it, the decision is being made to pull the plug and go for a new design that can incorporate some of the things that may have been on the wishlist then that weren't as feasible as they are now.

 

[Voight]

This should have been known back then.....

Its always been hot in Texas during the summer but global warming doesn't help the cause. Retractable roofs were unknown at the time outside of the Skydome.

 

[cutchemist42]

The plans for Chase Field from what I've read go back to 95. Arlington Park was a 92 design. I just find it really hard to believe the same techniques weren't known about in that short timeframe.

Just seems like a waste of money for something I dont picture having a big enough effect on revenues. Im not sure the Rangers would think the venture was worth it if they were fully footing the bill.

I mean, how bad is attendance truly right now there?

 

[Big McLargehuge]

The plans for Chase Field from what I've read go back to 95. Arlington Park was a 92 design. I just find it really hard to believe the same techniques weren't known about in that short timeframe.

Just seems like a waste of money for something I dont picture having a big enough effect on revenues. Im not sure the Rangers would think the venture was worth it if they were fully footing the bill.

I mean, how bad is attendance truly right now there?

I don't think it's a stretch at all. Retractible roofs are something that first appeared on the scene with the 1958 designed/1961 opened Civic Arena in Pittsburgh...no other arena even tried it again for a quarter century with SkyDome and nobody got it 'right' for another decade.

It's not a matter of the technology not existing, it's been a matter of cost efficiency. Opening the roof was so expensive in Pittsburgh that the roof almost never opened after the arena was about a decade old (and not at all it's last ~15 years), and even then it only opened 1/6 of the way. SkyDome's roof retracts, but not to the degree you see in Milwaukee or Seattle. Had they added a retractable roof to that stadium in the mid-90s it would have been a mid-generation jump that would have been quickly outdated and far more expensive than the ones that came after it.

I still don't know why they wouldn't have gone with a fixed roof given the weather, I loathe domes but that's one of about 3 or 4 markets where it makes sense. I'd rather watch a game in an air conditioned warehouse than in 90 degree heat. Even with the new stadium the roof is going to be open about as much as it is in Phoenix...which is to say for the latter half of early and late season games and that's about it.

 

[AtlantaWhaler]

Just seems like a waste of money for something I dont picture having a big enough effect on revenues. Im not sure the Rangers would think the venture was worth it if they were fully footing the bill.

I mean, how bad is attendance truly right now there?

This is why I believe the wave of the future is mixed use properties. Teams going into the real estate biz. High end retail, apartments, and even office. We'll see how that turns out

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Amsterdam Arena was developed around the same time as the Rangers' ballpark and had a retractable roof. The cost was 180 million Euro (or rather the equivalent sum in Dutch Gulden) in a more expensive development environment than Texas.

Ballparks like Miller Park or Minute Maid Park were conceived only a couple years after the Ballpark in Arlington opened. I think it's fair to say the problem wasn't technology or even cost but lack of imagination in terms of design.

The reality is that today people complain about the oppressive heat and the exposure to the elements but back then being outdoors for baseball was considered a key part of the 'real' baseball experience. Baseball is as much linked to summer as hockey is linked to winter and being 'indoors' on a warm summer day or evening is not desirable to many people.

It reminds me of how indoor shopping malls are converted to outdoor 'town center' or 'pavilion' type developments today because the idea is that making shopping part of a pleasant stroll in a lively urban environment seems like one way to play up the advantages of real shopping vs the online shopping experience.

Of course, that sounds really good in perennial 65-70 degrees Santa Monica but how well does that work in climates marked by extreme heat and/or extreme seasons with cold winters and hot, humid summers?

 

[Voight]

I don't think it's a stretch at all. Retractible roofs are something that first appeared on the scene with the 1958 designed/1961 opened Civic Arena in Pittsburgh...no other arena even tried it again for a quarter century with SkyDome and nobody got it 'right' for another decade.

No offence but they did get the Skydome right. Roof opened no problem, sure it took 15-20 minutes but they still got the concept and operation correct.

 

[KaylaJ]

Amsterdam Arena was developed around the same time as the Rangers' ballpark and had a retractable roof. The cost was 180 million Euro (or rather the equivalent sum in Dutch Gulden) in a more expensive development environment than Texas.

Ballparks like Miller Park or Minute Maid Park were conceived only a couple years after the Ballpark in Arlington opened. I think it's fair to say the problem wasn't technology or even cost but lack of imagination in terms of design.

The reality is that today people complain about the oppressive heat and the exposure to the elements but back then being outdoors for baseball was considered a key part of the 'real' baseball experience. Baseball is as much linked to summer as hockey is linked to winter and being 'indoors' on a warm summer day or evening is not desirable to many people.

It reminds me of how indoor shopping malls are converted to outdoor 'town center' or 'pavilion' type developments today because the idea is that making shopping part of a pleasant stroll in a lively urban environment seems like one way to play up the advantages of real shopping vs the online shopping experience.

