Sources: Texas Rangers, Arlington will announce plans for new retractable-roof stadium

[canderson]

When the current Temple was built, we had Rangers partial-season tickets and I remember my 9 year old self being floored they weren't building a dome.

I really love the Ballpark in Arlington but it's death to attend games past May and hurts players' performances I'm certain due to fatigue. With family in Arlington their taxes will,increase but they'll vote for it like always.

According to two major league sources, the Rangers and City of Arlington are about to announce plans for a new retractable-roof stadium that is expected to come on line earlier than the current lease expires following the 2023 season. An announcement could come as soon as Friday.

It is uncertain how far ahead of the 2024 season the new stadium could be opened -- or how it would be financed -- but getting into a new retractable-roof stadium ahead of time is likely to significantly increase the value of the club and add multiple years of new revenue streams.

Construction of a new stadium likely would be subject to an election by Arlington voters --probably to dedicate sales tax and potentially parking and ticket taxes to the construction effort.

The Star-Telegram reported that a new $900 million ballpark be split equally between the city and the Rangers. WFAA-TV (Channel 8) reported that an election would be held in November to dedicate Arlington's half-cent sales tax currently paying off the Cowboys AT&T Stadium to the new Rangers ballpark.

http://sportsday.dallasnews.com/texas-rangers/rangers/2016/05/19/sources-rangers-city-arlington-will-announce-plans-new-retractable-roof-stadium

 

[DisgruntledSoxFan77]

Ted Sarandis approves

 

[moondog80]

It makes me feel old that stadiums I still consider to be "new" are now up for being replaced.

 

[tims4wins]

It makes me feel old that stadiums I still consider to be "new" are now up for being replaced.

Seriously. When Camden Yards and the Jake are replaced, then it will really sink in.

 

[YTF]

The boom of new age ball parks in the past 20 or so years has been a welcomed and in some cases a much needed change for many MLB cities for a variety of reasons. That said it seems fiscally irresponsible and in a way obscene that some of these parks are already being replaced.

 

[joe dokes]

Ted Sarandis approves

Doug Pappas rolls in his grave.

 

[zenter]

That said it seems fiscally irresponsible and in a way obscene that some of these parks are already being replaced.

Yes, very much. Especially as much of that fiscal responsibility is being borne by the public via taxes and fees when these multi-billionaires have the wherewithal to pay for these out of pocket.

If they paid for it themselves, I'd care a lot less that the owners and leagues try to treat arena and stadiums like iPhones.

 

[JimBoSox9]

The devil is in the details on the ground. In the main I agree, but that Arlington park was a mistake from day 1 and this is a welcome rectification.

 

[tims4wins]

The devil is in the details on the ground. In the main I agree, but that Arlington park was a mistake from day 1 and this is a welcome rectification.

Can you elaborate? Curious.

 

[YTF]

The devil is in the details on the ground. In the main I agree, but that Arlington park was a mistake from day 1 and this is a welcome rectification.

I don't necessarily disagree with the "need" or perhaps reasoning given for a new stadium, a retractable roof makes all the sense in the world. I also don't know all of the finances for the proposed or existing park, but I'm guessing that neither was 100% privately financed and wonder about the cost of probable demolition of Globe Life as well. Who owns that facility? If I were a tax payer who would be affected by this I would be outraged at the thought of financing a replacement project of this magnitude considering Globe Life is only 22 years old. Such a waste of what otherwise seems to be a great facility and a whole lot of money. I'm sure that without the new stadium The Rangers will likely hold the city hostage and threaten to move and in the end there will be a brand new, yet to be branded, state of the art showcase in Arlington within the next 5 years or so. It just all seems like such a waste.

 

[YTF]

I'm also curious what it might take to put a roof on Globe Life. Is it even a possibility? Could it safely be done in stages over the course of several off seasons? I'm guessing there would be huge obstacles given the possibility that post season play could limit that to a 5 month window each year and it would take quite an effort to complete each stage to the point of being able to SAFELY reopen each April until completion of the project. Also thinking that relocating The Rangers and shutting down the park for a couple of seasons might not be feasible.

