Andrew home
Andrew Clem banner

Blog comments
(under construction)

Monthly archives
(all categories)

NOTE: Pre-2004 archives are inconsistent in terms of format and organization.

March 14, 2006 [LINK]

New D.C. baseball stadium unveiled

Bruce Orser

I like the outfield areas. It seems to have the look of Memorial or Municipal in Cleve. I have never cared for the high decking of the modern parks, just too far from the field because of the height. You can say you were there when history is made but is hard to recognize a particular face on field from up there. I like everything but the high decking. I do favor the angles of the old park GS' to the contoured modern parks. Based on itself, I would give it a 7.6 Based on the Busch Stadiums of the past a 9.2. rating it against other modern retros maybe a 6.

Sean Holland:

the plan view makes it perfectly clear: this is a retro park. PNC, the Jake and GABP don't have red brick, and they're retro parks, so why wouldn't this one be? They would've been much better served building your version, or something where the lines actually mattered, rather than possibly visible from a plan view no one will ever truly see. I'm disappointed because, when it comes down to it, baseball needs to be strong in 4, maybe 5 locations: New York, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington. As of right now, New York has two terrible parks (and their replacements are even worse, since the Yankees' one takes the worst of the horrid '75 renovation as its core), and Washington's just isn't too memorable from what I can see. The Yankees need to play in a palace, the Red Sox need an underdog park like Fenway, and Washington needs something grand and majestic. This just isn't it.

Mike Zurawski:

According to it will be 332 to left, 377ft to left center, 409 to center, 370 to right center and 335 to right. Note, the new owner may change the dimensions but lets hope not. Also this article has a photo gallary/slide show on top. On slide 4 it shows the shape of the outfield walls it better detail than the 4 original pics. The Washington Post has a video of the stadium. Pause at the 53 second mark. You can see the outfield in great detail and if you look in left center you can see the capital. I think they did a great job!!!

Giuseppe Mirizzi:

I must say, at first I hated it...I wanted it look like drawing that was put out a few months ago. But as I have stared at it for about an hour it is beginning to grow on me. It's not so much that I hate it, it is more like it is so different than any one I've seen or thought of. What do you think though? Some are calling it the "Mistake on the Lake 2".

How's this: The resemblance to the new stadium in Cincinnati is so strong, in terms of shape as well as construction materials, that I'm thinking of calling it "Great National(s) Ballpark."

Sean Holland:

Dying to know your thoughts. I'm not sure what to make of it, but I guess I'm a little annoyed at the talk about it not being a retro park. Like, there is some glass on the outside and inside (the round restaurant, for example), and the ticket building (I assume) coming to a razor-edge is cool, but isn't every other part of the park exactly the same as a retro park? Just because you replace red brick with concrete doesn't mean it's a radical departure from the previous decade's designs. I'm also slightly annoyed that, in a very small plot of land, they didn't orient one of the walls right on the street, thus creating a reasonable need for an interesting dimension in the asymmetrical park, as opposed to the forced-oddity of places like Ameriquest and Petco. I guess I was hoping for either one or two things. One, a park in the vein of Kauffman Stadium, with gorgeous, tapered lines that would make this instantly recognizable and unique among its peers. The inside would be symmetrical and fluid, instead of the stuttered sort of corners in so many parks these days. Or, if not this, why couldn't the park pick up on the great Washington landmarks, and go for a neoclassical design scheme? Doesn't a place as historic as Washington deserve their own Coliseum? One thing to note, assuming you haven't picked up on it, is the differential in roof height between the main seating section and the right field upper deck, which I would assume is a visual reference to Griffith's grandstand. So, I don't know, and I really want to see more angles of the park before finalizing my thoughts, but I guess I'm on the fence right now. Thanks for reading.