New Twins Ballpark -

For example, if you're, say, the new Nationals ballpark (called, creatively enough, Nationals Park), you really would rather not be seen. "Don't look at me," the park seems to say, quoting Cosmo Kramer, "I'm hideous."

If you're the new Yankee Stadium (called, creatively enough, Yankee Stadium), you want to be thought of as the house that Ruth built -- even though you're not because he didn't.

If you're the new Mets stadium (called, unpleasantly enough, Citi Field), you apparently want people to think long and hard about a team you never were from a city where you never played.

Add in the Twins and you've got four new ballparks with four distinctly different facades. Only one of them works, and you already know which one it is.

Now that the Twins have started attaching that glorious limestone, let's take a moment to understand fully why the other three don't work. And believe me, they very much don't work.

Let's start with the strangest of the three, which is really the most interesting because of how deeply misguided it is.

Citi Field works very hard to evoke one of the most fabled fields of dreams ever: Ebbets Field. The facade is, according to the Mets web site, "inspired by tradition...clad in brick, limestone, granite and cast stone, with the brick closely resembling the masonry used at Ebbets Field, both in color and texture." The Jackie Robinson Rotunda carries the delusion from the outside in.

I use the word "delusion" very intentionally. The Mets do not play in Brooklyn. The Mets never played in Brooklyn. Jackie Robinson never played for the Mets. Brooklyn fans did not exactly embrace the Mets after losing the Dodgers. There is, quite literally, no connection between the Mets and the Brooklyn Dodgers or Ebbets Field. Just ask Doris Kearns Goodwin.

Now I'm going to set that part aside. Once you've made the philosophical decision to do something so grand and so irrational, there's really no point in criticism.

Let's move to another level, because Ebbets Field has become something of the poster child for lost ballparks. It was not just a ballpark, but the center of a community.

Its unique shape (less extreme than Fenway Park, but no less unique) was determined by the streets which surrounded it. In fact, a slender sidewalk ran all the way around, forming a scant barrier between ballpark and street.

And not just any streets, but busy streets. People who talk about Ebbets Field often say that it was the center of the community. Everything happened in the shadow of the ballpark, just as life seemed inextricably linked to the fortunes of the team.

Unfortunately, the Mets sited their homage to Ebbets in the midst of a gigantic parking lot. The shape of the facade may match the lost park, but there is absolutely no reason for it. It's completely arbitrary.

In fact, they don't even try to mimic the streets. The new park is landscaped and accessed like many modern parks, which further negates the need for the facade to come to a conspicuous corner where it does.

Finally, the interior of Ebbets field was intimately connected to its exterior. In other words, the outside of the park was the way it was because of how things were put together inside. This was one of its greatest charms.

Partly this was due to the restrictions of the site, a single city block in the middle of a big city. Partly it was just how things were built in those days, with ballparks changing continuously on the outside and the inside.

The Mets seem to have actually created two ballparks: one (the outside) shaped like Ebbets Field, and the other (the inside) shaped like an HOK cookie-cutter park. They touch one another, but the effect is something like ships passing in the night. They are two ships which don't really have all that much in common.

The net effect of all of these things -- at least in the design -- is that Citi Field serves as a permanent reminder that it is not Ebbets Field, and that the Mets are not the Dodgers. Why would a team want to do this?

It's been said that MLB's main product is nostalgia. This ballpark is an especially cynical example of that.

Maybe Citi Field will be a great place to watch a game. And maybe the historical elements will shine and make up for everything else. Honoring Jackie Robinson in such an elaborate way is certainly a wonderful idea. And despite all of the criticisms I just listed, there is something a little bit intriguing about trying to reanimate a classic lost ballpark.

In summary, the principles violated by Citi Field's facade are many and significant:

1. Tailor your park to its site.
2. Connect your park to your team's past.
3. Integrate all elements of the park into one experience.

When old-timers talk about Yankee Stadium, they are not referring to the park in which the All-Stars just played the longest ON September 30, 1973

Nationals Park
Can you believe that all three of these parks (four if you count the Twins) were designed by the same company? You could laud them for their versatility, at least until you had enough time to realize how ridiculous two of these designs are, and how uncreative are the contents which they enclose.

Comments

A Landmark Deal

You may not have seen this reported elsewhere, but the Twins and the city of Minneapolis last week quietly added significantly to the long list of innovations associated with Target Field.

The sweeping agreement announced today contains ground-breaking provisions which will likely be copied by many other cities as new ballparks are built.

The first-of-its-kind deal calls for the city to move its entire skyline "a little to the left" so that it can be better seen from the new ballpark.

Minneapolis Mayor R. T. Rybak, a likely candidate for Minnesota Governor in 2010, acknowledged that such a feat has never been attempted on this large a scale, but remarked that "Minnesotans figured out how to do it with the Shubert Theater, which is a very big building, and we're going to put that same kind of creative thinking into moving the IDS Tower."

In the deal, the Twins secured the right to approve the design of the new skyline, and have contracted with HOK, who is building the ballpark, to create the city's new look. A spokesman for HOK said only that they will try to retain as many buildings as possible, but that a narrower, taller appearance would best fit the sightlines at the park. They also anticipate that several buildings will be rebuilt rather than moved so that they may be given the appearance of gigantic bat handles emerging from the earth's crust.

In some cases, murals will be used to mask unattractive buildings, making them appear to simply be sky.

Additional provisions call for the Multifoods Tower to be covered by a new facade designed to suggest the iconic Chrysler Tower in New York City, and for the Mississippi River to be rerouted about 50 feet to the north to allow for proper skyscraper alignment with home plate.

"There will be some disruption," noted Twins president Dave St. Peter, but we're confident that it will be business as usual within a few weeks."

The team is in negotiations with ??? to limit rain to days when the team is out of town

Comments

Glimpses

Here are a few screen captures from the Ballpark Authority's May gallery. This may be the best source for inside pix from now until opening day.

Somewhat annoyingly, their gallery format is a Flash movie with titles, pans, zooms and dissolves (and even construction sounds playing in the background). There's no way to pause it, so you can't really study any of the pictures. It's possible that they chose that format specifically to discourage people from reposting their pix, but since it's all we got, here come the screen captures...

Comments

Ballpark Views

Bibliography

There is much reading material available about ballparks, and I have a substantial library of such books. Many are just fancy picture books with superficial tales of the biggest names who played (and a few selected obscure ones who seem to keep popping up). The pictures are nice, but there isn't much to bite into when it comes to building something new.

There are also plenty of books which deal exclusively with financing. Since that issue has already been established here, those hold little interest to the discussion anymore.

There are a handful of books which get at the heart of what it means to design and build a new ballpark. Some get into the subject by looking at the past, but at least one follows the process through from start to finish, offering a cautionary tale or two along the way.

The list below, therefore, contains just the essential books -- those which really provide useful information for dreaming about a new park, and background for what to look for as the process unfolds.

Comments

A Year Later, Connecting the Pieces

This post isn't about baseball or ballparks. But having discussed the bridge collapse in this space before, it's time to...

Much has been made in recent days about the astonishing progress on the replacement 35W bridge over the Mississippi. Indeed, it seems like nothing less than a miracle that cars will again be zipping across that chasm in just a few short weeks.

But I can find no excitement for the project. I cannot feel awe for something that, while clearly an unprecedented feat, serves in many ways as a gigantic distraction. The accomplishment is, for me, joyless.

The men and women building the new bridge are to be lauded, but the bridge itself will stand in a community that has missed an opportunity. In our haste to make things right, we have not done the hard work necessary to root out the underlying causes and develop assurances that nothing similar can ever happen again. In fact, we have barely acknowledged that anything went wrong, let alone looked for reasons why.

We have grieved with the victims. We have picked up the pieces. But we have not done the hard self-assessment. We have not asked, let alone answered, the important question: How did we screw up so badly?

And I do me we. The bridge collapse cannot be traced to any single engineer, any single governor or legislator, any single budget year or vetoed bill.

No, the bridge collapse was the direct result of systematic underfunding or infrastructure needs for a generation. That means that every governor is complicit, as is every legislator, and by extension, we as voters.

There may be big cultural problems at MnDOT, but that then is the responsibility of every had of MnDOT in the past 20 years, and by extension, every engineer.

Like you, I've read the reports about how this bridge was handled by the department. They knew there were problems, but the problems were bigger than their budget could ever hope to fix. They knew that the bridge would need to be replaced, but tried to put that inevitable day off as long as possible.

In other words, they knew there was a problem, knew they could not solve it, and did the only thing they could do: hope for the best.

