Target Field Opens:
"The only thing the ballpark can give a visitor that he cannot get anywhere else is baseball."
– Shannon/Kalinsky
Welcome Visitors From
A Major Find
June 11, 2007 8:29 PM
COMMENTThis is not exactly something I ever expected to be doing, but I've been working my way through the Environmental Impact Statement for the ballpark project. This is one very dry document, but if you're willing to sift through all the boring stuff, you never know when you're going to find something really interesting:
 |
Ballpark elevation diagram, viewed from Fifth Street. (Click to enlarge.) |
 |
A slightly different elevation drawing, again viewed from Fifth Street, with some labels. (Click to enlarge.) |
 |
Ballpark elevation viewed from Seventh Street. (Click to enlarge.) |
 |
Ballpark elevation viewed from the promenade (HERC plant) side. (Click to enlarge.) |
So, what does it look like to you?
I gotta say that it looks like a ballpark to me -- I mean a real, modern, attractive ballpark. It doesn't look like an office building, or a retail store, or a mall, or something institutional. And it also doesn't look any other ballpark out there. It actually looks to me like the first of a new breed rather than the last gasp of the old. It looks like the first truly 21st-century baseball stadium.
Also buried within the text is a detail which is still not seen in any of the renderings, but could be the dramatic element I've been yearning for:
Two towers with decorative lighting may be located on the outside edge of the Ballpark in line with the foul lines, one adjacent to the 6th Street N. bridge entrance and one near the LRT station at 5th Street N. They would measure 25 feet by 25 feet by 300 feet.
A pair of large, decorative towers! Vertical elements! Twins! Could that really be a possibility?
To put it in perspective after looking at the new elevation drawings (which conveniently contain scale indicators), these decorative towers would be about twice the height of the rest of the ballpark, soaring up into the sky. It's an amazing idea, and let's hope it makes the final cut.
Now I really want to keep reading this 350-page document, but I have to take some time to digest these new images...
Comments
To utilized enhanced comment features, please enable cookies in your browser.
Outstanding work! I agree with you that this is the first view that really resembles a ballpark. Thanks for all of your hard work sifting through documents and providing great insight into this project. You've got a great site!
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 07:00 AM by Jeff T. 1
Thanks for all of your great work! I think this will be a great stadium, but (from the promenade) does anybody else think it kind of looks like Jabba the Hutt's Barge from Return of the Jedi? (click on link)
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 09:31 AM by James 2
yes. great pictures. thanks for doing all the dirty work and giving us the payout! much appreciated.
the link doesn't work james, but yes. it does look like jabbas barge. not a bad thing. Perhaps we will become the vile gangsters of the a.l. central!
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 11:38 AM by mike 3
You could be on to something here James. Perhaps T.C. Bear could share some of the mascot duties with Princess Leia in the Gold Bikini? J/K.
Great pics Rick!
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 11:57 AM by Jon 4
James's link was good, but it went to a Tripod web site. Tripod sucks. They blocked access to the image.
It's a funny comparison, so I cached the image here. The link should work now.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 12:01 PM by Rick 5
That would be outstanding if the light towers make the cut.
We should all bombard the planning team with this request.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 12:13 PM by mlb2131 6
No red brick, no exposed green steel, no fake & needless exterior border like the new Yankee Stadium design.
The Twins design has hints of Petco Park, PNC Park, and the canopy is similar to Dodger Stadium. The seating may scream HoK, but this is one of the most unique parks I have seen post Camden.
In my opinion, the Twins design is much better than the new Yankee Stadium, Citi Field, and the one in Washington. (which doesn't have much seating behind homeplate)
I like the new A's park, but it still has a forced "retro" feel to me. I think this Twins park will fit in with the contemporary Minneapolis architechture. The new Guthrie & Central Library come to mind.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 12:45 PM by Chris G 7
This canopy reminds me of Petco, definitely, while the exterior stone is similar to PNC, although our's will be darker. I don't like the National's new park or the Mets'. The new Yankee Stadium is pretty much a replica of the old one.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 1:13 PM by Tim 8
If I'm sitting in the last 10 rows of the lower level or standing on the concourse, will I be able to track fly balls and homeruns? It looks like sitting in a tunnel.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 2:40 PM by sightlines 9
One time I sat in the last row of the lower level at PNC park (which is under a large overhang much like ours will be) and I had concerns about that as well before the game started. But it ended up as probably the best seat I have ever had at a game, you could follow every hit perfectly. I too love the way this park is shaping up. It is much better than the new stadium they are building in Washington, which looks like a suburban office park, or the crappy fake retro stadiums being built in New York.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 4:43 PM by Tommy 10
I looked at the Environmental Impact Statement, saw the proposed Saturday start times, which I was hoping they would change from game starts now, which is 6pm. It says Noon, 4pm and 7pm. I'm assuming that most Saturday games would be noon, nation TV games 4pm and World Series games at 7pm. Anybody have any clarificationon these times?
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 6:18 PM by John 11
John,
I read those times as simply assumptions used for study rather than actual anticipated game times. It may well be that, for study purposes, an hour here or there can help the situation look better or worse, thus making it easier to justify whatever is needed in the document.
At this point, it seems unlikely that the team would have made such detailed scheduling decisions.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 6:41 PM by Rick 12
I was recently in Houston and was concerned about the view from under the overhang and the concourse, but it wasn't a problem there. You're pretty high above the field by the time you get near the concourses. Either way, the view in the concourses will be much better than the view is in the Metrodome concourses.
Posted on June 12, 2007 at 9:31 PM by Craig in MN 13
I'm still thinking this outdoor ballpark is a bad idea. I mean seriously. We are talking about Minnesota. Sure the summers are great. What about the snow that comes in April. Are you going to want to sit in a heated dome, or a cold outdoor ballpark. Sure the ballpark is terrific. I'm thrilled. It's just the sun will get in your face, shadows will be on the field. snow will be on the field. we will be sweating or possibly wet or cold. I may seem like a whiner, but the dome is starting to seem pretty awesome at this point in my mind.
Posted on June 14, 2007 at 12:14 AM by Taylor 14
get outta here! this has been debated over and over and the fact is, its now a dead issue.
get ready-its coming weather you like it (and most of us do) or not
Posted on June 14, 2007 at 4:24 PM by enough! 15
I see lots of glass wall sections on the exterior. They appear to be broken up into panes of irregular size and patterns. I think it would be a nice touch to throw a pane of colored glass in here and there as a subtle homage to the colored glazed brick exterior of the old Met.
Posted on August 28, 2007 at 4:45 PM by Mike 16
This page was last modified on November 17, 2007.
+
Webcams
Past Images
483