 

[JimBoSox9]

Can you elaborate? Curious.

So it starts with the one thing that doesn't seem to be getting fixed, which is that the location is horrific even by the standards of Dallas being a commuter city or confining the options to Arlington. Why is shared parking lots with Jerryworld an important economy of scale to capitalize on? There's space out there.

Second, the lack of a retractable roof is literally unbelievably stupid, but only half the story as well. Take a look at how closed the design is:

It's a modern ballpark that chose to evoke the 70's multi-use aesthetic for some reason, and the problem it creates is no wind. If there was an open design in the outfield (think Kaufman stadium), the high summer temps caused by no roof would be significantly more tolerable. Depending on how you did it, you could have a secondary benefit of making the park play a little more pitcher-friendly.

Lastly, have you ever sat down at Fenway and been really annoyed that your sight was blocked by a big ol' column, one of those quaint Fenway things made necessary by its extreme old age, and could be totally avoided with modern engineering? Direct your attention to the top-right area here:

 

[moondog80]

So who's next in line to ask for a new facility to replace one that is already new (post-1990)? I'm certainly not an advocate of taxpayer money used to replace a 20 year old stadium, but Atlanta and Texas did have at least semi-reasonable concerns. The White Sox, I've always thought, must hate the fact that new Comiskey was designed and built about two minutes before Camden came along and changed the game. The Trop was built in 1990, but we all know the situation there, and everyone agrees that's a disaster. There's been talk of a new arena for the Celtics, but was that only a possibility with the Boston Olympics?

 

[Toe Nash]

Lastly, have you ever sat down at Fenway and been really annoyed that your sight was blocked by a big ol' column, one of those quaint Fenway things made necessary by its extreme old age, and could be totally avoided with modern engineering? Direct your attention to the top-right area here:

I strongly disagree here. Having columns to hold up the upper deck instead of cantilevering it back puts the upper deck closer to the action. The cost is that some lower seats are obstructed but the positive is that average seat is better. Newer parks did away with this design feature because they don't want to annoy rich people in favor of the everyday fan, but it's a bad trend. It's not because Fenway is so old, it's because baseball tickets weren't a luxury item when it was built.

Fenway doesn't have a huge upper deck to fully take advantage of this but the seats up there are way better than they would be if the park was built using modern architecture.

Old Tiger Stadium is a good example.

Compared to Camden Yards -- look how far back the front row of the upper deck is:

 

[DanoooME]

I strongly disagree here. Having columns to hold up the upper deck instead of cantilevering it back puts the upper deck closer to the action. The cost is that some lower seats are obstructed but the positive is that average seat is better. Newer parks did away with this design feature because they don't want to annoy rich people in favor of the everyday fan, but it's a bad trend. It's not because Fenway is so old, it's because baseball tickets weren't a luxury item when it was built.

Fenway doesn't have a huge upper deck to fully take advantage of this but the seats up there are way better than they would be if the park was built using modern architecture.

Old Tiger Stadium is a good example.

Compared to Camden Yards -- look how far back the front row of the upper deck is:

They also don't like selling obstructed view tickets for a lower price, which they pretty much have, to sell them.

I like that pic of old Tiger Stadium. The thing that still amazes me is that Reggie Jackson hit a HR into the top of that light tower on the right in the All-Star game in 1971.

 

[VORP Speed]

Construction began on the Trop in 1986. They started drawing it up in the early 80's. It took forever and turned out so shitty because there was no team and not enough money to do it properly. Skydome was built right around the same time, which, while not totally breaking out of the sterile multipurpose type vibe, was certainly very forward looking and super cool when it was new. They had plans for a Kaufman type outdoor stadium with some type of a tent type roof on it and some other ideas that could have been interesting, but ultimately they went generic 70's style multipurpose because there was little money and they had to have a backup plan to use it for tractor pulls in case a team never materialized. It was an all-around clusterfuck and a complete act of desperation. The taxpayers in St. Pete got a half-ass, shitbag stadium, didn't actually get a team until over a decade after they committed to building it and the real beneficiaries of St. Pete's investment were the fans of the Giants, White Sox, Mariners, who all got new stadiums as a result of the threat of relocating.

