Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire
^ I guess that was at least part of the issue that some people had with multipurpose parks... the fact that you had MLB teams drawing, say, 25,000 fans a game playing in NFL sized stadiums with at least twice that many seats.
But that said, no one seemed to mind that arrangement until the 90s when suddenly the sportswriters and broadcasters began maligning them and repeatedly pointing out their shortcomings. I'm sure the fact that a pile of rich and influential team owners in the US ended up with heavily subsidized new venues they had a monopoly over was just a happy coincidence.
|
In the 70s and 80s the public was in awe of huge stadiums in the same way they are still amazed by any other large structure. It was almost like a competition of who can make the biggest skyscraper - so when someone built a huge multi-purpose stadium, it was a big accomplishment... "Look how massive it is! And it can host a baseball AND a football team!".
But it's like the Jurassic Park line: "... were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."
The novelty wore off and people were stuck with horrible sight-lines and terrible cavernous atmosphere. A full stadium only helped the atmosphere to a degree.
Camden Yards basically changed attitudes when it opened in '92. People understood how much better it was to watch a game in a more intimate and traditional stadium that was designed for a specific sport. Everyone started using Camden Yards as a model, and it spilled over to other sports leagues where atmosphere was a huge priority. Even a large stadium today can feel more intimate due to it being designed with only that one sport in mind.
If Montreal were to get a new baseball stadium, it would be insanely stupid to accommodate football or soccer.
Threaded Mode