Greet Machine: It warms the heart

< Odds and Ends | Main | Let us consider the name >

April 12, 2007

It warms the heart

Before I get to my pathetic attempt to review the new ballpark designs, I gotta say that it absolutely warms my heart to see all the anti-ballpark types complaining. Wow, are those comments fun to read! Fun, fun stuff. Every negative comment that comes in to this site, or the Pioneer Press, or MnSpeak puts a big smile on my face. First of all, it is so predictable. What, you don't like the ballpark designs? What a shock! I didn't see that coming. But what really makes these comments so heartwarming is that they are completely meaningless. We are getting a new ballpark and there isn't anything anyone can do about it! So complain all you want if it makes you feel better. It makes me feel pretty good too!

• On with my pathetic attempts to review the designs. I must admit that I am not a ballpark design expert. I know, that is probably shocking for you to read (heavy sarcasm), but I am probably more of an expert on the political side of things. So, I am definitely looking forward to Rick Prescott's take on the stadium over at Twins Ballpark 2010. Rick also may not consider himself to be an expert on ballpark design, but I would disagree. I expect he'll have his review up soon and I expect it will be well worth the read.

First, I'd like to quote something from the official Press Release announcing the designs:

Minnesota’s new ballpark promises to be one of the most accessible sports facilities in all of American sport. The ballpark site sits at the convergence point of the Light Rail Transit (the existing Hiawatha Line and future lines such as the Central Corridor), the future Northstar commuter rail line, the Cedar Lake Bike Trail and Interstates 394 and I-94. Moreover, fans will take advantage of the more than 20,000 parking spots within a five-block radius of the ballpark.

Derek has been harping on this for a while, but this is a pretty good location. First of all there will be many, many different ways to get to the ballpark. The tight quarters also require quite a unique design highlighted by the pedestrian bridge in right field, fan proximity to the action, and the stacking of the upper decks. It is hard to envision right now, but I am very excited to see just what the most "intimate" ballpark in America will actually look and feel like.

I know we all would prefer that the ballpark is at the site the Guthrie now sits on, but this location will do quite well. By the way, if all the anti-ballpark types would have just shut up 10 years ago we would already be playing in that ballpark on the river, with a roof, for probably two-thirds of the cost. Nice work, anti-stadium people! I look forward to seeing how much you can make the new Vikings stadium cost in your efforts to save taxpayer money.

The playing field dimensions are also quite interesting:

Left Field: 339 feet
Left Field Power Alley: 377 feet
Center Field: 404 feet
Right Field Power Alley: 367 feet
Right Field: 328 feet

All of the dimensions but one are shorter than the Metrodome's dimensions. Would it be safe to say that this ballpark will also produce more offense? That would, of course, be very entertaining. Unfortunately these designs also require that the wall in right field be almost as tall as the hefty bag in the Metrodome. I was hoping to leave that behind, but at least it isn't as bad as the Green Monster. Other stuff I like includes:

I like the fact that the design compliments the Minneapolis Public Library and the Guthrie. Good move there. Some people are complaining that the design looks like the Best Buy headquarters. Your point?
I like the Minnesota limestone on the facade and how the fissures and cracks will allow people to see the action without a ticket at certain locations around the exterior. Good gimmick there.
I like that the foul territory is twice as small as the Metrodome's (and probably four times as small as the Oakland Coliseum)
I like that the seating in the lower deck will have 8 inches more leg room than in the Metrodome. For a 6' 5" guy like me that is music to my ears.
I like the wide concourses and the fact that the game will still be visible when I am getting my hot dog.

But most of all I like knowing that when the ballpark opens in 2010, people in the state of Minnesota will be giddy. When that ballpark opens there will be happiness! Everyone will forget about the 10 years of teeth gnashing, everyone will forget about all of the complaining, everyone will be happy. Well, maybe not everyone. There will still be a vocal, whiny minority thinking that we would be better off with a few more pennies in our pockets. But I'll still be laughing. Just like I am now.

Posted by snackeru at April 12, 2007 08:21 PM

Comments

Where are the right field lights??? And it looks like there may be some obstructed views for folks in the upper left field bleachers. If they turn their heads to the left to look at right field, won't the roof of the restaurant/club or whatever that thing is that supports the scoreboard get in the way??

The exterior looks exactly like PNC with the limestone. I'm worried about a steep upper tier like comiskey. oh well, it's still better than the humpty dump and it thankfully doesn't have a roof.

Posted by: kevin in az at April 12, 2007 10:27 PM

Oh and are the Twins going back to the first base dugout - WHERE THEY BELONG?????

Posted by: kevin in az at April 12, 2007 10:30 PM

Kevin,

I was talking with one of the twins representatives at the unveiling and he said they are scrapping the restaurant that is holding the scoreboard...they are looking to extend the upper deck of the left field bleachers. He said it was originally going to be a party suite but they are scrapping it for the sames reasons you stated...the obstructed views.

Posted by: MOJO at April 12, 2007 11:36 PM

I'm afraid the upper deck looks rather high, stacked on top of two levels of luxury suites, and the RF entrance does look like an airport or corporate office design. I'd also like to see deeper power alleys, and some signature feature that is unique to Minnesota. But otherwise it looks nice enough.

I like the LF grandstand, the high wall in RF, and the limestone facing. The skyline view should tie in the park with the downtown, and I expect it will look nice from the seats. Wide concourses: good, especially if they have an open view of the field.

In all, the drawings don't lead me to think Minnesota is getting a new crown jewel of the nation's ballparks, but it looks a lot better than the monstrosity known as Miller Park--and that's no small thing. (Whew!)

I'm looking forward to seeing some models of the design.

Posted by: frightwig at April 12, 2007 11:52 PM

Everyone has been emphasizing the skyline only being visible to the third-base line fans. However, I am curious as to whether the upperdeck first-base line fans will be able to see anything interesting, like the Hennepin Avenue bridge and the St. Anthony area. I think that could be a pretty cool view, but who knows if it will be visible. Given how vertical the design is, I am hopeful... I guess we'll see.