In the Legislature, especially the most recent few, there have been voices for transportation funding, but they were systematically either undercut or just ignored by a head of MnDOT who was charged by her boss (the governor) with making sure they lived with what they had. Her job was not to secure what MnDOT needed, but to make sure they never asked for more than she knew they would get.

You can blame the Governor or the Lieutenant Governor if you like, but Minnesotans put them there -- twice. And they put them there, at least in part, because of irresponsible promises they made during political campaigns and then did not have the good sense to break after finding out the whole situation.

You see, I don't want any kind of promises from my politicians but this: Here are my priorities. Here is how I solve problems. My promise is only to make the best possible decisions for the citizens of the State of Minnesota.

I don't want to hear that you will raise taxes on some portion of the pubic, or cut them elsewhere, or do this or that. I want to hear that you will assess the situation and make the best decision possible -- especially in view of the prevailing economic conditions which cannot be foreseen during a political campaign.

In the days after the bridge collapse, I fully expected an engineer at MnDOT to emerge with tear-filled eyes and admit that they had let us down. I expected that they would own the tragedy which happened on their watch. I expected them to say, "We did the best we could with what we had, but it wasn't good enough."

that there were heroes among the noble but quiet guardians of the bridge, and that they would push aside political pressures to reveal everything about the bridge discussions.

We have since found out that they knew it might fall. They'd been told as much by numerous engineering firms, although the warnings were always muted. There was talk of "rust" and "failure critical" points.

Rebuilding the bridge was important, but not nearly as critical as its accelerated construction schedule would suggest. Despite monetary losses forecast and fed to the media ($XX million per day, reported widely as the rebuilding project began), people have been getting around just fine. The inconveniences are hardly incapacitating (my wife drives 280 to and from work every day). It always amazes me that freeways seem convenient, but the world does not stop without them.

Instead, I can only focus on everything which has not happened in the wake of the tragedy: change, vision, leadership.

The heroes in the story are well known. Many of them were on the bridge and put their own lives in danger to save others. Some rushed to the scene in whatever vehicle worked. Some battled the murky river's current to bring just one more person home alive.

Tragedy draws people out. I think it's fair to say that most people stop thinking about themselves and rush to the aid of others. Would that the same could be said about our political leadership.

Comments

New Minnesota Baseball Stadium in Minneapolis, Future Home of the Minnesota Twins

Supporting the Minnesota Twins in building a great new ballpark for Major League Baseball

A Tale of Two Theaters

This is the first in a series of four articles about the new Nats ballpark. You'll probably notice right away that this particular article barely even mentions Nationals Park. But as I started to write, I realized that I was assuming all sorts of things without ever mentioning them before. Many of these things are factors in how we should look at our own new ballpark. So, bear with me. I think it will be worthwhile.

Ralph Rapson was an iconic figure in these parts. By now you've probably read his obituary, or seen a gallery of his works, or heard others talk about him. Perhaps other architects have had splashier success, but few can claim the warmth or sheer beauty found in his work.

Coincidentally, another architect won a lifetime achievement award last week, at least in part for his design of the building which succeeded Rapson's seminal work as the home of the Guthrie Theater.

Like the buildings, the two architects could not be more different. Indeed, the presence of the near-photocopy of Rapson's design for the original Guthrie thrust stage serves to highlight what the new building is and is not.

When we start talking about ballpark design, we have to admit that new parks aren't designed in a vacuum. A park like the one just opened in Washington fits into a pretty big tapestry of ballpark history. This is not just local history, but the history of the sport. Each new park says something about what has come and gone before, and a little something about the current state of the game. I'm not going to mince words: The new Nats ballpark is a very sad commentary on the state of the game, and the state of ballpark architecture in general. It doesn't really even rise to the level of "architecture."

The new Guthrie Theater is not ugly by any stretch. But it's also not brilliant by any stretch. If we were to use a baseball metaphor, I'd call it a solid single.

Much credit must be given for cramming four theaters into such a compact space, and doing so with at least a fair amount of efficiency. It has a very distinctive appearance, and a fair amount of warmth in many of its public spaces.

But I disagree with those who say that it either harmonizes with its surroundings, or embodies its purpose. I also disagree with those who believe that it makes the most of its site. It does not.

But that bridge has always troubled me, and I think that is my biggest problem with the building. It correctly identifies a problem, but provides a gimmicky and unsatisfying (though quite distinctive) solution.

The problem was that the view of the river was a little bit better out over West River Road. If you're going to build your building on the riverfront, you certainly want to take advantage of the view, right? But if that's true, why limit your view to a tiny porch suspended over a road? In fact, the building's design actively inhibits views of the river except on that one very spot. This is a grave disappointment.

Instead of saying, "Look at the river," it says, "The architect wants to give you a glimpse of the river."

Rapson's Guthrie didn't have a river to look at. But when it was built, it did have a bustling Lyndale Avenue in its sights, as well as the iconic West Hotel and Basilica of Saint Mary. The parade grounds (later the sculpture garden) served as a front yard for the building. To take advantage of that, Rapson created the entire facade around the idea that theater is about drawing an audience in to see something.

That original facade, so different from the one we all knew for so many years, attempted to capture the excitement of what happened inside, and project it to anyone who could see the building. Even after the interstate replaced the hotel and the grand avenue, the lights of the theater

Comments

Un-Architecture

They are playing ball on new grass in Washington. This is certainly cause for celebration.

Every time a new ballpark opens, another is abandoned. Few will cry for RFK Stadium, though. It's been bad for baseball since the very beginning. In conception and execution, RFK and the Metrodome are kindred spirits.

That they are being replaced almost simultaneously offers an opportunity for comparison. I haven't been to the new park in Washington, of course. I've been following its construction on the web where there are many photos, drawings and statistics available. What I can say about it now is therefore limited.

But I believe you can tell a lot about a ballpark's character by the process through which it was created, and the high-level configuration decisions which were made.

First, it's clearly a better place to play baseball. This is no small improvement. The game is respected and gimmicks are kept to a bare minimum.

RFK was the first concrete donut. n't the last of the concrete donuts to be abandoned by baseball (that dubious distinction will go to Shea Stadium at the end of this season), but it was probably the scruffiest. Beloved by a few, but loathed by many, that old stadium has always had a certain grace in its lines that will be missed. It was round, to be sure, with plenty of bad seats and weird non-baseball quirks, but its facade held up its head among its brethren, owning its era with confidence and style (even as the inside got dingier over the years).

Deep down, however, no matter what kind of dignity it maintained, one has to admit that it was distinctly inferior to all of its contemporaries. Built in the same mold as stadiums in St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Atlanta, Philadelphia and New York, it never quite rose even to their modest aspirations. It was unloved and abandoned on a regular basis.

What does this have to do with Nationals Park? Well, let's start with the fact that the new grass is surrounded by stands barely distinguishable from those in St. Louis, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Denver, San Diego, San Francisco,

Maybe you've never noticed this -- I certainly had not -- but shopping malls rarely win architecture awards. In fact, there's very little "architecture" involved in most shopping malls you've probably ever visited.

Shopping malls are usually a hodge-podge assembly of anchor stores and common areas, with little or no discernible connection between the parts. They interconnect, but that's just because they share common walls. On the outside, each part looks like it was designed by a different group of people because -- surprise! -- it was.

Mall designers try to add thematic elements to bring the parts together (Eden Prairie Center is an excellent example of this), but even those which were ostensibly designed as whole buildings from the start (the Mall of America) end up with a kind of scruffy exterior which says little or nothing about what goes on inside.

This actually makes a lot of sense. Malls are not intended to be gazed upon. They are engineered to get people in and out efficiently, and to shake them down sufficiently.

I'm tempted to call it "un-architecture" because the fact that it has any exterior surfaces at all is simply a function of the fact that the inside doesn't go any farther out. The sidewalks have been reached and the building must end. Therefore, it does.

Press materials have touted the newest ballpark as having been designed to evoke the monuments of the nation's capitol. OK, that explains the long, long -- needlessly long -- staircase entrance.

Comments

Great reporting OG Jeff! Too bad your camera died though. The more pictures I see of Target Field the more I can envision going to a game there. It's funny that 2 construction firms flat out said "you can't build that there".

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 9:14 PM by billymayshere 1

awosome! i love this website,I check it everyday! Nice pics ninja!

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 9:32 PM by trent 2

Thanks to Rick for letting me post my adventure on his site! The ninja has struck!

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 9:51 PM by OG Jeff 3

Really great! Too bad they had to fill in under the met club. That would've been a really great feature. Everything really appears to be coming together. Can't wait!

