Baseball Parks-The Best and the Worst

L-R, Wrigley Field, Chicago Hubert Humphrey Metrodome, Minnesota




I feel like taking a break from the presidential race, politics and all the ills of the world. In this post, I thought I would reflect on one of my favorite topics-baseball stadiums.

To begin with, I consider myself a baseball purist when it comes to baseball fields. In my view, the old baseball parks that were built pre-World War I were the best. They were small, intimate and each had its own distinctive character. Prior to the 1960s and 1970s, they still dominated the scene. There was not only Wrigley Field and Fenway Park, but Ebbets Field in Brooklyn, the Polo Gounds in New York, Connie Mack Stadium in Philadelphia, Yankee Stadium in New York, Crosley Field in Cincinnati, Forbes Field in Pittsburgh, Municipal Stadium in Cleveland, Sportsmans Park in St Louis, Comiskey Park in Chicago, Tiger Stadium in Detroit, Griffith Stadium in Washington, (have I forgotten any?) When we think of Wrigley and Fenway, any of the above would be today thought of as just as old-style and nostalgic (possible exception of huge old Municipal Stadium in Cleveland).

Today, only Yankee Stadium, Wrigley Field and Fenway Park remain from the old ballyards. (Yankee Stadium opened in the early 20s and is enjoying its final year.)

Things changed with the move of the Dodgers and Giants to the West Coast in 1958. A new style of ballpark emerged-Dodger Stadium and Candlestick Park respectively. They were bigger and more modern. Dodger Stadium, which is to this day, remarkably well-kept, is still considered "beautiful"-though I would disagree. One needs binoculars to see the action from the 5th deck.

From there in the early 1970s, the old parks started to fall one by one-replaced by the all-purpose stadiums that had artificial grass and could be used for football and baseball. These were the massive stadiums in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, St Louis, Anaheim, Oakland, Minnesota, Houston, Atlanta and so on-concrete donuts with symetrical dimensions, outfield walls, 4 or 5 levels of grandstands-and zero character.

Now we are in the third stage-the so-called retro ballparks, which began with Camden Yards in Baltimore, an effort to go back to the individual, more intimate style of ballpark- definitely an improvement, but considering the realities of economics (corporate boxes, etc), not a complete return to the good old days of the old ballparks. Certain stadiums have been more successful than others in bringing back the traditional flavor of the game. What follows is sort of an attempt to rank all the stadiums according to my own taste.

The Old Ballparks

Best- Wrigley Field, Chicago.

I first visited Wrigley in 1963 and have been a Cub fan ever since, so this appraisal may be biased. Though I have not been back since before lights were installed, I have always felt that going to Wrigley was like stepping into a time warp back to the 1930s. It is true that under recent ownership, the ballpark has been somewhat compromised with lights, electric signs and a few other innovations designed to increased attendance. Nevertheless, the innovations have not destroyed the old-time character of the park. It is still, in my view, the best place to watch a game.

Fenway Park

I rank it slightly below Wrigley, but definitely number 2. The fascinating thing about Fenway is that it is so closely packed into a downtown commercial area that except for the lights, one could literally walk around the park and not realize that it is a baseball park until one walks through the gate. It could actually pass for a collection of brick storefronts.

Yankee Stadium

My only visit to Yankee Stadium came in the late 1980s after the renovation of 1964, which changed the character of the park into something more reminiscent of say, Dodger Stadium. In spite of its more modern look, it will be sad to see it pass simply due to the great history it represented. It looks like the new Yankee Stadium is pretty much a copy of the old-minus Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey mantle, et al.

The Middle Era

Dodger Stadium

Though well-maintained and impressive from the outside, I never liked the place and often felt like I was indoors. Most seats require binoculars, and to me, the place is very sterile. Yet, many disagree with me. Vin Scully, the legendary Dodgers announcer, ranks it right up there in beauty with Wrigley Field. I disagree.

Shea Stadium

I regard Shea as a downscale version of Dodger Stadium, though I have only seen it from the outside. The Mets are soon to move into a new ballpark, which can only be an improvement.

There were also places like County Stadium in Milwaukee (1953-) and Metropolitan Stadium in Minnesota, small parks converted from minor league parks, nice, but nothing spectacular.