One thing I will mention about the design that I liked was the row of red plants on the top of the outfield walls. My eyes could be playing tricks on me, but that could be a pretty unique way to highlight the wall (rather than the yellow line that a lot of parks have). I also like the common areas and spots where you can look in from outside the park. I do see the argument that brick would have fit better into the warehouse area, but I've been a proponent of limestone... mainly because of the Minnesota element. I think growth around the area will begin to take on the characteristics of the ballpark and it will be a nice blend new and old buildings.

I don't really like the window locations on the limestone that I saw on the rightfield rendering... it reminds me of the New Guthrie (which was probably intended). I personally think the New Guthrie is a deplorable design that will look awfully out-dated in five years, and is completely underserving of such a fantastic river spot. That being said, I've heard the interior of the New Guthrie is nice. I've just never been a fan of weirdly located windows. I think the designers should have made the ballpark windows big, centered, and open.

I have more thoughts, but those are just a few for now.

Posted by: The Rational Actor at April 13, 2007 12:19 AM

I've been getting my impressions down for a couple of hours now and finally got around to looking at other people's reactions. Thanks for the plug, Shane. Sorry I missed you at the unveiling. Janel was pretty cool about the whole thing, and her camera guy thought "Killebrew Field" was a killer potential name! (I don't suppose he has $30 million to spare...)

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that some people don't like it. But I've been looking at ballpark designs and concepts for so long now that I think I can spot a winner, and this definitely looks like one at first glance.

And, to Kevin, the floor plans do show the Twins back in the first base dugout -- where they belong!!!

But I disagree about the interior. You can tell it was designed by the same team which designed PNC, but there are some notable differences worth looking into...

The Best Buy references go way back. Many people also thought it looked like Target headquarters when the limestone drawings first appeared. Of course, either company would make a nice naming partner.

My wife picked up on the Guthrie connection, but I don't see it. Other than architectural sympathy (to a building which is a long way away), there seems no reason to do it. Could be just because that's the "style" these days.

So much to ponder!

Posted by: Rick at April 13, 2007 01:06 AM

I also thought the exterior was weird. I don't know if I would go all the way as to call it ugly, but it's definitely weird.

I'm glad to hear they're scrapping the restaurant under the scoreboard, more seats in the outfield are necessary.

Rick, I am glad the home team will be back in the first base dugout!!!!

Now did anyone ask the question to the "experts" about no light standard in right field?

Posted by: kevin in az at April 13, 2007 04:49 AM

I also hope they name the pressbox after Herb Carneal much like the Wild named their pressbox after Al Shaver.

Oh and was anything ever mentioned about the old flagpole from the Met?

Posted by: kevin in az at April 13, 2007 04:51 AM

Rick has a clip from the news which includes a bit about the flagpole. I will post it here if he doesn't.

Posted by: B.W. at April 13, 2007 08:06 AM

I am not anti-stadium and I don't like it.

So the determination is that if you don't like the stadium you must be anti-stadium? This thing is an abomination for $400 million. Mark my words that in 2012 people will be demanding they renovate it for another $300 million and Pohlad won't pay a dime of that either.

Posted by: cary at April 13, 2007 08:26 AM

Done on the cheap

I truly look forward to outdoor baseball, having recently visited Seattle, San Francisco, Kansas City, Boston and Baltimore during a baseball vacation. However, this spring has shown us that building an open stadium in this climate, without a retractable roof, is foolish at best.

Also they are wedging a baseball stadium into a crowded downtown setting, forcing the fans to continue to use the overpriced parking garages as before.

It's too bad that the opportunity to build a more expansive setting with ample parking and a retractable roof has slipped through our fingers. Another example of penny-pinching, shortsighted planners forcing the Minnesota Twins and their fans to settle for just OK instead of providing us with a WOW experience.

SKIP CHELL, ST. LOUIS PARK

Posted by: Skip at April 13, 2007 08:28 AM

If none of you were affected by the headline in the Strib today reporting about the thousands of Hennepin County family's that have lost their homes, and still feel justified in calling the attention of your representatives away from that tragedy to implement a new tax to build a stadium; then your priorities are truely messed up and all hope is lost.

As many of you head toward your 1/2 a billion dollar entertainment complex, think about the displaced families that could use that $20 or $50 bucks being taken from them over the year and maybe you could match it by dropping by Sharing and Caring Hands, on the way.

Posted by: beenhomeless at April 13, 2007 08:45 AM

Frightwig, I asked one of the architects about what I thought looked to be some pretty steep upper deck and outfield seating and was told the incline will be no different than the Metrodome. So, I was relieved by that.

For those of you that are Twins fans and still don't like the design, by all means let your thoughts be known. All I'm saying above is that anti-stadium people who don't like the design is very, very predictable. In a humorous kind of way (at least for me).

Rational Actor, the architect Free and I were talking to also told us the best seats will be on the third baseline with a view of the city. I expect the first baseline view will be of condos in a couple of years.

I also heard on KARE11 last night that the parking ramp (Garage B) on third could include a kid's area on the top looking out over the park. We were told yesterday that the ramp features an 8 foot wall at the top which is difficult to see over, so it will be interesting to see what happens up there.

I also got a chance to speak with the director of the MBA yesterday who told me that the designs we are seeing right now are from February and that they've already made some changes. He said it was nothing radical but it just points out that they are continually tweaking and making things (hopefully) better. I expect that we'll see new designs come out periodically over the next year.

I also asked him about seeing a scale model of the park, and he said that they need to finalize the design before they shell out the substantial money to make a model.

Finally, beenhomeless, I appreciate your comment. I can certainly understand why you would choose to single out the ballpark for criticism, especially in lieu of the news we heard today about the HC house foreclosures. I heartily endorse your recommendation that we should all donate to the local charity or food shelf of our choice. There is a lot all of us can do to make our community a better place for everyone, and we should definitely consider these types of options.

Posted by: Shane at April 13, 2007 09:06 AM

Skip,

If you're complaining about the price of parking in MPLS, I would like to know how much you paid to park in SF and Boston. Since you are traveling from St. Louis Park, instead of driving NE to dt mpls, go straight east and park for FREE at the Ft. Snelling lot and buy a round trip rail pass for $3.00 and get dropped off and picked up in left field...you can't beat it. Sure the Embarcadero in SF offers transit right to the doorstep of AT&T Park as well, but Kenmore station at fenway is a haul and BOTH of those parks have much more limited parking options than MPLS and cost MUCH MUCH more.