Of course, that sounds really good in perennial 65-70 degrees Santa Monica but how well does that work in climates marked by extreme heat and/or extreme seasons with cold winters and hot, humid summers?

You still have people who oppose the new plans for the Rangers not because of the cost but because of the same crap that was said back then that

-Baseball is meant to be played outdoors
-the heat is an advantage to the Rangers
-real fans can take the heat/don't like it sit in the shaded areas/other stupid ignorant statements

 

[cutchemist42]

I don't think it's a stretch at all. Retractible roofs are something that first appeared on the scene with the 1958 designed/1961 opened Civic Arena in Pittsburgh...no other arena even tried it again for a quarter century with SkyDome and nobody got it 'right' for another decade.

It's not a matter of the technology not existing, it's been a matter of cost efficiency. Opening the roof was so expensive in Pittsburgh that the roof almost never opened after the arena was about a decade old (and not at all it's last ~15 years), and even then it only opened 1/6 of the way. SkyDome's roof retracts, but not to the degree you see in Milwaukee or Seattle. Had they added a retractable roof to that stadium in the mid-90s it would have been a mid-generation jump that would have been quickly outdated and far more expensive than the ones that came after it.

I still don't know why they wouldn't have gone with a fixed roof given the weather, I loathe domes but that's one of about 3 or 4 markets where it makes sense. I'd rather watch a game in an air conditioned warehouse than in 90 degree heat. Even with the new stadium the roof is going to be open about as much as it is in Phoenix...which is to say for the latter half of early and late season games and that's about it.

What about Amsterdam Arena then built in the mid 90s but designed in the early 90s?

Anyhow, if this heat was such a problem but they didnt want to pay for what likely existed at the time (my hunch is something like Chase Field/Amsterdam Arena was available then), I agree about why not an open air warehouse, which these stadiums are basically.

 

[AdmiralsFan24]

The first conceptual drawings of Miller Park came out in 1992 complete with a retro look and retractable roof. The Rangers could've easily built a retractable roof stadium in the mid 1990's.

 

[BigMac1212]

Found out the new ballpark's roof will be made out of ETFE.

 

[Voight]

And ironically, if not for the A's, the Giants would probably be in Tampa, but now that the shoe is on the other foot...The Bay area can support two teams, but the Giants just don't want to share more of the pie, it's unfortunate. The A's would probably steal some thunder down in SJ, but MLB is not helping the A's either.

Niners don't really want to share Levi's stadium either, guess its a Bay-Area rivalry thing lol.

 

[TheMoreYouKnow]

Niners don't really want to share Levi's stadium either, guess its a Bay-Area rivalry thing lol.

It's a money thing. Why would the Giants or Niners for that matter want to give up their stranglehold on the region to help a rival business? The As and Raiders playing in a less than appealing stadium across the Bay keeps them small and thus less likely to poach their fans and revenue.

 

[cutchemist42]

http://deadspin.com/unprecedented-clause-in-rangers-ballpark-deal-will-sn-1782420103

 

[Voight]

http://deadspin.com/unprecedented-clause-in-rangers-ballpark-deal-will-sn-1782420103

There are plenty of options in the DAL-FTW metroplex should taxpayers not like the deal.

 

[guinness]

There are plenty of options in the DAL-FTW metroplex should taxpayers not like the deal.

Is it somewhere around the metroplex, where a HS is getting a $60+ million dollar football stadium?

It's a beautiful racket for owners, but on the other hand, the taxpayers kept bending over backwards for new shiny, otherwise they wouldn't keep electing county and city managers that vote for this ****, because they have to have a pro team and want to make their neighbors jealous.

Part of me wonders when the economics just collapses, because the owners ruin out of cities to swindle, because taxpayers are still paying off prior stadiums (St. Louis Rams), or the rank and file can't afford to go to games anymore.

 

[Quid Pro Clowe]

It's a money thing. Why would the Giants or Niners for that matter want to give up their stranglehold on the region to help a rival business? The As and Raiders playing in a less than appealing stadium across the Bay keeps them small and thus less likely to poach their fans and revenue.

Why did Haas give up his territorial rights to the Giants when they were sold to Tampa? Because he did it in good faith that the favor would be returned, but those greedy garlic dicks didn't get the memo.

 

[NJDevs26]

Ridiculous to see a decent stadium replaced so soon...but...yeah...how didn't they think of this stuff back in the 90s?

The thunderstorms are an annoyance, but the insufferable heat is something that will keep people from going to games.

Houston thought of it back in the 60's hence the eighth wonder of the world, I guess Arlington didn't think Texas summers applied to them

 

[Voight]

New Rangers ballpark gets blasted by baseball fans: 'Sheet metal warehouse look'



My god... $330 million and this is the best they could do? A warehouse?