Close Dodger Stadium...

"Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
news:aag1hvsdhv8tfm4lppuhgjp3fnb77jgm5d@4ax.com...
> On 13 Jul 2003 01:46:07 GMT, shadowchasr3 DeleteThis @aol.com (SHADOWCHASR3)
> wrote:
>
> >I agree that they should close Dodger Stadium. Sure there's a lot of
tradition,
> >etc. but that can only go so far. A new state of the art stadium would
make you
> >forget about the old Dodger Stadium pretty quick. A lof of people didn't
want
> >the Lakers to move out of the Forum. Looking back I'm glad they got out
of
> >there. You can always keep Dodger Staduim open as an artafact or
something.
>
> You're right! Who needs such things as magnificent sightlines from
> every seat, the best view outside of the park in US sports, fantastic
> tradition, and some of the least expensive tickets in the major
> leagues? The Dodgers should join the new traditions, like the only
> inexpensive seats should be obstructed view, a park isolated from the
> outside, with techno-gizmos substituting for beauty. That way they
> can build more luxury boxes, so corporations can lease them and talk
> business instead of watching the game.

That's the problem with Dodger Stadium, it's a baseball stadium.
Designed solely for watching baseball games (and designed well).
What today's fan wants is a mall with a theme park and a baseball
diamond in case they get board with the rest of the attractions
and decide to watch an inning or two.

I will never ever attend a Dodger game in a "new state of the
art baseball plaza". The tear down Chavez and that will be
the last home game I attend.

AG
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

"Agua Girl" <uknown.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:di4Qa.11$gv.22763@news3.news.adelphia.net...
>
> "Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:aag1hvsdhv8tfm4lppuhgjp3fnb77jgm5d@4ax.com...
> > On 13 Jul 2003 01:46:07 GMT, shadowchasr3.TakeThisOut@aol.com (SHADOWCHASR3)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >I agree that they should close Dodger Stadium. Sure there's a lot of
> tradition,
> > >etc. but that can only go so far. A new state of the art stadium would
> make you
> > >forget about the old Dodger Stadium pretty quick. A lof of people
didn't
> want
> > >the Lakers to move out of the Forum. Looking back I'm glad they got out
> of
> > >there. You can always keep Dodger Staduim open as an artafact or
> something.
> >
> > You're right! Who needs such things as magnificent sightlines from
> > every seat, the best view outside of the park in US sports, fantastic
> > tradition, and some of the least expensive tickets in the major
> > leagues? The Dodgers should join the new traditions, like the only
> > inexpensive seats should be obstructed view, a park isolated from the
> > outside, with techno-gizmos substituting for beauty. That way they
> > can build more luxury boxes, so corporations can lease them and talk
> > business instead of watching the game.
>
> That's the problem with Dodger Stadium, it's a baseball stadium.
> Designed solely for watching baseball games (and designed well).
> What today's fan wants is a mall with a theme park and a baseball
> diamond in case they get board with the rest of the attractions
> and decide to watch an inning or two.
>
> I will never ever attend a Dodger game in a "new state of the
> art baseball plaza". The tear down Chavez and that will be
> the last home game I attend.
>

Even if they buld a beautiful Camden Yards/Ballpark at Arlington/Pacbell
type park?
Those places are claimed to be enjoyed by casual as well as old-school fans.
Los Angeles could use something like that, I think. Memorial Stadium in
baltimore had tons of history, and was great for watching baseball games,
but the new park is definately appreciated by just about everyone.
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