Beenhomeless,

Where do you get off thinking that ballpark supporters are somehow anti-homeless? The main reason for all of the foreclosures across the nation is because during the housing boom, people bought homes WAY beyond their means and lenders offered ridiculous 0 down or 5% down deals, which left people with enormous monthly mortgage pmts. People losing their homes have to look in the mirror as well. I'm not sure how the ballpark is putting people out of their homes.

Posted by: kevin in az at April 13, 2007 09:21 AM

Kev - granted some people were enticed to get in over their heads, but that industry is just now being regulated to prevent that from happening again. Had this been recognized earlier, the broadness of this impact could have been minimized. And I think you’d be wrong to paint everybody in this situation, with one brush.

Also; just a guess, but based on what I'm experiencing, double digit property tax increases cannot be helping the affordability of these homes. I personally know 1 family whose financial security is being jeopardized by property taxes going up $100 per month, just this year (coupled with a job loss and interest rate hike) but none of these events are within their control.

Ballpark supporters may not be "anti-homeless" but actions do speak louder than words and the fact that an entertainment complex took precedence over addressing the numerous socio-economic problems in Hennepin County, speaks volumes about our priorities.

Face it. While most arguments center on the use of tax dollars in support of government functions one may or may not use; most discretionary tax dollars, beyond fixing roads and paying for government, go to support the most disadvantaged people in our society. LRT is mostly to transport the economically oppressed from areas where they can afford to live, to areas where they can work for minimum wage. HC medical center provides health care to mostly the uninsured. Few if any middle to upper middle class residents from the suburbs, or anybody with a computer, patronizes the library system.

The arts and sports are benefactors of tax dollars mainly due to the successful petitioning of government by a minority of people who prefer a distraction or their own entertainment at the expense of others (because if it truly were up to the users to fund these facilities, we’d find out how unimportant they really are). Government’s role should never be to impose the redistribution of wealth for the benefit of entertainment, and the more people who look to government to fulfill this role, the less money, time and attention can be afforded those issues and causes for which government is necessary and what its intended role should be.

The ultimate conclusion of people requiring government to address and provide for all their needs, from the basic (food, shelter, health care) to the frivolous (stadiums), is the end of capitalism and the advent of socialism. Its amazing to me that in the year 2007, with the myriad of entertainment options available, including following your favorite team on any one of the hundreds of cable/satellite channels or the internet, that a community could rationalize redirecting hundreds of millions of dollars to provide just one more option.

Posted by: beenhomeless at April 13, 2007 10:11 AM

Just a couple of things:

I like that the CF thing is going away. I'd rather see them try something else.

I still dont get the lack of a RF lighting standard, as has been mentioned.

Love that they are moving to the proper dugout.

As to some of the critics. Skip - you dont build ballparks in cornfields... baseball, and it's 81 game home season requires a nearby audience of season ticket holders (for the twins many work downtown, or within 10 minutes of there). you build it right where they are building it. The site is small, as are most of the best stadium sites in America (Fenway, Wrigley, AT&T Park, Jacobs Field, Safeco, PNC). Most of the big sites in MLB house so-so to awful facilities (Metrodome, Miller Park, SkyDome, Oakland, Tampa, Miami). With a few exceptions (KC and Dodger Stadium) ballparks are best when they in the urban center, and forced by location to be innovative and creative.

Beenhomeless -

Support for the stadium has nothing to do with those unfortunate people losing their homes. The lenders should NEVER have made those loans. The people who took those loans did what any sane person being offered the chance to own a home would do... unfortunately for myriad reasons... they couldn't keep them.

I've said before on this blog, I'm "pro stuff" I'm in favor of doing things... and housing is no exception. But to attempt to corralate the two is misguided. I sense that much of your frustration stems from reading the two headlines juxtaposed, can't totally say that I blame you for that one.

Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2007 10:11 AM

Forget the homeless, hungry, kids needing help with higher education, crime, security, the environment.......

?Grown? men want to watch millionaire players run around a field in tight pants!

Posted by: mary at April 13, 2007 10:20 AM

Two more things that were mentioned yesterday that I thought was pretty cool..... 1. On non game days, as people get off of the northstar rail and light rail they will be able to walk through the concorse on their way to downtown. They will basically have the area between parking ramp B and the field open for people to just walk through and see the field. The only downside I see to this is that stupid people could do stupid things to the field when nobody is around.

2. There are going to be tons of bars and restaurants in the stadium.....there will be 3 clubs under the main grandstand. One exclusive club behind home plate and one on each side that will be non exclusive (first and third base line). All three will be hidden below the seats. There will be one on the top floor of the building behind the foul pool in left field. One above the batter eye in center field. And finally, the two I will be attending most often are located on the top floor...there is one on the first base line and one on the third base line. Both are behind glass and will have views of the field. The Twins representative said all of these clubs will be indoors so fans can escape the cold and heat and still watch the game live.

Posted by: MOJO at April 13, 2007 10:25 AM

"Ballpark supporters may not be "anti-homeless" but actions do speak louder than words and the fact that an entertainment complex took precedence over addressing the numerous socio-economic problems in Hennepin County, speaks volumes about our priorities"

I totally disagree. Many of us do contribute to causes of all sorts, but choose not to wear it on our sleeves. Your remark sounds to me that if there are people that can't afford to go to a ball game, nobody should go to a ballgame, movies, carnival, vacation. All of their money aside from barebones survival should go to everyone else. If there are people that are sad, nobody should be happy.

When was the last time you had some fun? I'm flying to town Memorial Day week. Let me take you to a twins game while I'm there. Even if you're struggling, you're allowed to smile and have some fun too beenhomeless guy. Life is way too short to take it so seriously. When all is said and done, wealthy Bill Gates will end up just as dead as homeless joe under the bridge.

It's also VERY important for government to invest in it's community, especially if it's a facility which will bring in FAR MORE in tax revenue than what was spent. It's called investment. It's more money coming in that can help with homelessness, education, libraries, etc. Think outside the box.