The "Modern" Era (1970s-1990s)

This represents the worst in the ballpark style as represented by the donut-style stadiums of Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Oakland, St Louis, Anaheim (opened in the1960s)and so on. There was virtually no difference among these stadiums. They were round, without character and a bore for fans to visit. Thank God, these places were or are being replaced. The worst? Has to be that monstrosity in Toronto-a theme park, but not a baseball stadium (still not replaced). Or maybe the Humpty Dome in Minnesota. What can you say about a baseball field with trash bags for an outfield wall?> Then there is Tampa Bay-yuk! As for Anaheim Stadium, it has gone through numerous renovations over the years, including the installation of those ridiculous boulders in the outfield. (I actually touched them once to see if they were real-they were.) Oakland's stadium is one of the last used for both baseball and football. On TV, the stands seem to be packed in everywhere.

Kansas City-an in-betweener. Attractive, with its greenery and waterfalls, but that's as far as it goes in terms of character.

Miami- a football field serving as an interim baseball field. Hopefully, it won't be around for baseball much longer.

The Retro Era

The first was Camden Yards in Baltimore, at the time a revolutionary and welcome change. Modeled to some extent on old Ebbets Field, the park features Eutaw Street, which runs behind the right field wall in front of an old brick railroad warehouse and contains pubs, restaurants and souvenir shops. The biggest drawback (in my view) is that has a triple-deck grandstand. (In my purist attitude, there should be no more than double-deck.) The warehouse provides a great scenic backdrop.

The next retro park to open was Jacobs Field in Cleveland, built by the same company that built Camden Yards and constructed in much the same style. When I attended a game there, I was much turned off by the triple-level luxury boxes that resulted in fans (like me) sitting in the clouds of the upper deck.

The Ballpark at Arlington (Texas)- I have not been to a game there, so my opinion comes from seeing it on TV. It appears very attractive, with right field bleachers (double deck) reminiscent of Tiger Stadium and attractive office buildings in the outfield. Again, triple deck grandstand is a minus.

The Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. Not bad, bleachers on the edge of the Ohio River nice, but still has triple deck.

PNC Park in Pittsburgh- One of the best of the new. Great location on the riverbank, with view of bridges and downtown and not overdone with grandstands. Double deck is just right.

Atlanta- not bad, seems symetrical in the outfield dimensions.

Comerica Park in Detroit-Along with PNC, one of the best, double-deck, nice bleachers, great outfield view. Sorry to see Tiger Stadium go, but a good replacement.

The new Comiskey Park in Chicago (Fed-ex Field?) one of the worst of the new parks-not retro, rather an imitation of Dodger Stadium. If you suffer from vertigo, don't get a ticket on the upper deck.

San Francisco (whatever its called now). Looks great with the right field wall backing onto the bay. It would be nice if they got rid of the big glove and coke bottle. Again, triple deck is a detriment.

Busch Stadium, St Louis- a vast improvement over the its predecessor, but the triple deck is a minus. It looks like they have symetrical outfield walls.

Philadelphia- Again, a big improvement over the previous donut, but same criticism as St Louis. The triple-deck bleachers is too much.

Wahington- Ditto.

Denver- Ditto though the pines and waterfalls in the outfield look nice-at least on TV. Center field bleachers look like they sit on top of the Rocky Mountains.

San Diego- Again, big improvement over its predecessor, which is still used for football, but the bleachers rise into the clouds. Too many designed idiosyncracies, but the old brick building in the left field corner is its most attractive feature.

The worst of the so-called retros

Milwaukee, Seattle, Phoenix, and Houston.

What can I say? With the possible exception of Houston, there is an overemphasis on quirks to the point that they look like erector sets. Plus, they have retracting roofs. (Update on 4-20-08). Just returned from a trip to Phoenix and took in a game at Chase Field. Yee gads! From the outside, it looks like a cross between the world's biggest blimp hangar and a place where they hold cattle auctions. Inside, you are bombarded with neon ads everywhere. It seems like a giant food court at a shopping mall. Before and during the game, the "fun coordinators" organize fan contests, guess the attendance, you name it. Mascot? Of course. His name? No, it isn't Jake Snake. It's D. Baxter. What a joke.

To each his own. I am sure many will disagree with me, but for me, Wrigley and Fenway are the best places to watch a game. Here's hoping they both survive many more years.