"Mike Tyler Jr" <mtylerjr DeleteThis @aros.net> wrote in message
news:zVidnXB1FPQFTo2iXTWJkA@aros.net...
>
> "Agua Girl" <uknown DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:di4Qa.11$gv.22763@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> >
> > "Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian DeleteThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:aag1hvsdhv8tfm4lppuhgjp3fnb77jgm5d@4ax.com...
> > > On 13 Jul 2003 01:46:07 GMT, shadowchasr3 DeleteThis @aol.com (SHADOWCHASR3)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >I agree that they should close Dodger Stadium. Sure there's a lot of
> > tradition,
> > > >etc. but that can only go so far. A new state of the art stadium
would
> > make you
> > > >forget about the old Dodger Stadium pretty quick. A lof of people
> didn't
> > want
> > > >the Lakers to move out of the Forum. Looking back I'm glad they got
out
> > of
> > > >there. You can always keep Dodger Staduim open as an artafact or
> > something.
> > >
> > > You're right! Who needs such things as magnificent sightlines from
> > > every seat, the best view outside of the park in US sports, fantastic
> > > tradition, and some of the least expensive tickets in the major
> > > leagues? The Dodgers should join the new traditions, like the only
> > > inexpensive seats should be obstructed view, a park isolated from the
> > > outside, with techno-gizmos substituting for beauty. That way they
> > > can build more luxury boxes, so corporations can lease them and talk
> > > business instead of watching the game.
> >
> > That's the problem with Dodger Stadium, it's a baseball stadium.
> > Designed solely for watching baseball games (and designed well).
> > What today's fan wants is a mall with a theme park and a baseball
> > diamond in case they get board with the rest of the attractions
> > and decide to watch an inning or two.
> >
> > I will never ever attend a Dodger game in a "new state of the
> > art baseball plaza". The tear down Chavez and that will be
> > the last home game I attend.
> >
>
> Even if they buld a beautiful Camden Yards/Ballpark at Arlington/Pacbell
> type park?
> Those places are claimed to be enjoyed by casual as well as old-school
fans.
> Los Angeles could use something like that, I think. Memorial Stadium in
> baltimore had tons of history, and was great for watching baseball games,
> but the new park is definately appreciated by just about everyone.

ESPECIALLY if they build a pacbell type park. What does a baseball
park really need? Lots of restrooms, easy access to the hot dog stand
and seats designed to see the game. Throw in some natural grass,
symmetrically
designed field..you know..an actual diamond..and what do you have...Chavez
Ravine. If they want to upgrade the seats with cushions and add some decent
micro brews than I am all for it but I don't need a sushi bar and a
playground
to enjoy a game. All that foo foo bull just gives the guy sitting to the
left of you
more reasons to get up and block your view. What's wrong with just watching
the game!

AG
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

Agua Girl wrote:
>
> "Mike Tyler Jr" <mtylerjr RemoveThis @aros.net> wrote in message
> news:zVidnXB1FPQFTo2iXTWJkA@aros.net...
> >
> > "Agua Girl" <uknown RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
> > news:di4Qa.11$gv.22763@news3.news.adelphia.net...
> > >
> > > "Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian RemoveThis @nospam.net> wrote in message
> > > news:aag1hvsdhv8tfm4lppuhgjp3fnb77jgm5d@4ax.com...
> > > > On 13 Jul 2003 01:46:07 GMT, shadowchasr3 RemoveThis @aol.com (SHADOWCHASR3)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I agree that they should close Dodger Stadium. Sure there's a lot of
> > > tradition,
> > > > >etc. but that can only go so far. A new state of the art stadium
> would
> > > make you
> > > > >forget about the old Dodger Stadium pretty quick. A lof of people
> > didn't
> > > want
> > > > >the Lakers to move out of the Forum. Looking back I'm glad they got
> out
> > > of
> > > > >there. You can always keep Dodger Staduim open as an artafact or
> > > something.
> > > >
> > > > You're right! Who needs such things as magnificent sightlines from
> > > > every seat, the best view outside of the park in US sports, fantastic
> > > > tradition, and some of the least expensive tickets in the major
> > > > leagues? The Dodgers should join the new traditions, like the only
> > > > inexpensive seats should be obstructed view, a park isolated from the
> > > > outside, with techno-gizmos substituting for beauty. That way they
> > > > can build more luxury boxes, so corporations can lease them and talk
> > > > business instead of watching the game.
> > >
> > > That's the problem with Dodger Stadium, it's a baseball stadium.
> > > Designed solely for watching baseball games (and designed well).
> > > What today's fan wants is a mall with a theme park and a baseball
> > > diamond in case they get board with the rest of the attractions
> > > and decide to watch an inning or two.
> > >
> > > I will never ever attend a Dodger game in a "new state of the
> > > art baseball plaza". The tear down Chavez and that will be
> > > the last home game I attend.
> > >
> >
> > Even if they buld a beautiful Camden Yards/Ballpark at Arlington/Pacbell
> > type park?
> > Those places are claimed to be enjoyed by casual as well as old-school
> fans.
> > Los Angeles could use something like that, I think. Memorial Stadium in
> > baltimore had tons of history, and was great for watching baseball games,
> > but the new park is definately appreciated by just about everyone.
>
> ESPECIALLY if they build a pacbell type park. What does a baseball
> park really need? Lots of restrooms, easy access to the hot dog stand
> and seats designed to see the game. Throw in some natural grass,
> symmetrically
> designed field..you know..an actual diamond..and what do you have...Chavez
> Ravine. If they want to upgrade the seats with cushions and add some decent
> micro brews than I am all for it but I don't need a sushi bar and a
> playground
> to enjoy a game. All that foo foo bull just gives the guy sitting to the
> left of you
> more reasons to get up and block your view. What's wrong with just watching
> the game!
>
> AG