Posted by: kevin in az at April 13, 2007 10:32 AM

I have to say that I am totally thrilled. I've been looking to purchase a condo/loft since the beginning of the year, and moving downtown near the proposed stadium has always been my plan. While the hiccups with the land were a drag, I kept on looking anyway. Well, yesterday two dreams of mine were realized. The Twins stadium was unveiled and I signed the paperwork for my first home that I will own - and it's on Washington Ave only 5 blocks away from the site!

Waiting 6 months for the condo to be finished so I can move in is going to bad enough - but having to wait 2 1/2 more years for the stadium to be complete - that's going to hurt even more!

Posted by: barry at April 13, 2007 10:41 AM

Congrats Barry!

I hope you put a good chunk of change down on that condo. If you didn't, you may want to read the comments here. I've read that both downtowns are trying to attract permanent residents instead of the typical renters. Homeowners take much more pride in their neighborhood than temporary tennants. This will hopefully transform 2 dead downtowns.

Posted by: kevin in az at April 13, 2007 10:45 AM

Kev - We'll have to agree to disagree. Among the many things I believe government should stay out of; "investment" in anything other than the direct health and welfare of its citizens, is one that I feel most strongly about.

"investing" millions of dollars in an area to rationalize raising taxes on private citizens surrounding said "investment" and to argue using those funds for the purposes you bypassed by not funding them directly, doesn't make sense.

Good day.

Posted by: beenhomeless at April 13, 2007 10:50 AM

Huh? a mini condo boom? that should help LPII/Hines prop up their 40 million dollar asking price.

Posted by: STM at April 13, 2007 11:02 AM

CJ - To put Miller Park on par with the Metrodome is a load of crap. I know that everyone in MN seemingly has some hatred of all things WI, but that's just ridiculous.

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at April 13, 2007 11:05 AM

Congrats Barry! Owning rather than renting is one of those big moments in life... i'll likely never get there with what my occupation pays ;)

Craig, i wasn't putting it on par at all. My personal take on Miller park is that it is so-so. the dome, tampa, miami they are truely terrible.

My experience with miller park was that, due to the giant site, and the indoor baseball feel, it was a so-so park. nothing personal, and it's a damn sight better than county stadium, but i really think something in downtown milwaukee would have been better, maybe near the lakefront, or at the old Pabst brewery site. i feel like Milwaukee wasted an opportunity by chosing the giant site in Wauwatosa (or almost in Wauwastoa) rather than going downtown.

That said, to restate my point... it's in a class well above the dome, the trop, the fish tank. and it's a few steps above SkyDome as well... but i think it illustrates my point that large footprint stadiums rarely become the best of the stadium crop.

Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2007 11:26 AM

Well as a proponent count me in the camp of than thrilled. I recognize that the site has limitations and they tried to do their best with what the site and with the money available, but I just hoped for more.

What I liked
1. Looks like we will be closer to the action. Smaller foul lines, first row down near the field level behind home means everyone is closer.

2. The multi-tiered approach to the second deck. I was afraid that given the space constraints, second deck fans would have to walk up the eqivalent of a step ladder to get there.

3. The idea of glimpses of the game as you come down sixth street. To bad traffic on 6th runs away from the ballpark.

4. The right field concourse viewing.

5. Windows to let light into the concourse.

Dislikes

1. The two jutting protrosions at the RF entry. I know "if Frank Lloyd Wright built a ballpark" and all that, but it looks contrived.

2. I see the architects say LF seats are know steeper than the Metrodome, but I will have to see it to believe it.

3. More "cheap seats" ala LF and RF. While you won't find me there now. In my younger days it would have been how I could affort to see a game--it builds a fan base.

4. No escalators. Based on the cut aways it looks like fans move up and down levels via ramps (like at the Met for those old enough to remember). That works for some, but if I take my dad to a game, he would have trouble with all the walking.

5. The "crown of lights". I know modern and all that, but I love good old fashion light standards. They say "ballpark" to me.

Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 13, 2007 11:37 AM

I also dislike the crown of lights...if i'm sitting i the outfield, i think it would kill my eyes at night. also it will attract too many bugs for the fans sitting in the upper level. use light standards that are higher than the canopy covering the fans.

Posted by: kevin in az at April 13, 2007 11:48 AM

beenhomeless,

Believe me, I get your point of view. But, I struggle with people that only come out to complain about public subidies when it relates to sports facilities. The is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the $Billions Minnesota government doles out to various businesses as incentives.

I have given the list here before, but the downtown Target store didn't have any picketers, the Guthrie, Museums, corporate campuses by the dozens, the Convention Center, and the list goes on forever. Were you there complaining and protesting when these subsidies were approved? If so, then I will stop typing. But if not, then you really should start following this; because it happens every day in some form, in cities across the State.

As for me, I pay thousands of dollars in taxes. A while I don't make a lot of money, I donate even more than I pay in taxes, to charitable organizations every year. I rarely get to see the benefits of my contributions. I don't necessarily need to in order to justify it, but this is one subsidy that will provide me with tremendous joy over the next 30 years. It is a tangible result from a very small personal investment.

I think it backwards that governments have had to get involved in subsidizing pro sports, but that is the age we live in. Since the first public subsidized stadium, County Stadium in Milwaukee, governments across the nation have seen the benefit, and I do too.

Posted by: Derek at April 13, 2007 12:17 PM

Two things first, then on to other things...

Skip, if you're worried about overpriced parking garages, don't park in them. Ever heard of the thing called walking? A majority of us, me included, could use some exercise. Save some money, park elsewhere, and improve your health.

Mary, I guess it's news to me that the only people who go to Twins games are men. Did you hear that folks? Only men can go to Twins games. Don't bring along the girlfriend, the wife, the daughter, the sister, the aunt, the grandma. They can't enjoy the game! Only men can "watch millionaire players run around a field in tight pants!"

I love the fact we'll have outdoor baseball in 2010. Those who think we need a roof, it isn't going to happen, can't happen, won't happen on this spot. Miller Park is quasi-outdoor. Even when the roof is open, you still have the walls out in the outfield. This is a true outdoor park. We'll have to deal with the weather. You won't go when it's cold? Okay, sell me your tickets because I'll make sure they're used. Rainouts? It happens, deal with it. Snowouts/coldouts? Just means we have the possibility of doubleheaders. Remember when those were actually scheduled once in awhile? Sure we've been in the Dome since 1982. I was born in 1981. The only outdoor games I've seen have been at Wrigley, old County Stadium, Miller Park, Kaufmann Field, and a variety of places during Spring Training. I've heard stories from my parents and grandparents about baseball at the Metropolitan Stadium. I want to experience it and pass these stories down to my kids eventually. End of rant.