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 10:25 PM by DuluthTim 4

Go Ninja! Let us know next time...we will take up a collection for spare batteries...

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 10:35 PM by David_Mpls 5

Glad I was wrong about ya OG ninja, well done!!

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 10:48 PM by Matt 6

Hello, I am a huge Twins fan and cannot wait until 2010!! I also am a huge video game fan. There is a game called MLB The Show 09, and they are looking for info regarding Target Field. This would be things such as outfield wall colors, scoreboard layout including scoreboard ribbons, the out of town scoreboard, sun study info, dugout positioning, homerun celebration items, and more. Any insight into this would be great so I can pass it to the developers.

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 10:54 PM by Josh 7

Simply awesome Mr. Bull....Thank you!!

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 11:13 PM by kevin in az 8

Also, can someone provide more information on the decision for the Flag Pole from the Met to be at aor around First Ave? I missed that being decided and was wondering if anyone has some insight to that

Posted on March 30, 2009 at 11:20 PM by Josh 9

Wow, just wow. This definitely made my week. Thanks A TON OG Jeff!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 12:12 AM by Oaks 10

Great shots OG.

The inside of the pro shop looks awesome.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 12:15 AM by Lafferty 11

don't know what I think about the finished roof in the concourse...

btw... 4-1 they installed that ribbon board so that on opening night they can light it up with "365 days to target field" or somesuch...

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 02:42 AM by CJ 12

Instead of having the "Shaking Hands" neon logo in centerfield, how about a huge neon "TC" logo, the same logo they have on the hats.

This would look awesome at night!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 06:27 AM by Vikeologist 13

Wow, I've really been dying for some interior shots, and you came through!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 07:39 AM by Steeks 14

O.G. Jeff, you are an Original but yet still gangsta!!!!! I belive i have a tear running dowm my right cheek.

Thank you! cant wait fotr the bbq in your green space!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 08:17 AM by Mazaratirick 15

two fun things:

1. I was in Indiana over the weekend and met a White Sox fan that seemed just as excited about Target Field as we are. I told him I had pictures on my iPhone of the last time I was down by the park and he begged me to show him. He agrees that it will be one of the best parks in the majors.

2. Downstairs in my building is the model of Target Field with the newly added Target Plaza. I took a bunch of pictures and I'll try to put them up on flickr tonight. The model is absolutely amazing (this is my first time seeing it in person)

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 08:48 AM by annoying customer 16

Nice, AC! The HOK rep told me they had just sent the model to their workshop for a couple weeks to do updates. I guess it's back...and you have pics?!!?

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 09:02 AM by OG Jeff 17

Great pics Ninja.

Looks like the limestone on the admin building in the outfield and the vip entrance is actually the fake limestone. Is that correct? Its hard to tell from the photos, but it doesn't have the natural feel of the exterior. I hope they don't use that for the rest of the interior. (It'd look pretty bad on TV if it wasn't the real deal behind home plate.)

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 09:07 AM by Dale 18

hey kev,
Do you think the Twins would have had a game today if they were playing outside this year? Sorry, I couldn't resist.
Thank goodness the season doesn't typically start til April...tomorrow!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 09:09 AM by Locker 19

Dale - It's real limestone, but it does have a different finish. I noticed some other pieces of it throughout the park.

Guys, I cannot state enough my surprise at how cool the club lounges are looking. We also got the chance to walk from the top of the circulation ramps down to where the clubhouse is being built out. Those circulation ramps take some time to get down!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 09:48 AM by OG Jeff 20

Is the concourse ceiling textured? I think It will be great as long as it is kept somewhat clean.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 10:23 AM by DuluthTim 21

DuluthTim - It almost looks like a "stucco" finish. I think that kind of finish will work well in an outdoor environment

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 10:26 AM by OG Jeff 22

Agreed. Very classy!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 10:32 AM by DuluthTim 23

Great interview, Bullio! Can't wait for April 2010!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 10:47 AM by Jared 24

The outfield concourses look like a pretty good place to watch a game as well. I wonder how many standing room only tickets they will make available for sold out games and playoff games. With all of the seats and concourses so close to the field I'd bet a sold out play off game would be pretty loud and intimidating for opposing players, especially with standing room people lining the concourses cheering.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 10:52 AM by Eric in TX 25

I watched some video of Citi Field on one of the NY networks yesterday. The outfield grandstand feels huge compared to T.F., and not in a good way.

Can't wait to make a trip back to Minneapolis in 2010.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 11:17 AM by Lafferty 26

yes jeff, i have a bunch of pictures. i can honestly say the partial bullseyes look pretty cool on the plaza

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 11:42 AM by annoying customer 27

Rick, why the 4 day difference between your countdown timer versus the Twins Target Field page? Is the team indicating an early opening for maybe a Spring Training or exhibition game in 2010?

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 12:47 PM by Jesse 28

Jesse,

My countdown was set up to match the countdown clock sent out by the team. It still matches that (I just checked), but perhaps now the team knows more than they did when they sent that other one out.

I'll look into it further...

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 12:52 PM by Rick 29

Annoying Customer,

Is this one of the pics you took?

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 12:55 PM by Lafferty 30

Just found this on the main ballpark page:

"There are approximately 366 days until Target Field opens in 2010"

I suppose they won't know for sure until the 2010 schedule is released later this year. Right now it's still just a hunch.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 12:56 PM by Rick 31

lafferty,
i took one just like that but i haven't uploaded it yet. i'll do it later tonight.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 1:02 PM by annoying customer 32

Lafferty - that is definitely a picture taken from the model that is at Target HQ this week. I work at Target and examined the model a few times yesterday. I was going to bring my camera to work today to take some photos of it. If annoying customer doesn't post anything today I will bring my camera tomorrow and take some snapshots (assuming the security guard camping out by the model doesn't mind).

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 1:03 PM by IowaWigman 33

Thank you, Ballpark Ninja! What an interesting interview.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 1:19 PM by Dave T 34

wow, that picture of the plaza is great! I originally didn't like the renderings for the new plaza, thought it looked too metallic/grey and not green/natural enough, but that model makes it look more how I would want it to be.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 1:42 PM by billymayshere 35

Target employees,

Is the model accessible to the general public, or do you have to get by security to take a peek? (There are probably many of us here who would like to get a look, but do not work for Target -- yet.)

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 1:49 PM by Rick 36

Great work, OG! This place is going to be phenomenal. 2010 can't come soon enough!

You mentioned a little bit of concern/skepticism about the sightlines in some areas...Did you get a chance to walk around those sections? And if so, is there any reason to be concerned?

Thanks again, Ninja!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 2:25 PM by kumbaya 37

It's really frustrating that they built under the Metropolitan Club. That would have been a cool cantilever. Also, that seems like a giant wast of money just for some bathrooms.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 2:28 PM by Andrew 38

Rick - you would need to get by security in order to see the model. I suppose if you were a guest of an employee here you would be able to get access to it.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM by IowaWigman 39

It's not accessible to the General Public. It's within the confines of our building, and you won't get past security.
The guard manning the model was chatting with me and trying to tell me all about the model, but I knew everything he was telling me. I felt like telling him about this site.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 2:29 PM by Steeks 40

One of the things I love about this park is the lack of "wrap-around" seating in the outfield corner(s). If you look at Citi Field, Busch Stadium II, Coors Field (pretty much all of the "retro" parks), at least one corner has all levels wrap-around the foul pole. These are seats that are terrible for game viewing and IMO, take away some of the distinctiveness in the outfield seating. With the plaza and admin offces, TF has avoided this.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:11 PM by AJ 41

Am I the only one that's terrified that the "main logo piece" in center field is going to be a Target or "Target Field" logo rather than the MPLS/STP handshake guys or a standard Twins logo?

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:19 PM by AJ 42

Anyone have any thoughts on the news the St. Paul Saints are looking to build a new field of their own? I personally cannot stand Saints games. Talk about foolery. Plus, it's not even true Minor League baseball (Major League affiliate).

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:22 PM by Steeks 43

In my opinion, the "smooth" limestone that is being used on the Twins Admin building is probably for safety. I can see if a ball hits that area, the "smoother" limestone might give the ball a more favorable bounce for awaiting fans. I'm willing to bet they will use the same limestone on the right field overhang area for that reason. Just a thought.

Well done OG Jeff, its greatly appreciated!!!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:54 PM by Jeff 44

My guess is that the logo will be some combination of the bulls eye and a twins logo, like the cartoon guys shaking hands in front of the bulls eye. They have actually done an OK job of not getting too carried away in the plaza, so I'm somewhat hopeful.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM by DuluthTim 45

(that it won't be that)

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:57 PM by DuluthTim 46

great pics Jeff. I love the third from the top. I'm assuming that's the last row in the lower level? Even from there, that's really close to Home Plate.
this is one cozy little ballpark. I can't wait...

