Pages

12 October 2005

News from other projects

Some good reading from other cities where ballparks are in various planning stages:
  • Backers of a downtown Kansas City ballpark launched a new website yesterday promoting the concept. A Powerpoint presentation in PDF format is available on the site. The presentation goes over downtown resurgence in other cities: San Francisco, Cleveland, Denver, and Pittsburgh. Obviously, the numbers are spun to give as favorable a view as possible, and I've read as many articles that say the Cleveland redevelopment plan has failed as I have that it has succeeded. I also can't agree with the design, which looks too reminiscent of SBC Park and doesn't address SBC's main flaw: the left field corner seating on the second and third tiers. If you've sat there before, you know what I mean.
  • There's a great article in the Washington City Paper (weekly) about the me-too style and lack of innovation in the DC Navy Yard ballpark concept. If you want a primer on how to design a fan-unfriendly park, this is it. If you want something that makes much more sense for the suits, bleacher bums, and families, check back here in a few weeks. Note: the writer bases much of his judgments on the DC ballpark terms, which were published several months ago.
  • It appears that any hope for a Twins' stadium to be approved this year has evaporated, as state legislators have shown no interest in a special session to vote on non-emergency issues.
  • A key big development project that was planned for Las Vegas has collapsed, leaving it unclear where a future ballpark fits in. The news may be good or bad for Vegas depending on which new developer steps in for The Related Cos. Still no word on the cost of building a ballpark (domed or not?) and the unknown method of funding it, let alone what Mayor Oscar Goodman will do about addressing the gambling issue.

1 comments:

jrbh said...

That's an amazing piece in the Washington City Paper. It's clear that Wolff has something similar to DC in mind for Oakland, judging both from his comments about luxury boxes and the likelihood that he'll follow along the now well-trod ballpark architecture path.

If that's the case, I really don't see the point in keeping the A's, and the notion that the city should contribute even one dime to an A's ballpark is obscene. I have no interest in a ballpark or a team that purposely shuts out most of the community from good ballpark experiences.