 

[CoolPapaBellhorn]

So who's next in line to ask for a new facility to replace one that is already new (post-1990)?

The Diamondbacks have already started making noise. Chase Field opened in 1998, so it's not even 20 years old yet. This has already gotten out of control.

 

[The Talented Allen Ripley]

There's been talk of a new arena for the Celtics, but was that only a possibility with the Boston Olympics?

There has? By whom?

 

[moondog80]

There has? By whom?

This is a few years old, plus there was some speculation with all the Olympics talk. Obviously it's not a front-burner issue, or maybe even back burner, but I did recall hearing it which is why I mentioned it.

http://www.sportsbusinessboston.com/2011/12/could-celtics-build-new-arena.html

 

[zenter]

It's Deadspin, but I agree with the sentiment: http://deadspin.com/report-rangers-want-new-modern-ballpark-to-replace-cur-1777774088

New stadiums are always a bad deal for taxpayers, but this reported proposal is especially rotten. The Rangers’ current stadium was built as part of the Neo Olde Tyme Ballpark craze that swept baseball in the mid-90's. Baltimore, Cleveland, Denver, Arlington, and Atlanta all got new baseball stadiums from 1992-1994, and each one was meant to be a crown jewel of its respective city, an immaculately constructed park that would hasten urban renewal and, designed to be timeless, last forever.

If teams really want the public to pay, cities should require an unbreakable 35+ year tenancy ad repayment of public funds at 10% APR. Otherwise, fuck the the teams for extorting regressive tax schemes out of the public.

 

[jon abbey]

Good piece:

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/texas-rangers-want-to-replace-22-year-old-stadium-with-450-million-taxpayer-money

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

Light Rail to the ballparks would have been a smart move when they built The Ballpark

 

[shaggydog2000]

This is a few years old, plus there was some speculation with all the Olympics talk. Obviously it's not a front-burner issue, or maybe even back burner, but I did recall hearing it which is why I mentioned it.

http://www.sportsbusinessboston.com/2011/12/could-celtics-build-new-arena.html

I recall all of the speculation during the Olympics proposals being about a new Revs stadium. It's really hard to build in Boston, too many people to bribe, too many review steps, too many politicians rewriting your proposal so that you buy land from someone they know, etc. And very limited public funding. The Krafts and the Fenway group know all about it. The Jacobs basically had to build in the parking lot of their old building to get a new one, they had to pay for it all themselves, and the state legislature tried to make them pay the state millions in fees for the right. The Krafts had to do pretty much the same thing, except the state paid for some improvements in the infrastructure around the stadium. I have severe doubts any new stadium gets built in the area unless it's in the best interest of a local politician first and foremost. It looks like the Krafts are just waiting that out as far as getting a Revs stadium built.

 

[cannonball 1729]

I'm also curious what it might take to put a roof on Globe Life. Is it even a possibility? Could it safely be done in stages over the course of several off seasons? I'm guessing there would be huge obstacles given the possibility that post season play could limit that to a 5 month window each year and it would take quite an effort to complete each stage to the point of being able to SAFELY reopen each April until completion of the project. Also thinking that relocating The Rangers and shutting down the park for a couple of seasons might not be feasible.

Roofs and retrofits can be expensive. Back in the 2000's, Baseball Prospectus estimated that building an open-air park was (IIRC) somewhere around $180 million cheaper than building a retractable roof. Retrofitting will probably then cost a bit more. Vancouver recently retrofitted their football/soccer stadium at a cost of of about $400 million USD, though that project was riddled with errors and overruns.

 

[zenter]

Can someone articulate a positive argument in favor of a new ballpark?

