1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"The single most historic modern stadium in the world"

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by Mr. X, Jun 18, 2006.

  1. CradleRobber

    CradleRobber Active Member

    Are you referring to the actual stadium or the picture posted on this site?
    I think the answer to both is "yes."
  2. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Outside of the three hours that the game is going on, Dodger Stadium is a horrible place to watch a game.

    It's certainly got history, but almost all of it is MLB history, little else on a bigger scope than that (other than its status as a mecca for Mexican Angelenos who have pictures of Fernando hanging up beside pictures of Our Lady of Guadelupe.)

    Minor threadjack: I don't care how much history a place has, the fan experience has to account for something to make the history more memorable. And the fan experience at Chavez Ravine is beyond horrible. ... It takes two hours from anywhere to actually GET to Dodger Stadium, because there's basically one road in and one road out (Stadium Way). ... It's expensive as hell for tickets/parking/food (but that's an L.A. thing). ... Dodgers Dogs are now a joke (Plaschke recently wrote a column about the concessions this season). ... It's still the only stadium in the U.S. that I've been to that won't let you go from one level to another (you get a lower level ticket, that's where you enter and that's where you stay; you get an upper-deck ducat, that's where you enter and that's where you stay, even for BP.) ... And it takes three hours to get out of the parking lot (... seriously.)

    But then there's the three hours during the game. The sunset, the hills, the facade, the beautiful field, thinking of Koufax, Wills, Garvey, Fernando and Gibby's home run. And somewhere, Vin Scully. ... So you can't help not going back. But that place still sucks.
  3. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Of the three surviving MLB stadiums from the "cookie-cutter" era (1960-75), you could make a decent argument that Kaufman/Royals Stadium had seen the most memorable events.

    Each (Kaufman, Shea, Dodger) has had moments of great success and high drama, interspersed with years of irrelevance. Amazing how forgettable most of those ashtray stadiums ended up being.
  4. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Problem with your thesis: none of those stadia are cookie cutters. Riverfront, Three Rivers, Atlanta, the Vet, old Busch ... those were cookie cutters. Shea's got personality (or just an apple), you got the fountain in K.C. and let's not even compare Dodger Stadium to those ugly monstrosities. Chavez Ravine is nothing if not beautiful (no matter how much it sucks to go to a game there.)
  5. WazzuGrad00

    WazzuGrad00 Guest

    Wembley has been demolished, they're building a new one on the same spot.
  6. novelist_wannabe

    novelist_wannabe Well-Known Member

    Oh, fenian was calling himself an idiot. Glad I opened the link. I didn't google though. Does that make me an idiot? [duckingnow]
  7. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Shea is a cookie-cutter, built from the same basic design (HOK, i believe) as the others. Dodger and Kaufman are slightly different, built specifically for baseball - actually they are very similar to each other -- but most of the structural features are mostly the same. Dodger looks better because it's been maintained better, not to mention it isn't subjected to 3-4 months of freezing weather every year, which ages and degrades steel and concrete.

    We now have our own new generation of "cookie cutters" -- the new generation of parks, much lauded for their "unique designs," starting with New Comiskey in 1990, are as similar to each other as Busch, Veteran's, Riverfront, Three Rivers, etc etc. were.

    Of course, there's some slightly different trim work and different-colored seats, and an outfield fence here and there might be 10 or 15 feet farther in or out, but once again, they're all built off the same blueprint.
  8. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    I doubt you could make a case for No. 1, but the Astrodome deserves discussion. The first domed stadium, and the inspiration for AstroTurf. Hosted a Final Four, the famous UCLA-Houston game, Battle of the Sexes, a couple of All-Star games.
  9. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Speaking of which . . .

    How come Super Bowl VIII was played outdoors, in the cold, at Rice Stadium . . . and not in the Astrodome?
  10. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Eighth Wonder of the World, baby!

    Still hosts the big rodeo every winter, I think (or it did when I lived there.) Unfortunately, it's positively dwarfed by Reliant Stadium next door. I had never been to Houston until the football stadium was being built -- I was disappointed as hell with the Astrodome, until I realized that it was the ASTRODOME. And then I was nostalgic. Luv ya, Dome!
  11. Starman

    Starman Well-Known Member

    Seating capacity.

    When planning the game, the NFL was told, IIRC, that the average outdoor temperature in Houston in late January is something like 55-60 degrees.

    So they hold the SB outdoors, and they end up with 34 degrees and a driving sleet-storm the whole game. :eek: :eek:
  12. Columbo

    Columbo Active Member

    Nothing in the NFL comes close to the Orange Bowl.

    Not even close.

    And, on top of that, it is definitely in the college football discussion.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page