Best neo-classical ballpark

Thanks for the pics of the Nat.

PNC just has the advantage of the city being so close to downtown. You just cannot do that in DC.

Plus, DC does not have a skyline. Very few buildings are over five or six stories.

 

God, I love PNC.

I went to two games there back in the summer of '03. Every year since, they call..and call..and call trying to sell me tickets. Last year, unitentionally, I kept leading them on by saying that I intended to go to a couple games, which I really did. Of course, a couple things fell through and I didn't. I swear telling that ticket guy the last time that I wasn't going to any games was like trying to let a girl off gently. He probably still cries into a picture of my cell phone number every night.

It is, like many others have said, such a waste of a ballpark.

 

PNC is a very nice place. I think it's because it did the riverfront thing right the first time and the Roberto Clemente Bridge adds a perfect touch to it.

I couldn't enjoy Camden Yards when I was there, probably for a variety of non-baseball related issues. It was also raining. But upon retrospect, it was a rather nice place.

The Great American Ball Park was very enjoyable when I went - except for the 95-degree heat and the tickets that were in the upper deck that I had. That was a little bit of a debacle - but the constant view of the river was magnificent.

 

Technically, RFK still exists. D.C. United will be the only tenant using it.

 

You call that an existence?

 

I'm surprised there's no discussion about PETCO in San Diego. I loved that park.

I've got to admit though, that I've only been to three new parks: PETCO, New Busch and Ballpark in Arlington.

 

I've only been the Jacobs Field and Safeco, and vastly prefer Jacobs, which I refuse to call anything but. The Indians' AA team in Akron built a very similar smaller park in their downtown that also a pleasure to visit. Safeco's a nice park, but smells to overwhelmingly like a Thai restuarant.

 

Had this same discussion on PMs the other day. This is something that really disappoints me about many of the post-modern parks: It feels like we've entered another, less obvious "cookie-cutter" period of stadium design. Because for all the talk about creating unique, retro/"neo-classical" urban parks that incorporate local aesthetics, history and flavor, it sure seems like most of these new stadiums have fallen flat.

There's really not a whole lot of difference between watching a game in Phoenix or Houston, Cincinnati or D.C. (which I haven't been to, but judging from early looks), Atlanta or Denver.

It's not that these stadiums are bad places to watch a game, because they're not. In fact, they're far superior to their predecessors in most cases. I'd much rather go to Safeco than the Kingdome, GABP than Riverfront, Citizens Bank than the Vet. They all have great views from just about every seat, they all have a lot of family-friendly plaza areas, they all have big, fancy jumbotrons and out-of-town scoreboards, they all have a diverse selection of concessions, plenty of room, plenty of bathrooms, ample parking, etc. No complaints about the fan experience at these places, and the only fairly new stadium that I haven't enjoyed seeing a game at was in St. Pete.

But I remain disappointed in what should have been a golden age of ballparks, because too many teams are rushing these stadiums into existence as soon as the first bulldozer can be brought in. So you've got not only a half-assed effort to build a "unique" park, but a cookie-cutter effort, as well. Which was precisely the quality that these places were created to avoid. ALL of these parks have the SAME features, and it takes something truly extraordinary -- like the waterfront settings in San Fran and San Diego, or the bridge in Pittsburgh, or the warehouse in Baltimore -- to make a stadium really special. Too bad.

That said, Camden Yards is still my No. 1. Haven't been to San Fran or Pittsburgh yet, but those are the only two I think might be able to match it. Baltimore's stadium is just a truly stunning place, although not quite the same as it was in the 1990s when the O's actually made you want to go there, too. But nothing surpasses Camden Yards.

 

Have not yet been to the Nat, but have been everywhere else. Among the new old parks, PNC and Petco are absolute gems, Comerica is fantastic if not strictly a throwback, SF is nice (the ads everywhere are a bit much, but you have to appreciate that it's privately financed), Camden and Safeco are almost great but handicapped by geography, not able to fully take advantage of their surroundings.

New Busch, GABP and Arlington are strictly meh.

 

Can I just say that for DC to spend $611 million in a baseball stadium is still an obscene waste of money?
Thank you.

 

It's an infinitely better soccer stadium than it was a baseball park, that's for sure.