Mylometer

Posted by: Mylometer at April 13, 2007 12:21 PM

I'm not sold on the 'crown of lights' but i think it could compliment 626 South Sixth Street very nicely. (that's the one with the halo of lights at the top)... but we'll have to see about that.

Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2007 01:01 PM

Did anyone else get a kick out the Strib's headline this morning:

"Above us only sky"

I thought that was a really cool nod to John Lennon's Imagine. Thought the vibe was right on. Plus it probably just burns the anti-ballpark zealots to have an iconic Lennon song used to celebrate the new Twins Ballpark.

Imagine indeed.

Posted by: Freealonzo at April 13, 2007 01:17 PM

Got this from my deep connected buddy; believe it or not.

This whole big publicity thing is meant to push Pohlad to kick in more to settle the BN railroad thing. They are hoping that the fear of loss of prestige if he backs out of coming up with more money for settling the railroad issue is enough to push Pohlad deepter into his billfold.

This makes sense. If it falls apart now the county can blame Pohlad saying he had his chance and walked.

Posted by: jeff at April 13, 2007 01:30 PM

It wouldn't seem to make sense, since the Twins as an organization have the designs, and gave them to the county to display.

in addition Jerry Bell, Dave St. Peter, Ron Gardenhire, Tony Oliva, etc. were on hand as representatives of the team.

if it was truly meant to put "pressure on carl" why would HIS TEAM be the one cohosting the event?

Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2007 01:45 PM

CJ, even his own Twins management team is tired of the recalcitrant Pohlad.

They are the ones pushing and pushing him for the stadium and are sick of talking to a wall.

I also think that if Pohlad walks from this deal over the additional cost for the rail, etc., his management walks also. Carl is looking at a rebellion.

Posted by: jeff at April 13, 2007 02:16 PM

Derek-

I realize I’m being a “Debbie Downer�? here and also realize that it’s pointless to counter the beliefs of the role of government, on a blog that obviously supports the role that government played in this endeavor. However, before I leave, let me burden you with two more points.

1.) The rationalization of this specific occurrence by pointing out that this “wrong�? has happened before and happens elsewhere, only serves to provide an excuse for us, as participants in this process, from having the courage to say: “No, this is not the role of our government.�?

How else does something change if we simply continue doing it because that’s the way it’s always been done? And is that the role we expect of our government?

2.) You need to separate tax subsidies from direct government spending. Choosing to forego tax revenue for a period of time as an incentive for companies to locate in a certain area, is much different than raising taxes to pay for facilities for a private enterprise. You honestly don’t think that the County or the City actually raised taxes and wrote a check to pay for any part of the Target HQ building, do you? Or that the convention center isn’t paid for through rent of the facility?

Posted by: beenhomeless at April 13, 2007 02:20 PM

CJ-
Sorry, I misinterpreted your post.

Miller Park was made where it was as the Brewers already owned the land, the parking issues were non-existant and they simply could piggy back on some of the infrastructure items from County Stadium. So it was mainly for cost effectiveness that the stadium was put where it was. Saved the team and the city tens of millions of dollars not just in stadium costs itself, but in highway changes for access as far more work would have needed to have been done for a different site.

Say, when is there going to be a Greet Machine get-together at a Twins game? I've heard of the Twins blogger get-together (damn elitist media types they are), but we should do our own get-together. That way I can buy CJ a dome dog as a peace offering.

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at April 13, 2007 02:21 PM

Or that the convention center isn’t paid for through rent of the facility?

I honestly do think that the convention center IS paid for by taxes. There is a convention center district (read downtown) "entertainment tax". Look at any resteraunt or bar bill from downtown. You will see an added percentage to the sales tax (3% I believe).

Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 13, 2007 02:29 PM

Or that the convention center isn’t paid for through rent of the facility?

Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 13, 2007 02:32 PM

My takes:

That upper-upper-deck looks awfully high, and the cross-section shows it is going to be pushed WAY back from the field. Kind of ironic they call it the "View Level." I really wish they would have included some deck overhangs -- not Tiger Stadium, but something more substantial than what they have. That would have represented a real break from modern ballpark design, but also a dent to the Twins pocketbook.

Actually, lopping off the top deck entirely would probably be better, if they could then shift the footprint slightly and add additional outfield seating. Even without that shift, though, there seems to be a lot of wasted real estate in the outfield, especially in right field. You could easily add a seating deck in place of that plaza without impacting the skyline view at all.

Also, the bullpens take up some good seating areas in left-center. The should really put those in CF (where the trees are now) to serve as the hitter's backdrop, since they can't put seats there anyway. (Personally, I've grown accustomed to the bullpens along the foul lines, but I understand that takes more space.)

I think the renderings look nice, and fitting the ballpark effectively into that space is impressive. But as I fully expected, they haven't compromised maximum profitability at all for greater fan access and affordability (hence why I pushed for some seating capacity and price guarantees in the legislation). If they can keep that upper-deck in LF affordable (new student/family section? Cheap Seats?), it could be all right, although the significantly reduced capacity could render price moot.

Posted by: spycake at April 13, 2007 02:38 PM

Some of the 3% E tax goes towards the convention center, but over 75% of the convention center operating costs are offset by charges and rents for the facility;

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/city-budget/2005adopted/docs/S5SRFConvFunds_AB05.pdf

Most of the money raised through the E tax is conveniently spent on a ton of other things, including the general fund, that the City council deems worthy.

Posted by: Kaz at April 13, 2007 02:54 PM

The convention center is a public building. That's totally apples and oranges. All you have to do is follow the money; if the convention center sold naming rights, who gets the money? who will get the money from stadium naming rights?

enough said. Two entirely different situations.

Posted by: Buck Faseball at April 13, 2007 03:01 PM

Did you even READ the document that you posted a link to? Sure, rents from the convention center pay for 75% of the operating costs, but that totally ignores the debt service. The city taxes go toward paying that remaining 25% of operating costs as well as between $16 and $17 million per year for debt service, and the outstanding debt for building the complex stands at around $310 million, according to that little summary.