And the other point that's been glossed over - the plan would be to
build
a SMALLER park holding only about 40,000 or so, ostensibly because the
Dodgers
hardly ever draw crowds of 50,000 (funny, I recall an entire week of
crowds that
size not so long ago). The real reason, as it was with Pac Bell, is to
drive
up ticket prices even more.


Rich
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

"Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:neu1hv8vfhmad8eg40m4kcc7nge09185bc@4ax.com...
> Fans seem to enjoy Dodger Stadium.
>
> The interesting thing about the new stadiums is that they produce an
> attendance boost for varying periods, but after a while the attendance
> sinks back down - sometimes as low as it was prior to the new stadium,
> sometimes finding a somewhat higher point of stability. But in every
> one of the new stadiums that has happened - the casual fans stop going
> when it ceases to be "the place to go". PacBell is still fairly new,
> but already the sellouts are becoming rarer. I would expect them to
> drop down within three years, like Cleveland has done.

Cleveland would still be drawing (maybe not as much) if they hadn't broke up
the team as they had. Manny, Thome, et al. all playing elsewhere now.

>
> But this hasn't happened in Dodger Stadium. Dodger Stadium has always
> focused on having a top notch baseball viewing experience first and
> foremost, and the team consistently draws around 3 million. New
> stadiums come, teams pass the Dodgers in attendance for a couple of
> years, and then they sink down. But the Dodgers keep on drawing large
> crowds.

Despite the conspicuous lack of success over the past decade or so. Speaks
well of Dodger fans.
--
James
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:53:11 GMT, "James" <NOSPAMiamwho.TakeThisOut@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:

>"Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian.TakeThisOut@nospam.net> wrote in message
>news:neu1hv8vfhmad8eg40m4kcc7nge09185bc@4ax.com...
>> Fans seem to enjoy Dodger Stadium.
>>
>> The interesting thing about the new stadiums is that they produce an
>> attendance boost for varying periods, but after a while the attendance
>> sinks back down - sometimes as low as it was prior to the new stadium,
>> sometimes finding a somewhat higher point of stability. But in every
>> one of the new stadiums that has happened - the casual fans stop going
>> when it ceases to be "the place to go". PacBell is still fairly new,
>> but already the sellouts are becoming rarer. I would expect them to
>> drop down within three years, like Cleveland has done.
>
>Cleveland would still be drawing (maybe not as much) if they hadn't broke up
>the team as they had. Manny, Thome, et al. all playing elsewhere now.

Every team needs to rebuild at some point in time. Is Barry going to
play forever? The Giants are a veteran team, and veteran teams at
some stage hit a wall. When they do, history shows, their attendance
is likely to plummet. I doubt if it will plummet anywhere near their
bad years at Candlestick, but it will drop significantly, and it will
be tough for them to get it back up again.

>
>>
>> But this hasn't happened in Dodger Stadium. Dodger Stadium has always
>> focused on having a top notch baseball viewing experience first and
>> foremost, and the team consistently draws around 3 million. New
>> stadiums come, teams pass the Dodgers in attendance for a couple of
>> years, and then they sink down. But the Dodgers keep on drawing large
>> crowds.
>
>Despite the conspicuous lack of success over the past decade or so. Speaks
>well of Dodger fans.

