This caught me off guard, as I was expecting either Wrigley Field or the New Yankee Stadium. Target Field is a huge ballpark, definitely built for pitchers, so the scoring may be affected by the dimensions.
I've never shied away from my distaste for the "Era of Expansion", the time period that claimed such architectural masterpieces as Tiger Stadium, Shea Stadium, Comiskey Park, and eventually even Yankee Stadium. However, the Metrodome was not built for baseball, period. Retractable roofs are all the rage nowadays. The Twins had to leave, period.
Target Field is a better venue for baseball. With the Vikings moving in 2016, the Metrodome may meet a sad end.
But, consider this, the Metrodome was built in 1982, making it 34 years old at the time of its replacement.
The city of Minneapolis/Vikings/Twins spent $124,000,000 (million!) for a venue that lasted just 34 years. This total does not include any renovations, such as patching the roof after it collapsed in 2010.
In STARK contrast, the Red Sox spent $650,000 for a venue that has lasted 100 years, not including the $285 million spent to improve the park over the years, such as the added Green Monster seats (.406 Club).
New stadiums do not have HALF, not even HALF, of the craftsmanship, artistry, and care that was put into the old ballparks. After 34 years, the Metrodome is being abandoned. In 2011, cracks were discovered in the concrete at the New Yankee Stadium ($1.4 Billion). After just 13 years, rumors are surfacing that the Rays are thinking of leaving the Trop (please be true!).
New Stadiums are just that, stadiums. Built to attract fans and promotions, all about the cash and trying to entice people into visiting the park.
Case in point, Citi Field.
After New York, the Mets, and NYC spent $900,000,000 for the stadium, and playing three years in the venue, following the 2011 season, they spent an additional fortune (only stated as under the original $800,000,000 estimated for the renovations) to move in the fences.
Let this be both a warning and a lesson to future teams. Before breaking the bank to build a stadium that will last 30-40 years, think for just a few moments: Is it really worth it to spend all that money on a venue just to tear it down before it's 50th anniversary?
With that said, I will leave the taxpayers of America to ponder the very questions that I have posed and the evidence supporting or denying them. Leaving them with the writings that show the terrible quality of new venues...
...an this picture of the collpase of the Metrodome roof.
No comments:
Post a Comment