Originally Posted by Tigerbitch (Post 2989451)

Am I missing something here? Maybe its my Cincinnati "can't-do" mentality, but what do others see in Great American that makes it a cut above some of the other retro parks (which, in theory, are just a re-hash of the 1960s-70s cookie-cutter type stadia only with better ameneties aka "Since everyone else has one, we've gotta have one too!").

As far as I'm concerned, the story of Great American Ballpark is modern-day Cincinnati in a nutshell: They had the opportunity to build something great (a la a "Place of the Fans" for the 21st Century) in Broadway Commons, or even a ballpark with an outfield that faced Downtown Cincinnati, but in typical fashion, the damn park was built with a view of the wrong side of the Ohio, and despite the sea of red seats (they're the Cincinnati Reds, go figure!), the building's mix of white and concrete (No green? No red beyond the seats? No multicolored seating as an homage to Riverfront ;) ?) is dreadfully sterile compared to modern parks that were built right (Camden Yards or PNC, for example).

Originally Posted by Stephenapolis (Post 3135029)

^
Yes there are rules one which way a stadium can face. Usually it is NE. I canno think of any stadium where at home plate you are not facing NE-E.

Originally Posted by osmo (Post 3342125)

i agree with you 100% honestly cincy dropped the ball with there ballpark.. its ugly.. faces the wrong side and looks cheapish.. like it was rushed or something..pual brown stadium looks very nice and has a future-ish kind of look.. GAballpark.. looks like a crappy minor league park.. that was one of the last retro style parks and it just look like it got on the trend to late.. bush stadium turned out great but i feel that has been in planing for a long time and im sure they had a insane amount of funds to work with... im happy the new twins park and nationals park in DC are jumping off the retro trend

pittsburgh,san franscisco,and baltimore,seattle got it right.. they rest are ugly IMO for the retro styled parks

Originally Posted by Tigerbitch (Post 3415764)

Nice looking stadium, but why are the Rays getting a new ballpark? Granted Tropicana Field is a dump, but they've only been playing there for ten years.

Originally Posted by Stadiums (Post 3417070)

http://anhso.net/data/8/huuhungnd91/...ayers86157.jpg

Originally Posted by Stadiums (Post 3417070)

I'd agree with people who say that European skyscrapers are modest in compare to North American, I believe Europe has best stadiums in the world, my favorite 'Emirates Stadium' in London, home of Arsenal F.C.

It's a harmonic combination of opposites, it looks huge still seats 'only' 60.000 spectators, from outside it looks like it's a closed facility (arena-like) but with detached roof it's really an open-space vanue, roof is in strickt lines while stadium sides are whirley, looks great in the evening games with the light decor and all...

It costed around $800 million, finished in 2006 and is a pricey place to attend games there: Category B tickets from $60-120, Category A from $80 and above, the stadium is almost always sold out for Arsenal's over 30 home games in a season.

http://anhso.net/data/8/huuhungnd91/...ayers86157.jpg

Originally Posted by Owlhorn (Post 3440103)

It costs in the $350 million range when it was built and it really doesn't look bigger than 60,000.