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:59 PM by luke 47

DSP, you are fired. OG Jeff, you're hired.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 3:59 PM by mplsgreg 48

A question for you OG Jeff. For the question below, were you talking about the left upper deck seats?

Q. How will the right field upper deck seats be? They seem really close to the field... (this one was for you, mazaratirick)

So for both the left upper deck seats, and the right field trapezoid seating, it will be hard to see the outfield fence?

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 4:00 PM by Jeff 49

Jeff - You're right, if you sit in those upper deck outfield sections, you won't see the home run fence right in front below you. I did stand in the center and left field (upper deck) bleachers to confirm this. It's also pretty well represented if you use the 3D seat selection tool on the Twins site. While this is a little pesky for outfield upper deck fans, the seats are REALLY close to the field. Imagine sitting in the dome's left field upper deck, then being 40-50 feet closer to the field.

Those White Sox outfielders are gonna hear it from us - we'll be right on top of them!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 5:27 PM by OG Jeff 50

i promised pictures and now i come through. enjoy.

these were taken with my phone so if they aren't high enough quality, i apologize.

if anyone has a request of a shot, let me know and i (or steeks or iowawigman) can try to take it.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 6:09 PM by annoying customer 51

Cool, now we know where the Budweiser logo is going. Thanks A.C.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 6:15 PM by Lafferty 52

Can anyone provide any new insight on what is planned for the roof of the admin building?

I think what they decided to do with this area will be one of, if not the coolest, parts of the stadium.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 6:24 PM by Matt 53

it looked like a picnic area on the model but i'm not 100% sure

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 6:26 PM by annoying customer 54

I see the model still have the canopy over the stairs along Ramp B.

Is the windscreen on Ramp B going to be in sections like the model, or over the whole Ramp?

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 6:31 PM by David_Mpls 55

David- Looks like they still have not added the windscreen to the model. Those are the banners from the old design. According the the renderings the windscreen will cover the entire side of the ramp.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 6:50 PM by DuluthTim 56

It appears they are naming the pro shop "Twins City."

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 7:23 PM by Lafferty 57

According to the Twins camp, the top of the admin building is going to be a rooftop party deck. I remember hearing that from a tour or an interview. If I remember correctly, they said it would be something similar to Brits or Stellas. This was awhile back so things might have changed.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 7:30 PM by Jeff 58

Nice pics, AC. I like the neon Budweiser sign!

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 7:36 PM by OG Jeff 59

The also has an Target Field update at Twinsbaseball.com. Click my name.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 7:31 PM by Jeff 60

#24(?) CHS

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 9:27 PM by BB 61

25(?)

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 9:36 PM by BB 62

or 25 (?)

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 9:42 PM by BB 63

On OG Jeff's pic, just below the "hole in the lower deck" question, does it look like that ad space above the bullpen will obstruct a small number of seats along the back of the lower deck? For a closer look I've attached a link to a pic from Steve's album.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 9:47 PM by Oaks 64

geeze all the pics, the actual construction and the model, are awesome. thanks for taking these. This park is shaping up to be so original, thanks to its tight site. It makes new yankee and citi look like cookie-cutter by comparison. the only thing is that i can hear the local media whining about any seats where a fan cannot see the entire field of play. but i agree with the previous poster in that i'd sacrifice that for having an upper-deck seat so close to the field.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 10:09 PM by tim 65

All the great ballparks had some obstructed view seats - some more than others. At least we won't have pillars in front of us like old comiskey and tiger stadium did.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 11:06 PM by kevin in az 66

Oaks, I don't think there is going to be any obstruction. The depth perception in the picture I took is a little deceiving. If you look at the last picture in OG Jeff's tour you can get a better view of that area.

One interesting thing in the updated model is limestone on the roof of the dugout's.

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 11:36 PM by Steve 67

Think how bad balt, chi, clev and seattle feel right now.. once its built you have to wait in line 25 years....its one thing to have wrigly and onother thing to have progressive if u know what i am saying

Posted on March 31, 2009 at 11:46 PM by Mazaratirick 68

I love the Budweiser sign, it looks like they should put a little angle on it to have it face more of the seats

Posted on April 1, 2009 at 12:00 AM by twinlves 69

My Radio Lament

Here's a post that I have held off writing for over a year now. But I can't hold off any longer.

Leaving WCCO was an understandable move, but signing on with the flatly low-rent KSTP really cheapens the baseball radio experience. I have come to hate this station, and I listen to far fewer games as a result. In fact, I'm more likely to have the Game Channel going without the radio than I ever have been.

The game broadcasts themselves are not really an issue. The on-air team is humming right along. They have remained in a solid rhythm for the past few years which is comfortable and distinctive. The games sound essentially as they have for some time.

Here's how it gets to me. I listened to a part of the game this afternoon in the car. Later, a couple of hours after the end of the game, I got back in the car to go out and the radio was still on 1500. As always, there was some idiotic call-in talk show in progress, discussing the most inane subjects imaginable (a couple of weeks ago it was "the best lake in the Twin Cities"), with about as much depth as a spring mud puddle.

Then there's a commercial break which lasts five minutes, and every commercial is either for some crazy get-rich-quick scheme (tonight it was GOLD! GOLD! GOLD!), or some dubious medical product (magnets, anyone?), or another dumb call-in talk show ("Should our government be spending $900,000 to try and get us to ride bikes to work? Tune in Monday at 3:00!").

The problem for the Twins is that they get tarred with the same brush. If this is their station, its identity tends to stick to their identity (and not, unfortunately, the other way around).

This worked wonders with the old WCCO. The clear channel station (in the old sense of the phrase, not the new conglomerate ownership sense) called out games across the entire hemisphere once the sun went down. The strong signal and network-style programming gave a sense of permanence to the team and the real impression that the game was Important (i.e. not just another radio program).

Some of us are old enough to remember falling asleep to Herb calling west coast games, only to wake up to the sound of Franklin Hobbs' beautiful voice and his amazing "Time, Time" stinger.

WCCO has fallen a long way from those glory days, to be sure. But the continuity of 40-some years did count for something. And even the current WCCO is a class act compared to KSTP (albeit continuing to fade into call-in purgatory). Can you imagine if Herb's distinguished baseball voice had gone out over this crappy station? It would have been downright embarrassing.

Let me be clear: This is NOT a commentary on the political views of the various hosts. I don't care what they're shouting about. Right? Left? Jesus? Murder? Random Thoughts? Who cares?!? It's still shouting, and as a form of communal discourse it's something we all should be embarrassed by. I'm a little surprised that the format is still alive. It seems old and stale and stupid.

So this IS a commentary about the advertising. It must be pretty cheap, because every get-rich-quick scam and questionable medical treatment seems to be represented. Everybody seems to be "hawking" something in the way a carnival barker might.

And this IS a commentary about the hosts. I'm sure they're all nice guys (one is even a friend of a friend), but the format lends itself only to banality of thought and discourse. Oh, and arguing. And callers who don't have anything to say but just get a kick out of being on the radio.

And this IS a commentary about the fidelity. The signal is pretty strong, but I have more trouble getting it than I ever did with WCCO. But why the Twins went with an AM station is another real mystery. The Vikings' radio broadcasts, despite the excessive bombast, sound incredible by comparison.

Comments

Current Site Status

This image shows the current state of the ballpark site. It will be updated as significant changes take place.

From the Multifoods Tower

These photos have been kindly provided by Paul Evans, who works in the Multifoods Tower (yep, the big ugly square thing that everyone hates) with a great view of the ballpark site out his window.

Comments

Site Status Panoramas

Here are some panoramic images of the site from various angles. In each category the most recent photo is shown first. Click any image to enlarge greatly. WARNING: They are all VERY big!

Site, Sweet Site

Before you sign on the dotted line, everything is always "This will be great!" and "We can make that work!" and "That's not as bad as it looks." This is true in many areas of life, such as buying a house, taking a new job, signing a free agent, starting a business, getting a new cell phone plan, even choosing a life partner.

I think most people have a natural optimism hard-wired in (certain columnists must be considered exceptions). Most of us want to believe that things will work out OK -- that Juan Rincon will find his stuff -- even if we aren't really sure. We want to believe that the things we start will have positive outcomes. In fact, deep down we may know that the only hope we have of something working out is to give it 100% of our positive energy and faith. We may not be able to will things into working, but if we don't try, there's not a chance.