Why does it make sense? Because it's an INVESTMENT in the community intended to generate economic activity. The stadium is the same. Contrary to what others have said, it will be a PUBLIC building, owned by the Minnesota Ballpark Authority, just like the Metrodome is owned by the Metropolitan Sports Commission. By agreement, the MBA will transfer certain revenues to the Twins.

Plus, if you look at all the taxes that combine to fund the Convention Center (3% entertainment, 3% liquor, 3% restaurant, etc.), .15% tax for the stadium looks puny by comparison.

So ... angry about being taxed for big buildings? Take your fight to the Convention Center, it is the true enemy.

Posted by: The Tube at April 13, 2007 03:33 PM

Craig,

No worries. As to the particulars of how the Milwaukee deal went down, I remember reading about it in my resarch for my senior thesis in college.

I like what they did in a lot of respects, considering what they had to work with. The in/out of a game is okay, and it's awesome for tailgates. it just doesn't have the intimacy that i would want in park, and in a lot of ways it feels like it misses out on any real Wisconsin flavor, much to its detriment. That said, it has character, and I LOVE LOVE LOVE the murals in the concourse... seriously, the Twins should rip this off wholesale.

Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2007 03:46 PM

The only outdoor baseball game I have ever seen (and the Nothern League and college baseball don't count in my mind) was 7 innings of the Cincinnati Reds in the old Riverfront. Imagine the Dome without a roof, and you have Riverfront. There was no shelter from the sun, and by the seventh inning my then two year old was overheated and we had to leave. I will not criticize the new stadium at all because anything is an improvement my past outdoor baseball experiences. It is also an improvement over both the Dome and the old Met.

Let me also comment on beenhomeless. I agree with the notion that government shouldn't be investing in private business. In a perfect world, this wouldn't need to happen. Obviously, this is not a perfect world. Governments at every level (local, county, state and national) routinely assist businesses and other non-public entities. While I would prefer this not happen, it does. If Hennepin County chose not to build the stadium, and the Twins then contracted or moved, who really benefits? No one! We would all be denied having Major League Baseball in this area of the Upper Midwest, and the personal economics of Hennepin County taxpayes would not improve to any great extent.

Curt in Grand Forks

Posted by: Curt Hanson at April 13, 2007 03:47 PM

From my understanding, the old County Stadium in Milwaukee was actually a nice place to watch a ballgame -- the seats were plentiful and very close to the action. I'm told it's biggest fault was maintainence, which was most likely a product of thrifty ownership.

I've heard similar things about Met Stadium and the Griffith ownership.

Posted by: spycake at April 13, 2007 03:59 PM

The Debt service and debt balance is largely due to the governments other foray into stadiums; the Target Center debacle.

The true owner of the facility is the true benefactor of it's revenues. It doesn't matter how you want to reframe the lie. It is what it is.

Hotel/bar taxes around the Convention Center make sense. That's like a user fee. How about a $10.00 ticket tax? why should purchases in Rogers, MN benefit the area around 57 Santana Street?

Posted by: Buck Faseball at April 13, 2007 04:07 PM

Some of the 3% E tax goes towards the convention center, but over 75% of the convention center operating costs are offset by charges and rents for the facility;

Really. Checking out the most recent budget for the Convention Center at:

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/city-budget/2007adopted/docs/2007AB_Sec9_ConvCtr.pdf

Operating Expenses (Not counting debt service) $28.1 million
Operating Revenues (those great rents and charges you mention) $14.6 million

Last time I checked 14.6 was not 50% of 28.1. Hmm, maybe we do need to spend more on math education.

why should purchases in Rogers, MN benefit the area around 57 Santana Street?
Because the increased value of the properties surrounding the ballpark mean that they will share a great portion of the property tax burden than they do now.

Posted by: pragmatic_cynic at April 13, 2007 04:19 PM

CJ- Miller Park was part of your thesis in college? I'd love to hear more about that. Possibly at the Greet Machine Twins Get-Together?

We can talk stadiums while watching men in tight pants run around. Wait, wouldn't that be the ballet?

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at April 13, 2007 04:19 PM

I love the stadium. One thing I would change is I wish it had more foul territory. I fear this could end up being a hitters park. Another thing that worries me is the canopy. Will half the seats be in the shade?

Posted by: bruce at April 13, 2007 04:20 PM

I hope you don't mind Shane, but I pointed the MNSpeak people here to your Roof analysis. There was a bit of a debate going on about it, and what you said summed it up nicely. So, I linked you. What could be better than an 80 degree day spending outside on some baseball?

/OT

I have mixed feelings about the stadium. I like some of the things they are doing. Yes it would have been nicer to be where the Guthrie is, but oh well.

I wonder about the things that don't show in the images. Where is the sun going to be? What are the shadows going to be like? What is the wind going to do?

I also think the upper upper deck appears awfully high. Definitely Bob Uecker territory. Those will not be so cozy.

I'll see y'all in the bleachers!!!

Posted by: DouglasG at April 13, 2007 04:21 PM

Prag - You want to restate your position? check you link. And when can I expect a property tax reduction based on the substantial increased revenue from properties surrounding the stadium?

This isn't about comparing the convention center to the stadium anyway. If it were, we'd only be discussing a tax that affects the hospitality industries surrounding each facility.

Posted by: Buck Faseball at April 13, 2007 04:34 PM

The Debt service and debt balance is largely due to the governments other foray into stadiums; the Target Center debacle.

From the Convention Center document: "Outstanding debt for the Convention Center is approximately $310 million in total."

The $310 million has NOTHING to do with other stadiums.

The true owner of the facility is the true benefactor of it's revenues. It doesn't matter how you want to reframe the lie. It is what it is.

Hmm ... it's easier to maintain your argument when your definitions keep shifting, isn't it? First it's not a public building, but when it's revealed that it is a public building, apparently that doesn't matter because by your novel definition ownership is determined by where the benefits flow. Thus, I believe you are doing the "reframing."

