May 25, 2006
More of the same
Hello! Sorry for my silence everyone. Time Warner cable went out in my neck of the woods yesterday which meant a couple of things. One, both the Lost season finale and the American Idol were essentially "off the air" for a whole lot of people and two, I had no Internet access last night. So, I read all night. It was nice.
Anywho, if you haven't been reading the DTFC Twins Forum you've been missing some good stuff. There are a couple of threads there talking about the potential design of the new stadium and how a ballpark might fit on the Rapid Park site. For example, check out this graphic:
The above picture is an overlay of Pittsburgh's PNC Park on the Rapid Park site (created with Google Earth). Note that it is still a little big, and PNC is considered to be an "intimate" ballpark. Well, it appears we might get something even more intimate. We'll see.
The creative genius behind this picture (and more) is Rick Prescott of BallparkMagic.com, a pre-Greet Machine pro-ballpark site. Rick, or rixware1 as he is known on the DTFC Twins Forum, is also creating a new site: http://twinsballpark2010.com/. This will be THE site to watch the construction and learn about the design of the ballpark. I just hope the Greet Machine can keep up!
Secondly, there have been some questions on these pages regarding the veracity of the claim that automobile purchases in Hennepin County are going to be ballpark tax expempt. Well, I have an answer, and reader David Howe had it mostly right. Essentially, the automobile sales tax is separate and different than the general sales tax that will fund most of the ballpark construction costs. In other words, automobiles are taxed under a completely different statute than the general sales tax. Cars are not covered by the general sales tax. If Hennepin County wanted to tax cars to pay for the new ballpark, they would have had to explicitly ask for it.
That's it for now. Sorry for the brevity. More later.
Posted by snackeru at May 25, 2006 9:35 PM | Stadiums 2006
Are we sure that the images of PNC park and the Rapid Park site are at the same scale?
Posted by: Kris at May 25, 2006 11:07 PM
Shane, thank you for clearing up the sales tax question!!
Eva, Denny Hecker called and he'd really like it if you'd reconsider your Ramsey County car purchasing decision. He's got a family to feed you know.
:-) Just kidding.
Posted by: Jared at May 26, 2006 7:41 AM
I'm not worried about the ballpark fitting into that parking lot. If you look at the New Ballpark webpage (link is attached to my name) and click on the "Minneapolis Ballpark Site Plan" you will see that the ball park fits fine. On the north side the rail road tracks are gone. There is a Northstar Rail Transit Center just to the East of the Park.....this is were the railroad stops.
Also, if you look to the south of the parking lot the Ballpark practically hangs over 394.
The white area from Google Earth doesn't reflect the whole space that they are planning on using. If you take out the Railroad and the road on the South Side pretty much every major league park will fit in that space.
Posted by: MOJO at May 26, 2006 9:10 AM
Rick had an email exchange with St. Peter regarding the size of the parcel and St. Peter said that it will spill into the railroad area.
Check it out over at DTFC forum.
Posted by: J. Lichty at May 26, 2006 9:22 AM
Great, another Twins web site to obsess over. I guess I could give up bathing to give myself more time for these sites.
Posted by: freealonzo at May 26, 2006 9:44 AM
I fear that some of you might think I am upset over the Rapid Park site or the potential intimacy. I want to assure you that is not the case. I am thrilled with the idea of an intimate ballpark. I think the graphic above demonstrates that we will also have a unique ballpark which is also important to me.
I just thought it was a cool picture that shows some of the potential.
Posted by: Shane at May 26, 2006 11:10 AM
I hope they lean towards the PNC model, keeping the upper deck relatively low and utilizing overhangs to keep it closer to the field. (Although they cheat at PNC by putting the "club seats" on closest part of the upper deck, so the affordable seats are still higher and further back). The overhangs can also offer extra weather protection. Maximizing outfield bleachers (avoiding too much "dead space" with the bullpens out there) is another way to keep affordable seats plentiful.
I'm excited about the process, if the Twins do indeed stay open to fan input throughout. Let Greet Machine and TwinsBallpark2010 lead the way!
Posted by: spycake at May 26, 2006 2:34 PM
You are one classy guy. You may have disagreed with how the stadium got done, but now that it's over, you are behind the project. Look forward to meeting you at Summit-Fest 2006 next week.
Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at May 26, 2006 3:33 PM
Cheesehead, I agree. Spycake is a classy individual who I look forward to meeting.
And Kris, yes, I believe these pictures are to scale. I have also heard that PNC is 1 million sq. feet of ballpark, and our ballpark is going to be 1.1 million. I'll try to get more details, but it looks like we are in good (better!) shape.
Posted by: Shane at May 26, 2006 4:46 PM
If anyone's interested in reading the actual law that was passed by the legislature, it's already up at the House of Representatives webpage. You can click at my username to access it directly.
Posted by: Transic at May 26, 2006 5:56 PM
Of all the new parks I've been to (most all of them), PNC is my favorite with SF and Petco close behind. The least favorites are Atlanta, Cincy - boring and built on the cheap, Milwaukee and AZ as they aren't ballparks, they're airplane hangars.
Detroit, Seattle, Texas, Philly and Denver have very nice parks. Nothing spectacular, just very nice.
Hopefully they do it right this time in MN.
Posted by: kevin in az at May 28, 2006 6:10 PM
I'm the only one that thinks that Toro Field has a nice ring?
Posted by: TwinsJunkie at May 29, 2006 9:53 PM
Betty Crocker Park. Come on.
General Mills has long been a supporter of pro sports in the Cities - they had a long-standing agreement with the Vikings to purchase unsold tickets so that Vikes games wouldn't be blacked out on local TV, though that agreement finally ended some time around the start of the Red McCombs era. It's a well-known Minnesota company with strong ties, would make a nice family-friendly image, and opens up some interesting cross-marketing opportunities, since food is a big reason to go to a game (and Hormel will still be there regardless).
And those of us who aren't quite classy enough to get behind the ballpark now that it's a fait accompli can refer to the place as 'The Crock'. It's a win-win!
Posted by: David Wintheiser at May 30, 2006 2:55 PM
Probably getting off-topic here, but assuming some variation of Kirby Puckett Park is not feasible, does anyone see any chance of Eloise Pohlad Field?
Given what a big baseball fan everyone said she was, I think I might actually prefer that to a Puckett-related name.
Posted by: Mark Snyder at May 30, 2006 4:48 PM
Something more to dwell on for the next 4 years;
It is pretty much standard procedure for teams to update their uniforms when they move into a new ballpark. What do you think the Twins should do? Go back to the classic Twins script from the 60's and 70's? Ditch the M caps and go all TC? Dare I say powder blue? Or something entirely new (hopefully tastefully retro)?
It seem that when I am at the dome I see more old Twins script and TC caps on fans then the current designs. Also I see the Brewers are going all retro on Sundays now, M b cap and all.
See everyone Thursday.
Posted by: Jiminstpaul at May 30, 2006 5:19 PM
For the love of all that is sacred, please say no to Powder Blue. The only thing that should be used for is feminized versions of the team gear for women and girls, like the pink caps and stuff.
I do prefer the TC cap over the M caps, though. I also prefer something like the current road jerseys with the "MINNESOTA" logo vs. the scripted "TWINS" logo on the home jerseys.
Posted by: Mark Snyder at May 31, 2006 11:28 AM