Of course, optimism and positive energy are nowhere near enough to create positive outcomes. This is the dirty-little-not-so-secret which is left out by your average motivational speaker. If you really want a positive outcome, you have to use Brain, work harder than you probably ever imagined, be flexible, creative, persistent, and count on a little bit of Good Fortune. (This list is not exhaustive, of course.)

This is why commitment is so clarifying. That's the moment at which you go from having a choice to not having a choice, and you have to let go of whatever blind infatuation and semi-delusional optimism led you into the deal, and get down to the business of making it work.

Of course, if you're smart, you didn't make your decision based on semi-delusional optimism. But if we're honest with ourselves, most of us will have to admit to making more than a few important life-changing decisions based on something akin to wishful thinking.

When it comes to baseball franchises, selecting the site for a new ballpark must be considered a major life-changing decision. The site will be a major part of your identity for a very long time, and there's no such thing as a quickie divorce.

So, nearly two years after the deal was done, with cement being poured and beams creating freeway tunnels, what can be said about the Twins ballpark site? Will there be tailgating? Will there be street life? Will there be traffic jams? Will it be safe? Will there be steam?

I've been taken to task now and then for expressing concerns about the ballpark location in past posts. On a couple of occasions I've been asked point-blank whether I like it or not.

I want the Twins to have the greatest ballpark in all of professional baseball.

Nothing less than that will do, and I think that because you are reading this, you probably agree with this mission. I think the Twins are working with the same thing in mind, although they might throw in something about maximizing revenues. (Personally, I think that the most effective way to maximize revenues is to simply build the best ballpark possible, but some might prefer a more formula-driven approach.)

If the Twins, and more importantly the governmental bodies associated with the project, get this right, no one will ever again second-guess the ballpark site. If they get it wrong, they will be second-guessed forever.

At that time, of course, a new park seemed like something of a pipe dream. The plan which seemed to have the most momentum would have been built over on the river near where the new Guthrie Theater was ultimately built.

Back then, just the thought of watching baseball in the historic warehouse district was enough to quicken the pulse. And, truth be told, it still is.

Thus, once you've committed, you have no choice but to make the best of what you've got.

The commitment has been made. The discussion of "where" is officially put to rest. There's no longer any point in talking about whether a site in the suburbs or on the river or in another neighborhood would have been better. The location of home plate has now been firmly established.

The Twins will probably be second-guessed forever about the warehouse district site. But this is true about any site they might have chosen.

Some fans wish for a riverfront site, or a site with room for a big parking lot,
I've had a couple of questions recently about how I feel about the ballpark site now that we're a little farther into the process. I admit that my recent comments have been a mixed bag, and the last few have tended toward the negative.

There's no question now that there will be a new Twins ballpark. (How amazing is that sentence given the length of time it has taken to become a reality? Please pray for Shane, out of whose butt monkeys have now flown.) There's also no question of where that ballpark will be. The shovels are in the ground. The Twins, for better or worse, are now married to the site. Congratulations!

But I am mindful of the fact that I was also an early advocate of the Metrodome site (sorry, no page to link; no web back in the late 70s). It had a great deal going for it, including easy access to freeways, a great view of the downtown skyline, and lots of empty space on which a new stadium neighborhood would no doubt be born. What's more, with the University committed to it, the campus would surely start moving that direction.

Well, economics and the rest of human nature took over, as it always will. Those who built the Metrodome did not consider where people would park. That's kind of hard to believe, isn't it? I mean, they had to realize that the ocean of asphalt out at Met Stadium wasn't really close enough for people to use while attending games, right? (Ironically, it is now.) They had to realize that public transportation in this town was (and, I'm sorry to say, still is) woefully inadequate, and that the car was king, right?

So the land around the Metrodome became simply too valuable as surface parking to ever develop into something more interesting and neighborhood-like. To date, there are only two ballpark-related businesses anywhere near the place (Hubert's and the little souvenir stand just north of Third Street).

Victoria and I will celebrate our 5th wedding anniversary next week. We have had five amazing years (six-plus if you count the time we dated), and the last two have been sweeter still since Noah was born.

Did we know what we were doing when we got hitched? Did we realize all of the potential situations and pitfalls we would face along the way? Did we have a clear view of each otherWe certainly thought so
Of course, there have been adjustments along the way. We solve small problems together every day, and larger problems now and then. Sometimes we agree to change direction from earlier plans, and sometimes we add or abandon goals based on opportunities.

We think we know where we're going, but don't always end up where we thought we might. But since we committed to being a family, it's only ever a question of how we can make the best of the situations we encounter along the way.

Comments

Train Talk

Sure, some people drive, and there are a few (expensive) places to park. But a much larger constituency hops on the number 4, B, or D subway.

While I was riding the elbow-to-elbow #4, somebody hollered out, "How many more stops to Yankee Stadium?" The reply was predictable and 100% accurate: "I don't know, but when everybody gets off this train, that's Yankee Stadium."

It's a painless process, one which can also take you, via the number 7, to Shea Stadium (for a few more weeks at least, until it's a big pile of rubble) -- and it costs a mere $2 per ride.

While planning my recent trip to New York, I made the philosophical decision not to rent a car and just see if I could get around using one of the most maligned -- but extensive -- public transportation systems in the world. It was a source of some anxiety as the trip approached, but having mastered Chicago and Boston, I figured it was worth a shot.

Not only was it easy, but it was fast and cheap and safe and never even unpleasant. Yes, one train was without air conditioning. And one car smelled ever so slightly of urine (or maybe it was just that one guy -- the smell subsided when he got off). And in a couple of cases, track work forced me to follow signs and/or make snap decisions about where to get on and off.

But all in all, it was the perfect way to travel to and from airport, hotel, ballparks, and just about anywhere else you might want to go.

Of course, I returned to a place where that is certainly not possible -- not even close. In fact, by comparison, our own LRT line looks kind of, well, cute. It would be a bit absurd, for example, to hand out LRT maps at the airport to visiting tourists. After all, they may want to see exotic attractions far from the tracks, like maybe the Walker Art Center or Uptown . . . or St. Paul.

You can argue that our little train connects to a vast expanse of bus lines -- and that is true. But to a tourist (or any rider) there is a fundamental difference between buses and trains which I sometimes fear is not understood either by our Legislature or those who administer the transportation system (Metro Transit).

Trying to explain it to those who don't get it can seem futile, but here's the short version:

By virtue of having tracks, trains are rooted. Buses wander, their routes nebulous, fungible, impermanent. They perpetually mingle with other traffic in an unhappy dance competition.

From the inside, riding a bus is like being in a slow-moving car that stops every other block, faces all the same traffic issues as a car, and over which you have no control. Trains, by contrast, glide unencumbered in their own right-of-way (at least until they become de facto buses moving with the other traffic in downtown Minneapolis).

Where does the bus stop? At most busy corners -- not all -- do you see that little sign with a T on it? No? Well, that's where they stop -- unless they don't because if the driver doesn't see you, and no one wants to get off, and there isn't a stop sign or traffic light, then it probably won't stop. When you're on the bus, be sure to pull the cord if you want to get off, or the bus might just zip right past your destination.

Where does the bus go? I don't know, check a map. It might go straight at the next corner, but it might turn. The sign says Shingle Creek Parkway. Is that in the general direction you want to go? No, I don't know what that letter behind the bus number means. Is today Tuesday? It might mean that the bus takes a different route today.

OK, I'm exaggerating. I actually find riding the bus to be rather effortless, but it wasn't the first time. The train, on the other hand, was a breeze the very first time I set foot on it.

And that's the crux of it when it comes to tourists and other visitors. Those of us who live here and are motivated will eventually make the (reasonably small but greater than zero) effort necessary to figure out where the buses go and which one to take. Tourists don't have that luxury. They need to get somewhere right now, and will be gone tomorrow.

I all but mastered the NYC subways within the first couple of rides. I didn't even attempt riding a bus there. It just wouldn't make sense.

I bring this up because our new ballpark will be sitting at the Nexus Of The Train Universe in the Twin Cities. I think this is probably a good thing, but it's also a major complication for everybody involved.

Of course, trains do have their downsides. They are great when they are effortless, but can be maddening when they are not -- such as when you want one but just can't get one. Or when you have to wait much longer than you might otherwise have to if you'd taken your car. Or if there are tracks but no trains.

It puts me in mind of my last trip to the Metrodome this season. It was a spontaneous decision, a beautiful day, and since I was on my own, parking would be substantially more expensive than the $3.50 six-hour train pass (fares have since increased.