Apparently, the AC argument is not backed by evidence - only one climate-controlled team had better attendance than the Rangers last year, and that's because the Jays made the playoffs. Basically the strongest correlation is winning. Shockingly. And teams play most games at night anyway.

 

[genivive]

A very unscientific reply: Arlington is close to the 7th circle of hell in the summer even at night.

 

[fairlee76]

Light Rail to the ballparks would have been a smart move when they built The Ballpark

Yep. I'm a spoiled fan in that most of the games I've been to have been in cities with functioning public transit (Boston, Denver, Portland, etc) but the commuting experience to and from the one Cowboys game I went to made driving to/from Gillette from Boston seem pleasant.

 

[canderson]

Light Rail to the ballparks would have been a smart move when they built The Ballpark

It was supposed to have been done but NIMBYism killed it.

 

[shaggydog2000]

Yep. I'm a spoiled fan in that most of the games I've been to have been in cities with functioning public transit (Boston, Denver, Portland, etc) but the commuting experience to and from the one Cowboys game I went to made driving to/from Gillette from Boston seem pleasant.

I lived in San Diego for a bit. They had a light rail that nobody used, because the stations weren't close to where anybody lived. The suburban ones were close to the highway, and the downtown ones weren't that badly placed, but they weren't exactly in population meccas. If you don't have a functional web of public transportation linking where people live, work, and recreate, they don't really do much good. If they extended a light rail to the Ballparks, where would people get on it? Not in the suburbs. And who actually lives downtown in cities other than in the Northeast/Chicago/San Fran?

 

[moondog80]

Can someone articulate a positive argument in favor of a new ballpark?

Apparently, the AC argument is not backed by evidence - only one climate-controlled team had better attendance than the Rangers last year, and that's because the Jays made the playoffs. Basically the strongest correlation is winning. Shockingly. And teams play most games at night anyway.

I'm certainly not in favor of a new stadium, but Milwaukee had higher attendance, in a much smaller market with a crappier team. More generally, I'm not sure what conclusions we draw by saying they outdrew Tampa, Miami, Seattle, Arizona, and Houston, all of whom have fan base issues (Houston is big and has drawn in the past but they were coming of a long run of sucktitude so it shouldn't be a surprise that the fans weren't there yet). I can believe Texas would draw better with a roof, I just think "too bad, you should have thought of that before".

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2015-misc.shtml

 

[zenter]

I'm certainly not in favor of a new stadium, but Milwaukee had higher attendance, in a much smaller market with a crappier team. More generally, I'm not sure what conclusions we draw by saying they outdrew Tampa, Miami, Seattle, Arizona, and Houston, all of whom have fan base issues (Houston is big and has drawn in the past but they were coming of a long run of sucktitude so it shouldn't be a surprise that the fans weren't there yet). I can believe Texas would draw better with a roof, I just think "too bad, you should have thought of that before".

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2015-misc.shtml

Oh, right. Miller Park. Good call. And that's a beautiful destination park too. But outside a couple teams in certain types of small markets (Milwaukee seems to have strong sports fanbase like Boston), attendance has mainly to do with quality of on-field product. I'm not convinced a roof would make an appreciable difference.

 

[Rudi Fingers]

A very unscientific reply: Arlington is close to the 7th circle of hell in the summer even at night.

I have been there for night games in the summer and it does feel like you're sitting in a bathtub... as JimBoSox9 said, there is no wind. Also, @JimBoSox9, the right field bleachers were specifically modeled after Tiger Stadium -- that's why you have the obstructed views (which are only in that section of the park).

I'm not saying that I *agree* with replacement, but I certainly *understand*

As for the age of Arlington -- it is 21 years old. It's really not that unusual for stadium plans (outside of the world of Fenway) to kick off after 20 years.

Remember Arlington is a couple of years older than Turner Field, which is about to close after only 20 years. We can agree that closing Turner Field is premature.