Posted by: The Tube at April 13, 2007 04:43 PM

Craig,

sounds like fun. too bad a virus nuked my paper itself (that's right, i have no record of my biggest acomplishment in college)

by the way, Paul Lukas, the guy who runs uniwatchblog.com will be at Nye's on May 11th... i'm hoping to be there, hope some of the other greet machiners will too.

Posted by: CJ at April 13, 2007 04:50 PM

Change your name to "tool"

The debt total is for the entire "Convention Center district operation" which absorbed the target center, certain parking operations and the convention center as well.

Did this conversation happen with yourself? the convention center IS a public building, the stadium is NOT. When did my definition ever change?

Posted by: Buck Faseball at April 13, 2007 04:50 PM

he debt total is for the entire "Convention Center district operation" which absorbed the target center, certain parking operations and the convention center as well.

City budgeting documents account for debt service for parking ramps and the convention center separately. There is no mention of the convention center debt service including Target Center. In fact, parts of the entertainment tax collected in the convention center fund are transferred OUT into a special Target Center fund.

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/city-budget/2006adopted/docs/Sec05_AB06.pdf

the convention center IS a public building, the stadium is NOT.

"The Minnesota Ballpark Authority was created by state legislation in May 2006 to guide the construction and operation of a new Twins ballpark and ultimately own it on behalf of the citizens of Minnesota."

http://www.twinsballpark.orgyou

Your definition changed when you defined "true" owner.

Change your name to "tool"

I'll keep my name as it is, thank you very much. Meanwhile, feel free to go "Buck" yourself.

Posted by: The Tube at April 13, 2007 05:12 PM

"It's Minnesota's ballpark, it's the people's ballpark," said Twins President Dave St. Peter.

Do we get to have a say in naming "our" ballpark?

Posted by: BMac at April 13, 2007 05:24 PM

Tard -

What a "fish" you are. If they say it, it must be true right? wanna buy a bridge?

The revenue is transferred out, the debt is still there. I guess it's too technical for you, but again, you're simple enough to believe anything you're told to believe.

Posted by: Buck Faseball at April 13, 2007 05:39 PM

the Tube is clearly a fool and a sucker.

Posted by: STM at April 13, 2007 05:51 PM

How come when the Twins get beat by the Yankees its because they have a 190M payroll and it isn't fair; but when the Twins beat the Devil Rays (Twins payroll is 3 times greater than the Devil Rays), it's because the Twins are better?

Posted by: STM at April 13, 2007 06:04 PM

Shane - thank you for this post, and thank you for allowing the posts from Mary, STM, and Buck Faseball and the rest of the anti-stadium zealots. Reading their thoughts has deepened my pro-stadium stance to an even higher level.

I rather go through life as a dreamer and a fool (STM's word) than angry and bitter.

Posted by: Jeff T. at April 13, 2007 07:45 PM

From my understanding, the old County Stadium in Milwaukee was actually a nice place to watch a ballgame..."
----------

I really enjoyed my visit to County Stadium in 2000. It had the genuine feel of a great, old-fashioned ballpark in numerous ways. It was one of those places that made you feel like you had stepped back in time, before ballparks became mallparks. One of my favorites out of the many parks I've visited.

I suspect Selig let the place get run down to convince the public that he really needed a new facility; but the only necessity it really lacked, for today's game, was the fancy new luxury suites. (The monochrome scoreboard was also out of date, but that was part of the charm.) IMO, it's a damn shame they tore it down to build what is the worst of all the ballparks built since Camden Yards opened. I hate Miller Park, and it has nothing to do with it being in Wisconsin. It's just a badly designed stadium, the model for What Not To Do When Building a Ballpark.

Posted by: frightwig at April 13, 2007 09:02 PM

Frightwig - You are one of a small minority with the County Stadium stance. I respect it and anyone who (still) likes that stadium, and voices it is ok in my book (even if I disagree with said stance).

Posted by: Cheesehead Craig at April 13, 2007 10:00 PM

I was wondering if maybe Shane or anybody else with exposure to anybody from the Twins or HC could ask them; "if they knew they were lying when they said a referendum would cause too long of a delay, or if they just supposed it would?" as we sit here 5 + months after the fact without a land deal.

Also, "do they consider intentionally misleading constituents part of their job?" and, "is this they only issue where lying has applied, or are there others issues that require lying to further their own agenda?"

Just wondering.

Posted by: Kaz at April 13, 2007 10:38 PM

Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.756, subd. 1 (2006):

The authority may sue and be sued. The authority is a public body and the ballpark and public infrastructure are public improvements within the meaning of chapter 562.

It's not what I "believe." It's the law. Nice try though.

Also, unlike the Convention Center, ALL of the operating costs will be covered by the users.

Minn. Stat. Sec. 473.756, subd. 9 (2006):

"The lease or use agreement with a team shall provide for the payment by the team of operating and maintenance costs and expenses and provide other terms the authority and team agree to."

Posted by: The Tube at April 13, 2007 11:18 PM

Jeff,

It's clear that STM, Buck, mary, mark, and whatever other alias the guy uses is here for one reason. To antagonize the majority. The language they use is incindiary, and foul.

hmm.

I'm all for the alternate opinion. But calling people 'moron' or 'idiot' is simply trolling for attention.

Posted by: Drake33 at April 14, 2007 01:25 AM

Agreed, drake. It's why I've stopped reading and responding to those folks, even though I'm probably more sympathetic to their ballpark views than most.

Posted by: spycake at April 14, 2007 08:37 AM

Tube –

Fine. If you believe that a contrived entity formed to hold title to a facility (only to appease the letter of law concerning the application of tax revenue by the way) collects taxes to service it’s debt while the Twins (a private entity) enjoy all the revenue generated through ticket sales, concessions, naming rights and suite sales while only nominally paying for operating expenses and maintenance fits your definition of “public�? and makes it therefore identical to the convention center where all the revenues flow to the City of Mpls, then you’re right, I guess there’s no difference.

Posted by: Buck Faseball at April 14, 2007 08:55 AM

People, just ignore the trolling comments. Don't respond. Don't react. It's easy.

I'm off to the Guthrie to see The Merchant of Venice this afternoon, thankful I live in a town that has so many cultural options. Have a great weekend everyone!