In fact, if you've ever ridden the train to the Dome, you've probably done the break-even math yourself: Good parking spaces close to the Dome can be had for $10 on most nights. So a group of four can get an extra hot dog if you're willing to drive in and park. On many nights, driving and parking makes more financial sense.

On special nights (namely those with "premium" ticket prices or that somehow mean something), parking prices often rise to $20 per car. This changes the equation a bit. A full carload can park for less than it costs to take the t
Three people or less and the train makes good sense. Some nights, of course, good parking spaces go for much more, and the train makes sense for larger groups.

Comments

Trains, Trains Everywhere

Not that long ago, it seemed like you couldn't ride a train into or out of Minneapolis unless you were either a hunk of coal or willing to take your chances inside an empty box car. (Apologies to Amtrak.)

But all that has changed. Despite the fact that some people simply hate trains, while others fear them, and even others are just too cheap to pay for them, everybody's talking about them.

Credit the wildly-successful-beyond- anyone's-dreams Hiawatha line for the renaissance. It took forever to finance and build, but it's one of the best things to happen to Minneapolis since the Stone Arch Bridge.

If you've ever ridden the LRT to a Twins game, you know a few things about these trains that I don't have to tell you. You know, for example, that it is a convenient, affordable, and even somehow cosmopolitan way to travel. From the train, Minneapolis looks great.

You've probably also done the break-even math: Good parking spaces close to the Dome can be had for $10 on most nights. So, with train fare at $3.50 per person for a six-hour pass (though soon to be more), a group of four can get an extra hot dog if you're willing to drive in and park. Three people or less and the train makes good sense. Some nights, of course, good parking spaces go for much more, and the train makes sense for larger groups.

In addition to the cash outlay for a parking space, the other costs to consider include the driver's comfort level with navigating the one-way grid of downtown streets to find the good spots (note to the city of Minneapolis: time to be rid of these crazy, urban, at-grade freeways), how far you're willing to walk (note to the city of Minneapolis: pedestrians who feel safe are willing to walk farther), and your group's overall patience level with the crush of traffic after the game (note to the city of Minneapolis: off-duty cops directing traffic are a Very Good Thing). There is something to be said for not having to deal with all these things.

All things considered, the train looks pretty good for a whole lot of people.

In truth, however, it's just a choice of which type of congestion you prefer. Getting out of downtown on the train can take quite a long time -- sometimes more than it takes in a car.

I experienced this again first-hand a couple of weeks ago, when I had to wait about 45 minutes after the game before getting on a train. Since I live about a 5-minute drive from the Dome, I probably won't be doing that again any time soon. (There is a bus route which would drop me right at my door in considerably less time than the train -- though longer than it takes to drive. But buses are so, I don't know, un-cosmopolitan.)

It was a pretty happy atmosphere out there on the plaza, all of us waiting for the chance to get on the platform and wait for a chance to get on a train. The Twins had won, so everyone was in a pretty good mood. And the weather was beautiful (it would have been a great night for outdoor baseball...).

But as I sat there watching the crowd thin at a snail's pace, I could not help but wonder about accommodations at the new ballpark. There will be some very new parameters.

But things should get better, right? I mean, having your ballpark at the crossroads for transit is a Very Good Thing, right?

What caught my eye was just how far out onto the plaza the crush of train-riders crept. This is something which will not be possible at the new park. As we all know, the plaza over there, though comparable in size to the current plaza, is nowhere near the LRT station. The plaza is on the east, the station is on the north. Between them is the center field pavilion, a massive parking ramp, and an entrance ramp to 394. Waiting on the plaza for a train is not an option.

Even more troubling is the fact that the platform at the new ballpark station is in between the tracks, unlike the Metrodome configuration where the platforms are outside the tracks. This means that everyone who wants to get on a train will have to cross the tracks before they can do so. Even if there were a plaza there to use, it would be very complicated.

I put these questions and more to Bob Gibbons, a spokesman for Metro Transit, and he was kind enough to spend some time filling me in on the developing plans for the new ballpark station, and for the Northstar line. Here are some of the things I learned.

There are so many differences between the Metrodome station and the new ballpark station, that it isn't really comparing apples to apples at all.

Besides the configuration differences already mentioned, they are different lengths (xxx vs. yyy), different flow of pedestrians, different relationship to bus loading areas, and very different positions within the LRT line.

Managing trains at the Metrodome is a surprisingly complicated dance that starts with an estimate of how many fans will be riding the trains. Currently, Metro Transit experiences about a 12% ridership share of Twins attendance. This figure, plus tickets sold, can be used to estimate how many trains they will need for a given game.

So a weekend crowd of 35,000 means that they will plan for 4200 train riders. At a capacity of 186 people per car (66 seated, 120 standing), that comes to 23 cars, or 12 two-car trains. (More on the issue of capacity per train car later...)

Metro Transit remains in contact with the team during each game to estimate when it will end. That's how they decide when to start moving empty trains toward the stadium. As the empty trains approach, that's when the real dance begins.

You may never have noticed it, but after each game there is a guy standing on the tracks down by the Star Tribune building. His job is to throw a switch after an empty train goes by so that it can immediately reverse direction, switch tracks, and return to the Metrodome without going all the way to the end of the line.

These empty trains are all ready to go while the game is in progress, but there is no place for them to wait near the Dome. So they wait down the line at the maintenance yard (just off of Cedar Avenue north of Franklin). Then when the game ends, they come out of the yard, go up the track past the Dome station, the guy hits the switch, then they return to the Dome station as empty outbound trains.

(So...those of you who think you're outsmarting someone by walking down to the City Hall station are actually missing the best trains. But keep doing it! It reduces the number of people trying to get on those empty trains.)

The whole problem with this is that there's nowhere to store the trains near the ballpark until the game ends. Everything is either a forecast or a reaction. Given the amount of effort it takes to move a train around, especially when you consider that the special empty Metrodome-bound trains have to be filtered in among the regularly scheduled trains, it's a minor miracle that it doesn't take longer to clear the plaza after a game.

Why am I telling you this? Because things will be much different -- and better -- at the new ballpark.

If you've been down to the site, you know that the LRT tracks actually will extend beyond the ballpark station to a segment of track which curls around the HERC site. These tracks will be used to stage trains and have them ready to go immediately at the end of a game. There is enough room there to store six cars, or three two-car trains.

Again, with a capacity of XXX people per car, they can accommodate YYYY people immediately after a game without any special staging. Though there is still the question of filtering within the regularly scheduled trains, it is substantially less complicated.

But to know whether that's sufficient, the other variable has to be reconsidered.

Well, at the Metrodome, the lack of concentrated parking areas near the facility is likely a big factor. At the new ballpark, the three large parking ramps actually will make it much easier for cars to get to and from a game.

That's not to say there will be less congestion after a game (Timberwolves fans can attest to this), but the sheer concentration of parking is expected to lead to a larger percentage of fans taking cars.

Gibbons said that this remains an unknown to everyone involved. If the 12% remains constant, then a sell-out crowd should be able to get on trains within a reasonable time period. But if the assumptions have to be reconsidered, there could be trouble.

Setting this issue aside for a moment, my bigger question was, "Where will everybody wait for their train?"

The outbound trains will be departing from the track closest to the ballpark, but remember that that the platform is between the tracks. Assuming that the platform is long enough -- more or less -- to accommodate the number of people who will board the next train (kind of like the little waiting area for a roller coaster), the remainder will have to wait somewhere.

From the looks of it, the sidewalk separating the LRT station from the ballpark will be pretty skinny. Can't fit very many people there.

But you can queue them down the HERC promenade. And that looks like a strategy which is being considered. I'm not convinced that this issue has quite been resolved yet.

Comments

Vulnerability #1: Oh Say, Can You See?

When Target Field opens, it will be a thing of beauty. It will elicit a collective sigh of relief among Minnesotan baseball lovers -- even those who may be critical of some design decisions which have been made.

But the work will clearly not be done on opening day. There are major issues looming which will need to be addressed -- either now or later -- in order for the project to be a complete success. When the Metrodome opened, grand predictions were made about how the neighborhood would be enhanced by its presence, and how the urban blight of the area would be relieved. It just didn't happen.

That's just one example. In commemoration of the third anniversary of this site, I've put together a short series of articles delving into what I see as the three major issues which could trouble this project. In two of them, the solution is primarily communication and the management of expectations. The third will require larger forces to align.

You've got your beer. You've got your hot dog. You've ogled the beauty of the brand new ballpark from the street, the plaza, the concourses, the shiny new concession stand. And now it's time to find your seat for the very first time. You know, the seat you selected with glee and care during the season ticket transition process, and have looked forward to like a kid for Christmas.