That said, a lot of the '70s/80's multi use stadiums didn't last *that* much longer (not including stadiums like Joe Robbie or Exhibition that weren't built for baseball):
Kingdome - 22 years
Metrodome - 27 years
Three Rivers Stadium - 30 years
Veterans' Stadium in Philly - 32 years
Riverfront Stadium - 32 years
Astrodome - 34 years
Busch Stadium - 40 years
Shea - 44 years

 

[zenter]

I have been there for night games in the summer and it does feel like you're sitting in a bathtub... as JimBoSox9 said, there is no wind. Also, @JimBoSox9, the right field bleachers were specifically modeled after Tiger Stadium -- that's why you have the obstructed views (which are only in that section of the park).

I'm not saying that I *agree* with replacement, but I certainly *understand*

As for the age of Arlington -- it is 21 years old. It's really not that unusual for stadium plans (outside of the world of Fenway) to kick off after 20 years.

Remember Arlington is a couple of years older than Turner Field, which is about to close after only 20 years. We can agree that closing Turner Field is premature.

That said, a lot of the '70s/80's multi use stadiums didn't last *that* much longer (not including stadiums like Joe Robbie or Exhibition that weren't built for baseball):
Kingdome - 22 years
Metrodome - 27 years
Three Rivers Stadium - 30 years
Veterans' Stadium in Philly - 32 years
Riverfront Stadium - 32 years
Astrodome - 34 years
Busch Stadium - 40 years
Shea - 44 years

But it all comes down to who is paying for it, right? People talk about government waste in other threads, and here we have the government forcing communities to - via regressive tax schemes - pay for a multi-billion-dollar corporation's facilities.

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

Other than the Kingdome and Metrodome... Atrocities from the start,... we are taking about a shelf life 30-50% less than the others mentioned... I'd call that very significant.

It'd be interesting to go into the archives and see when it was built if they ever said how long it would last... As in...the Ballpark at Arlington will give fans the best ballpark experience in baseball for the next 50 years or something.

 

[cannonball 1729]

I can believe Texas would draw better with a roof, I just think "too bad, you should have thought of that before".

The thing with Arlington is that they built the stadium in 1994, which is about four years before retractable roof stadiums with grass fields came to be. When plans were being made to build The Ballpark in the early '90s, the choices were an outdoor stadium like Camden, a retractable stadium with a turf field like Toronto, or a dome like Houston. Since priority #1 in the '90s was to get rid of astroturf, it's not surprising that they went with the outdoor choice.

 

[joe dokes]

But it all comes down to who is paying for it, right? People talk about government waste in other threads, and here we have the government forcing communities to - via regressive tax schemes - pay for a multi-billion-dollar corporation's facilities.

I'm equally bothered by the idea that the same people who vote for this would sooner stick their collective political dicks into food processors before imposing a special sales tax for dilapidaed school repair or public works.

 

[moondog80]

The thing with Arlington is that they built the stadium in 1994, which is about four years before retractable roof stadiums with grass fields came to be. When plans were being made to build The Ballpark in the early '90s, the choices were an outdoor stadium like Camden, a retractable stadium with a turf field like Toronto, or a dome like Houston. Since priority #1 in the '90s was to get rid of astroturf, it's not surprising that they went with the outdoor choice.

That's a fair point. Not enough to make me favor a taxpayer funded stadium, but a fair point.

 

[mauf]

Can someone articulate a positive argument in favor of a new ballpark?

Major-league sports teams bring intangible benefits to their communities that are qualitatively different from what any other for-profit business brings -- we don't have duck boat parades when Fidelity or Genzyme has a good year.

I don't think government should be paying out-of-pocket to lure or keep sports teams -- that money would be better spent on traditional public services. So long as the subsidy is less than or equal to the incremental tax revenue the team generates, however, I can't get too worked up about it. I don't know enough about the Arlington deal to say whether it passes that test.

 

[zenter]

Major-league sports teams bring intangible benefits to their communities that are qualitatively different from what any other for-profit business brings -- we don't have duck boat parades when Fidelity or Genzyme has a good year.

Agreed.