The Dodgers have the best base of fans in baseball. Even the year
they had the worst record in the league they still drew well. That's
partially because they emphasize the baseball experience, instead of
emphasizing novelties and, oh yeah, baseball too.
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

"Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian.DeleteThis@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:3152hv4bds3nvf4qlvi3i8g72r4pj48q9p@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 07:53:11 GMT, "James" <NOSPAMiamwho.DeleteThis@hawaii.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Ima Pseudonym" <akrasian.DeleteThis@nospam.net> wrote in message
> >news:neu1hv8vfhmad8eg40m4kcc7nge09185bc@4ax.com...
> >> Fans seem to enjoy Dodger Stadium.
> >>
> >> The interesting thing about the new stadiums is that they produce an
> >> attendance boost for varying periods, but after a while the attendance
> >> sinks back down - sometimes as low as it was prior to the new stadium,
> >> sometimes finding a somewhat higher point of stability. But in every
> >> one of the new stadiums that has happened - the casual fans stop going
> >> when it ceases to be "the place to go". PacBell is still fairly new,
> >> but already the sellouts are becoming rarer. I would expect them to
> >> drop down within three years, like Cleveland has done.
> >
> >Cleveland would still be drawing (maybe not as much) if they hadn't broke
up
> >the team as they had. Manny, Thome, et al. all playing elsewhere now.
>
> Every team needs to rebuild at some point in time. Is Barry going to
> play forever? The Giants are a veteran team, and veteran teams at
> some stage hit a wall. When they do, history shows, their attendance
> is likely to plummet. I doubt if it will plummet anywhere near their
> bad years at Candlestick, but it will drop significantly, and it will
> be tough for them to get it back up again.

True. But it seemed like Cleveland had a master plan (sign all the young
players to long-term contracts) then threw it away after the owner decided
to cash out while the going was good.
--
James
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

NO WAY!
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

"Agua Girl" <uknown.RemoveThis@nospam.net> wrote in
news:cvfQa.362$gv.146155@news3.news.adelphia.net:

> No, but Pac Bell is still new. You talk about sell out percentage but
> the park holds fewer people. Their actual attendance isn't that much
> higher than the Dodgers, 36,000 to 32,000. So on the average 4,000
> more people go to see the team that went to World Series last year,
> the one that is currently in first place in their division, the one
> that boasts the best player in the game....versus the Dodgers who
> haven't seen post season in years, haven't been to the WS in decades
> and don't have a single "star". That tells me two things. One, the
> Dodgers are better to watch then their record would indicate and 2,
> Pac Bell park isn't make the difference in the draw. (or SF fans don't
> care about baseball). Parks only draw fans for a year or two...
> then the stadium is old news and they are on to the next yuppie
> hot spot. Baseball fans will come but only if the baseball experience
> is a good one.


There is no doubt that more Giants fans go to games now. Don't forget the
beastly weather at Candlestick during night games, the extremely seedy area
it's located in, and the horrible access that limited attendance to the
real hard core fans.

But, also Pac Bell has become an "in" thing to do in SF. So, you get a lot
of people who are only there because that's what they chose to do that
night.

It doesn't matter. The players say to a man that they enjoy playing before
a packed house and that it boosts their performance.

I'm not at all familiar with Dodger Stadium, but I always wondered why they
can't just improve access to it? Why can't public transportation go there?
There doesn't seem to be anything at all wrong with the park except the
access issues.
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

nospaam_raoulv.DeleteThis@hotmail.com (rv) wrote in
news:2dcb4c86.0307272025.6c8423b1@posting.google.com:

> A couple of guys from ESPN are driving around the country rating
> ballparks on everything from seat comfort, quality of hot dogs and
> beer to ticket prices. Pacbell received an overall grade of 93.
> Dodger stadium received an 82.5.


And back during the winter when SI was doing it, they put Pac Bell way
down in the middle of the pack, about 50 something (they did all kinds of
arenas.) Goes to show how much these things really mean.
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium... 

In article <Xns93C4EB87FD248donut DeleteThis @216.102.43.227>,
donut <none DeleteThis @none.com> wrote:

> I'm not at all familiar with Dodger Stadium, but I always wondered why they
> can't just improve access to it? Why can't public transportation go there?

I used to take MTA line 635 from downtown to Dodger Stadium in the early
'90s, it was convenient and almost always packed. Then the line was cut
for no good reason, it seems. Sigh. I've since moved to the Bay Area,
but when I visit L.A., I've had to walk up the hill from Sunset. Quite
annoying.
 >> Stay informed about: Close Dodger Stadium...