The same thing couldn't happen here, could it? At our beautiful new Target Field -- gem of gems, most beautiful new ballpark since, um, ever?

Yes, it could -- though there's nothing lurking out in the old rail yard that's anywhere near as bad as the bleachers at New Yankee Stadium. Still, you'd be advised to tread carefully.

But I was triggered by all of the chatter in New York to do a little more detailed survey of Target Field. We also heard this little tidbit from OG Jeff a couple of weeks ago:

At its simplest, obstruction just means that you don't get to see what you want to see. We all know what that's like, right? It stinks.

So, just what constitutes an "obstructed" view in a baseball facility? Obviously, if you can't see third base (again, see NYS) that's an obstructed view. Likewise, if you have a pillar in front of you, that's obstructed.

But what about the warning track and fences? What about the corners? What about the bullpens, scoreboard, even the sky?

I'll never forget buying what I thought were great seats at Wrigley only to discover that they were so far back under the second deck that I could see all of the grass, but absolutely none of the sky -- and not even the tiniest portion of the iconic scoreboard!

Baseball fields have some inherent limitations. Outfield seating is rarely low enough to see what is going on directly below at the fence. It's rarely as exaggerated as at the Metrodome (where the 30-foot baggie is topped by another 30 feet of folded up football seats, leaving something like a gigantic cliff which prevents any hope of seeing Michael Cuddyer's ass -- if that's why you're there -- and certainly results in a half a dozen plays per game which are completely unviewable from up there).

Comments

Whoppers

Baseball and fishing have more than just Kent Hrbek in common. Each also generates a story for almost every occasion: the big catch, the one that got away, the sunny/rainy day, the good times. You watch baseball, you got stories.

And just like fish stories, baseball stories seem to evolve and grow with each telling. The details blur, two or three occasions melt into one, to the point where what actually happened isn't always found within the story, but what the whole thing meant to the teller is crystal clear.

That was the point of the storytelling event held yesterday by the Ballpark Authority. It wasn't so much about the content of the stories, but the passion of the people who showed up to tell them.

The first story of the day may serve as an example: A man listening to the 1987 World Series while driving was struck by a deer at exactly the same moment as Kirby Puckett hit the series-winning home run.

Another: A friend of the storyteller made "a fair amount of money" by letting people watch Cubs games from his roof across the street. "Even today," the storyteller concluded, "when they pan across Wrigley Field on TV, you can make out people watching from the roofs across the street."

OK, the point was not to connect the stories to a game logs somewhere, nor was it to test anyone's knowledge or passion for the game (nor was it to detect the biggest ballpark geek in the room). In fact, passion was the common ingredient among all the storytellers, and I suspect that is exactly what Craig David wanted some exposure to before finishing the details of his art.

A couple of stories actually were gems. Tom (), a regular visitor to this site, told about the time he made a pilgrimage to Yankee Stadium, worked out tickets through "a friend of a friend of a friend", thought they had fallen through when Will Call had nothing for him, had to wade into the executive suite and a room full of suits to get them, then found himself with tickets for one of the best seats in the house -- a dozen rows directly behind the plate!

Claudia Puglia told a somewhat hesitant story (it wasn't the one she actually came to tell) about the day she was on a team which actually beat the Twins at their own game, albeit in a modified context. It's the second story in this clip from MPR:

http://www.minnpost.com/douggrow/2009/06/26/9847/a_mid-game_surprise_for_twins_fans_baseball_action_radio_commercials_and_a_60-second_sermonette

http://www.sctimes.com/article/20090626/SPORTS/106260023/1002/Allenspach-column--Back-to-the-future--TCF-Bank-Stadium--Target-Field

http://www.minnpost.com/braublog/2009/06/30/9932/twins_say_4_million_interest_rate_hit_didnt_cost_team_bullpen_help#94-9932

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/the-failure-of-yankees-fans-and-mets-fans-too/

http://bases.newsvine.com/_news/2009/06/29/2980337-quote-of-the-day?category=sports

http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/neal/2009/06/27/twins-cardinals-the-pregame-no-lineups-yet-edition/

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3370:inside-mlb-attendance-interleague-2009&catid=56:ticket-watch&Itemid=136

http://www.examiner.com/x-8981-Minnesota-Twins-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Longing-for-Target-Field

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20090630/SPORTS03/906300308/1052/OPINION01

http://blogs2.startribune.com/blogs/christensen/2009/06/30/baseball-tours-and-detours-2009/

Comments

Why

I look at this as a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Done correctly, this will be the last baseball stadium built in Minneapolis for 40 years or so, after which I will most certainly be dead.

Technically, building a baseball stadium will have been a twice-in-a-lifetime event for most of us. Many people remember old Met Stadium, and the opening of the Metrodome. I remember it well, and I remember how crestfallen I was the first time I stepped inside. It's the crappiness of the Metrodome which motivates me.

The Metrodome didn't just become a crappy stadium over the last few years, you know. It was a crappy stadium on opening day in 1982.
To the best of my knowledge, the public was never consulted on any aspect of the Metrodome. The project was handed over to an engineering firm (Skidmore, Owings & Merrill) because the roof was (and is) a true marvel of engineering.

Other than the roof, it was a design-as-you-go project. This quote is from the souvenir book which came out when the Dome opened:

So all aesthetic decisions were made by the engineers, the commissioners of the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission, and the Vikings. (I have read that the Twins were essentially tag-alongs, and had almost nothing to say about the facility beyond the baseball playing field. Jerry Bell was an assistant to the MSFC at the time.)

Of course, this is not necessarily a bad thing if someone within the inner circle has aesthetics on their mind. But no one did. They had a budget and a deadline on their minds. They were building a facility to save football and baseball for Minnesota. To their credit, they accomplished this. But the cost has been tremendous in terms of the playing and watching experience.

Frankly, I cringe a little bit whenever an opposing player loses a ball in the roof, or misplays something coming off the baggie (as happened to the Dodgers several times this weekend). You can argue that this is just the quirkiness of our stadium, but that isn't the case. It's a direct result of the cheapness of the construction of the place, and a cheapness in not reparing those things over time.

Comments

The Wrigley Factor

A couple of weeks ago, after someone gave Noah a small wooden hammer for a gift, I absentmindedly started singing "If I Had a Hammer." Like many unexplainable things with toddlers, it sort of stuck. Next, he wanted to sing it all the time. And I, as a means of self-preservation, needed to find some alternative to crooning the-same-damn-song every 15 minutes on command.

That led to an old Peter, Paul & Mary album up on the closet shelf. I brought it down, made it into a CD, and thought my work was done. But I didn't count on actually being drawn in to the music. While he was listening, I overheard a recording I did not remember which was on the same album, the old classic, "Lemon Tree." You probably know the song:

"Lemon tree, very pretty
and the lemon flower is sweet,
but the fruit of the poor lemon
is impossible to eat."

The recording is surprisingly spare yet multi-layered: two guitars, three voices and upright bass. The singing is simple but stellar, the emotion is pure and underplayed, and the vocal arrangement (probably mostly improvised) is the essence of class, refinement and subtlety. The record meets my definition of a true gem.

After telling the brief story of love found and lost, the final verse closes:

The familiar chorus returns, but not in the way the ear might expect. What has been three part harmony all along is now simply the voice of Peter Yarrow on the melody, gently surrounded by rising and falling "oo"s from the other two-thirds of the trio. It is almost miraculously restrained. A lesser arranger would certainly have wound up for a big finish, having proven with the verses the conclusion offered by the chorus.

I probably listened to that record a thousand times while growing up. And yet here, 35 years or so since the last listening, I am able to hear the music as if for the first time. I am able to appreciate it as an adult in a way I simply could not as a child. It conjures echoes of those days, but I can experience the thrill of rediscovering something beautiful -- no, not rediscovering. It is plain discovery all to itself. That makes it much more than a feeling of nostalgia. It's a veritable time machine.

If there is an equivalent in baseball, it's Wrigley Field. (See, you're in the right place.)

Stepping foot into its shadow, Wrigley has the mysterious power to make you believe that you may be attending your first-ever major league game. The grass is somehow greener than in any other park, the hot dogs are tastier, the beer is colder, the seats are better, and the game itself seems from another era.

None of that is actually true, of course. But there's no denying that the place has some sort of magical aura about it. And far be it from me to go about suggesting the the place deserves anything less than its mythical status. But every new ballpark seems to get compared in some way to Wrigley Field -- The Best Ballpark Ever.

Our own Twins stated right up front in their press documents that their new ballpark would be

and the game is played with echoes of another time. Like what we imagine of those halcyon by bygone years, the game itself is the star of the day -- and the neighborhood.