I don't think government should be paying out-of-pocket to lure or keep sports teams -- that money would be better spent on traditional public services. So long as the subsidy is less than or equal to the incremental tax revenue the team generates, however, I can't get too worked up about it.

Sure, but...

I don't know enough about the Arlington deal to say whether it passes that test.

... the math here is about incremental tax revenue versus the current ballpark, right? Is the team likely to leave if they don't get the ballpark?

 

[twibnotes]

I strongly disagree here. Having columns to hold up the upper deck instead of cantilevering it back puts the upper deck closer to the action.

Amen to this. The old Yankee Stadium is a great example - that upper deck put tens of thousands of "real fans" in the cheaper seats close the field. It was an amazing place to watch a game, and the fans really impacted the game seemingly. The new terlet, on the other hand, is the worst pro sports stadium I've ever been to - might as well go to the mall and watch the game on a big screen.

Edit: another great example is old Boston Garden vs TD Bank (or whatever it's called)

 

[E5 Yaz]

 

[jose melendez]

If this were being done with private money, fine, who cares. But looking for a massive taxpayer subsidy every 25 years is just absurd. Hell, I can even get the argument that for some second or third tier city, having a pro team puts them on the map, but this is Dallas for fuck's sake. It's almost as stupid as subsidizing a team to stay in New York. Not to mention the fact that MLB teams basically never move, unlike the NFL or NBA.

As a once and future DC resident, I suspect I'll be going through this again soon with the Washington Semi-Pro Football team, and it makes me nuts. My taxes are ass high in DC, and I'm a tax and spend liberal, so mostly I'm good with that, but not for this shit.

 

[Average Reds]

I've only been to this park once, and it wasn't to see a game. I was in Texas in the late 90s and I had time to kill before a flight. So I drove out to see the Rangers' new ballpark and I was astounded to discover that they built it in the middle of nowhere.

Maybe there's more around it now. (Actually, I'm certain there is from the pics posted in this thread.) But I'll admit that I was amazed that anyone thought building a ballpark in that location was a good idea.

I do want to counter JimBoSox9 on the contention that the park was meant to capture the "multi-use aesthetic" of the 70s. The park was actually meant to do the exact opposite.

Like Citi Field, the exterior brickwork was meant to be evocative of an old-time urban ballpark like Ebbets Field. (Not quite as exact as Citi Field, but that's what they were going for.). And the right field section with the steel support columns was an homage to Tiger Stadium.

Now, maybe all of this was one big mistake. (The questionable wisdom of placing an "urban ballpark" in the middle of nowhere is probably a clue.) But this was part of the plan and was celebrated at the time.

I will say that it' s hard for me to have much sympathy with it being hot. It's Texas. Isn't hot what they do?

 

[Average Reds]

Amen to this. The old Yankee Stadium is a great example - that upper deck put tens of thousands of "real fans" in the cheaper seats close the field. It was an amazing place to watch a game, and the fans really impacted the game seemingly. The new terlet, on the other hand, is the worst pro sports stadium I've ever been to - might as well go to the mall and watch the game on a big screen.

Edit: another great example is old Boston Garden vs TD Bank (or whatever it's called)

The best seats in the house at old Tiger Stadium were in the upper deck above third or first base. And the upper deck seats in old Yankee Stadium were not great, but at least reasonably close to the action. You could not pay me to sit in the upper deck at the new Yankee Stadium or any of the newer parks were the upper deck is built back. Way to far from the action.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Good piece:

https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/texas-rangers-want-to-replace-22-year-old-stadium-with-450-million-taxpayer-money

It makes me think of the time ~16 years ago when Barbara Bush was on Larry King. Barbara was talking about her son W's accomplishments to explain why he'd be a great President. She told a simpler story: "He built a ballpark." (I wanted to call in and say, No ma'am, the taxpayers built a ballpark. But the Vice story makes it clear it was even worse than I knew at the time.)