Posted by: Shane at April 14, 2007 09:22 AM

It's funny that even bringing up the convention center in my post took all of the argument away from public subsidies to businesses and focused it on that one item. in any event, it does not matter whether a direct subsidy or a tax break or TIF or whatever...it's all about the government bringing in less money to support business. IT HAPPENS EVERYWHERE BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE. Now, I will agree that from a pure financial standpoint, and ballpark is a worse investment than a downtown target store or dozens of corporate campuses which provide more jobs. But, a ballpark provides a quality-of-life intangible that you can't put a price on.

Anyway, this ballpark will be the best in the majors for me. And even though I won't reap any financial rewards, I will reap countless rewards from spending an afternoon with my family in the sun, watching my favorite team battle on the field. And, that's worth 3 cents on $20 to me.

One more thing: do the anti-ballpark people on this site ever intend to go to a game? I am just curious. I can see both sides. Going to a game, even with a free ticket, is indeed supporting the very thing you are preaching against. On the other hand, you could use the argument that you are trying to discover why so many of us are pro-ballpark. I would like to hear your takes.

Posted by: Derek at April 14, 2007 11:47 AM

Shane,

One housekeeping item: how long before we have the latest drawings included in the headers for your site?

Posted by: Derek at April 14, 2007 11:49 AM

In today's Strib, there is a note mentioning that the Vikings will be releasing stadium drawings on April 19th. The stadium will indeed be on the current Metrodome site. It is indicated that if this stadium were to be approved (which is a long shot in the near future), the plan is to have the Vikings play on campus for three years in TCF Bank Stadium while the new Vikings stadium is being built.

I have an inside source with the Vikings and he confirmed that the Gopher stadium will be the Vikings home for three years if this happens. However, he said he is not holding his breath for approval this session.

Also, I should mention that in St. Paul Mayor Coleman's state of the City address a couple weeks ago, he indicated that there are plans for a new Saints ballpark and a new facility for the Thunder to be built along the riverfront in St. Paul. Total price would be in the $50-$60M range, as these are relatively small facilities. It would be a large family-oriented sports theme park on the lower side of the river looking up at the skyline...which would be very nice.

Posted by: Derek at April 14, 2007 02:34 PM

Cheesehead, in what ways do you feel that Miller Park is better than the late, great County Stadium?

Posted by: frightwig at April 15, 2007 03:42 AM

Hey Kaz,
You say, "Also, "do they consider intentionally misleading constituents part of their job?" and, "is this they only issue where lying has applied, or are there others issues that require lying to further their own agenda?"
Why don't you ask them? I suspect you may have first hand experience in these areas and Shane does not.
It must be difficult to see "the joy in Mudville" for the new stadium while you yourself are still wallowing around in the mud.

Just wondering.

Posted by: Jimmy Jack at April 15, 2007 10:41 AM

Miller Park has some very nice features. The sightlines are great. The overall aesthetics are nice, too. The giant roof doesn't look out of scale from the exterior. It looks like a giant factory that fits in the Milwaukee landscape. The murals on the inside are fantastic, too.

It loses major points on the interior experience, however, thanks to the roof. Even when open, it feels like you're inside. It's so big (the roof alone is as tall as the ballpark's grandstand) it casts long shadows all over the field. The grandstands are largely under the roof. You never feel like you're outside.

Another minus is the outfield configuration. Thanks to the tracks that hold up the roof, you never get the sense that the 'open' end of the stadium is actually open, even if the sliding wall panels are retracted. The scoreboard doesn't help things in that regard. Furthermore, tight space (thanks to the roof tracks) limits the outfield seating possibilities.

One of my sticking points is location. I realize that placing it where it is was a pragmatic choice that required no land acquisition and allowed the Brewer tailgating tradition to continue, but I would have opted for something in a more urban context. Tailgating is great, but you have no other choice but to drive to Miller Park.

On the plus side, the name is great. Even if it's a corporate name, it's a Milwaukee company, and companies named after people just sound better, IMO.

Miller Park is a giant missed opportunity, IMO.

Posted by: Alex at April 15, 2007 12:52 PM

April 15th - 62 and sunny. Would anyone like to be a dome today?

Posted by: Jeff T. at April 15, 2007 01:43 PM

Or IN a dome I mean. Nobody really wants to BE a dome...

Posted by: Jeff T. at April 15, 2007 01:44 PM

JJ -

I understand your joy. I imagine I'd be jumping around all arm wavy if I could spread the costs of whatever it was I wanted, across a million or so people, so I could enjoy it for only pennys'. Or, maybe I wouldn't.

Posted by: Kaz at April 16, 2007 07:32 AM

"Miller Park has some very nice features. The sightlines are great. The overall aesthetics are nice, too. The giant roof doesn't look out of scale from the exterior. It looks like a giant factory that fits in the Milwaukee landscape. The murals on the inside are fantastic, too."
------

I wouldn't even give the place good marks on most of these points. The sightlines, in my experience, are not good. The incline of the LF bleachers is graded too flat, so the field view from most of the seats there is obstructed by the OF wall. The overhang from the 2nd level significantly diminishes the views from the back rows elsewhere on the lower level and from the concourse. And the top deck is pretty high.

I don't think the roof is a good aesthetic match for the old-fashioned brick exterior. It's like an alien ship crashed on top of Ebbets Field. The windows above the upper deck cast a weird glare and shadow patterns across the field, and into the eyes of some fans. The back end of the park, which is the first thing most fans see when approaching from the parking lot, looks like a shed or aircraft hangar. Inside, as you say, you don't really feel like you're in an outdoor park for baseball, even if the roof is open. You feel like you're in an enclosed, multipurpose stadium.

I could take or leave the concourse murals. I preferred the white brick tile and the chalet facades on the concourses at County Stadium.

Posted by: frightwig at April 16, 2007 06:58 PM

I'm no ballpark expert, but I wasn't impressed with Miller Park either, not by a long shot. I think the community would have been much better served by building a baseball park rather than a "stadium" but it probably doesn't matter terribly to the team, given the current economics of the game.

Posted by: spycake at April 16, 2007 09:10 PM

April 12, 2007

It warms the heart

Comments

Post a comment

The views and opinions expressed in this page are strictly those of the page author. The contents of this page have not been reviewed or approved by the University of Minnesota.