 

[zenter]

It makes me think of the time ~16 years ago when Barbara Bush was on Larry King. Barbara was talking about her son W's accomplishments to explain why he'd be a great President. She told a simpler story: "He built a ballpark." (I wanted to call in and say, No ma'am, the taxpayers built a ballpark. But the Vice story makes it clear it was even worse than I knew at the time.)

Though, you could correctly argue he had experience wasting taxpayer money even before becoming governor.

 

[joe dokes]

Amen to this. The old Yankee Stadium is a great example - that upper deck put tens of thousands of "real fans" in the cheaper seats close the field. It was an amazing place to watch a game, and the fans really impacted the game seemingly. The new terlet, on the other hand, is the worst pro sports stadium I've ever been to - might as well go to the mall and watch the game on a big screen.

Edit: another great example is old Boston Garden vs TD Bank (or whatever it's called)

Teams/ Stadium builders have also decided that steep pitches -- which would enable seats to be closer (although higher) are bad. One of the few redeeming qualities of USCellular is that the upper deck is, for modern construction, relatively steep, which means fans are somewhat closer.

 

[LeftyTG]

I've only been to this park once, and it wasn't to see a game. I was in Texas in the late 90s and I had time to kill before a flight. So I drove out to see the Rangers' new ballpark and I was astounded to discover that they built it in the middle of nowhere.

Maybe there's more around it now. (Actually, I'm certain there is from the pics posted in this thread.) But I'll admit that I was amazed that anyone thought building a ballpark in that location was a good idea.

I do want to counter JimBoSox9 on the contention that the park was meant to capture the "multi-use aesthetic" of the 70s. The park was actually meant to do the exact opposite.

Like Citi Field, the exterior brickwork was meant to be evocative of an old-time urban ballpark like Ebbets Field. (Not quite as exact as Citi Field, but that's what they were going for.). And the right field section with the steel support columns was an homage to Tiger Stadium.

Now, maybe all of this was one big mistake. (The questionable wisdom of placing an "urban ballpark" in the middle of nowhere is probably a clue.) But this was part of the plan and was celebrated at the time.

I will say that it' s hard for me to have much sympathy with it being hot. It's Texas. Isn't hot what they do?

I've lived in Austin for the past six years and try to make it up to Arlington whenever the Red Sox play there (I'll be there June 24th!). Whoever said upthread it is like sitting in a hot bathtub is spot on. It is freaking hot and it sucks (though still worth it to watch baseball). It isn't uncommon for it to still be in the mid to upper 90's at 9 or 10PM. You are right that Texas does hot, but what I soon discovered upon moving here is that everything is air conditioned here. It is hot in Texas, but Texans for the most part don't like being in the heat much more than anyone else.

I have no idea the exact stated rationale for having the stadium in Arlington. There isn't a whole lot around it in terms of city, but the baseball stadium, the new Cowboys alien spaceship stadium, and Six Flags all basically share the same complex. It is almost exactly halfway between Dallas and Forth Worth, so I imagine that must have something to do with it.

 

[saintnick912]

Old Tiger Stadium is a good example.

Compared to Camden Yards -- look how far back the front row of the upper deck is:

There is definitely some optics going on there. The Camden Yards shot is done with a much wider angle lens, which makes things further away look even further/smaller. Having said that, I agree with the sentiment that many of the modern parks are too spaced out horizontally. Having a low pitch in the lower deck hurts this also, I'd say Detroit/Comerica was the worst of the ones I've been to (all but new Yankee) in that regard.

 

[Toe Nash]

Amen to this. The old Yankee Stadium is a great example - that upper deck put tens of thousands of "real fans" in the cheaper seats close the field. It was an amazing place to watch a game, and the fans really impacted the game seemingly. The new terlet, on the other hand, is the worst pro sports stadium I've ever been to - might as well go to the mall and watch the game on a big screen.

Edit: another great example is old Boston Garden vs TD Bank (or whatever it's called)

Yeah, I was trying to find a good picture of the old Garden that showed this but gave up. That balcony hung right over the ice / court.

In arenas and football stadiums I could see this having a big effect on crowd noise and HFA along with it being a better fan experience.