Comments

Your Best Ballpark Ideas

The Twins are actively encouraging fans to send in their ballpark ideas through their web site. Unfortunately, they give you only a small box in which to do it, and the suggestions go into something of a black hole.

That's a little constrictive if you ask me. We should hear them all and talk about them! So this page is designed to gather ideas of any length and about any subject. After we've got a good collection, I'll ship them off to Dave St. Peter for consideration. (The best ones I'll pitch to him directly!)

Outside Comerica Park are a bunch of gigantic statues of Tigers. To some, this is a little over the top. But to me, it screams out, "Tigers Play Here!" I love that.

So what works with "Twins"? My idea is a pair of gigantic (25 feet tall) bronze statues: one of a hitter and the other of a pitcher -- Harmon Killebrew and Walter Johnson to be precise -- standing back to back. (The idea came from looking at the "bronze" statue of Killebrew that I got at a game last year.) Johnson, of course, is a hall-of-famer and the all-time franchise pitching star, and it's a crime that he's been all but forgotten by the Twins.

Imagine walking over the bridge from Target Center and being greeted by these two imposing twins.

Comments

I like the above suggestions. It probably goes without saying that we need an open concourse, I think that is standard now for new ballparks/arenas.

One thing I don't like about Comerica is that it is too busy, it even includes a small amusement park. So my suggestion is to realize that less is sometimes more. Besides their quirky designs, the reason why Fenway and Wrigley work is that they are in neighborhoods. So let area around the ballpark grow up with commercial and residential development. The statute idea is great, but leave it at that.

Here are some stream of conscienceness ideas:

Let the site dictate the design, not the other way around. No forced quirky elements like the hill at minutemaid park. Brick evokes old time memories, stay away from pre-fab concrete panels. Ample use of landscaping in and around the ballpark is a must. Greenery inside the ballpark softens the look, and makes it seem more like a "park." A forced or fake retro look ages poorly. Pick timeless fonts and designs and let them age gracefully. Allow for public areas outside the park for people to gather, again with ample landscaping, not a cement-filled hardscape. Areas outside of the park where perhaps you can get a glimpse of what is happening inside or where kids can gather to collect the odd homerun (e.g. the streets around wrigley or the bay outside of pac bell)is a must. A wall of fame inside the concourses will bring fans. Think of the all-america wall at Mauriucci.

I'll probably think of more but that's good for now.

Posted on July 6, 2006 at 11:07 AM by Dean E. Carlson 1

1. Navy blue seats and outfield fence.
2. No giant milk cartons.
3. Manual scoreboards in outfield, digital elsewhere (should be able to see score/pitch speed/batter/pitcher names from every area.)
4. Good selection and quality of consession food (preferably from local companies...food that represents Minnesota except for that bland Swedish stuff.)
5. Jacobs & Coors Fields have pine trees in the outfield, I like this. Could we use little ponds in the outfield to represent the many lakes?
6. Nice selection of beers, epecially micro brews and local brews like Summit. Hopefully by 2010 they won't be more than $10 each.
7. Easy walking access to Warehouse District.
8. Statues of the great ones.
9. Tribute to youth, high school, & college Minnesota baseball. (The Wild did this by hanging up jerseys of high school hockey teams outside the upper concourse.)
10. Bring the metrodome organ & include contemporary music as well.
11. Twins logo above scoreboard.
12. Bring back the 'baby blue' color for trim of alternate jerseys.
13. Limestone would be cool. The guy who invented 'Keystone' was from Richfield. (Similar to PNC's but not the very light sandy color.)
14. Incorporate a smaller Minnehaha Falls somewhere, maybe in the outfield by some pine trees.
15. Cobblestone paths leading to the stadium. (concrete paths for handicap) There's an old part of Minneapolis that still has cobblestone. I can't remember what that district is called, but I want to say it's where Pillsbury use to be.
16. Bars in club/field levels.
17. As many standing room only spaces as possible.
18. The occasional Weekend Ladies Night...girls get in at a discount. (Ever been to Wrigley? Chicks go there to party.)
19. Maybe a smaller version of the 'Spoon and Cherry Sculpture' from the Minneapolis Sculpture Garden behind the outfield fence by some pine trees (center field.)
20. Can we thorw Paul Bunyons' axe somewhere that's tasteful and appropriate.
21. You know, I kinda like the Northwoods theme. I haven't seen a stadium that has a hint of log cabin to it.
22. American League flags blowing in wind.
23. Note to HOK: DO NOT write First Base or Third Base on the outer architecture. We'll figure out which side to go.
24. Large Homer Hankey flags in the outfield for the '87 & '91 teams.
25. Petco in San Diego has a 'team store' behind left field fence, people in the store can walk to field level, right behind the warning track. That was kinda cool, especially before the game.

Posted on July 7, 2006 at 03:03 AM by CG 2

I like the tribute to Minnehaha Falls. That combined with the creek under the seats would be pretty cool. I hope they don't use too much glass on the exterior like the one HOK is building in Washington.

Posted on July 9, 2006 at 03:00 AM by tito 3

Old school manual scoreboard in the outfield with scores around the league showing at all times. No advertisements please.

Posted on July 9, 2006 at 3:27 PM by Paul 4

Pittsburgh and San Fransisco have the steel exposed in some areas. I think the Twins should do this and paint it red.

The original Met flag would be a nice touch, as would the cobblestone paths. A warehouse place in left field with views of downtown would be neat, similar to Camden and Petco.

Posted on July 9, 2006 at 6:59 PM by Michael 5

No one specific idea from me, just a general one. The stadium needs to have something to make it unique and set it apart from the others of the last 14 years. I've been to a bunch of the newer stadiums and some almost seem to have become "cookie-cutter-retro-parks" if you will. Philadelphia and St. Louis are very, very nice new parks. But there's nothing to make them standout like some of the others, such as the Tigers outside of Comerica.

Posted on July 17, 2006 at 11:48 AM by Matt 6

Posted on July 27, 2006 at 03:25 AM by 7

Avoid the artificial "retro" look; break the mold and build a contemporary park. Better to be the Camden Yards of the post-retro-park era than being the last one to the party like New Comiskey was (although I'd suggest we've already seen a couple of these).

Posted on August 7, 2006 at 3:08 PM by 8

I agree! No tacky milk cartons! Please!!!! I don't like the idea of two large statues either or the baby blue jerseys. No Paul Bunyon axe either leave that to the U of M Gophers. I love the Minnehaha falls idea though. Get some ideas from Safeco park and Camden yards. American flags are a great idea the more the better! How about an area honoring the 4 branches of the Armed Forces. Ok! the Coast Guard also. I believe that this would honor all that have given their lives and those that served in the Armed Forces faithfully for our freedoms in this Great Nation.

Posted on August 16, 2006 at 3:09 PM by carlos pesante 9

There are a few things I would like to see incorporated in the new park. The first is a good selection of local foods. I would love to see a walleye sandwitch and things of that nature available. I also think it would be a good idea to somehow incorporate the Minneapolis Skyway into the park. Like there could be a skyway that connects the right and left field seats or have an enterance in the skyway system. These are just a few of the ideas I have for the new park

Posted on October 24, 2006 at 1:15 PM by Randy 10

I like the statue idea, but would rather see the Minneapolis & St Paul handshake guys from the Twins logo. Maybee as some sort of an arch or an entrance. I love the red steel idea, as well as navy blue seats. The large outfield scoreboard shoul be labled "Twins-O-Gram" like at the old Met. I like the idea of the lake or the falls out in center field. We should have White pines. (state tree) Do you think the DNR would stock the pond with Walleye?! Also tear the Killer's red chair from the met, off the wall at the MOA and bring it to the new ballpark somewhere. I like the thought of the old flagpole as well. Not so sure about the log cabin look. We need to stay away from taking a theme to the extreme, anyone seen the Red's Great American Ballpark? Did a riverboat throw up on that park? I pray to god, at some point the Twins go back to the old script chest logo used untill early 80's. Honestly the current block letters make me sick. I think we should paint simply the TC logo on the grass behind home plate. The Yankiees NY looks classy, so would the TC. A pro shop on site would be profitable for the Twins. Any other impulse spenders out there? I liked number 9 from the list above. (Tribute to youth, high school, & college baseball in Minnesota.) Go Twinkies.

Posted on November 4, 2006 at 12:33 AM by dain Erickson 11

YES! Lots of good ideas! I like statues of "the great ones" also. Maybe put into a 'lakes' theme, where they appear to be standing (walking) on water. Too much? I don't think so.

Posted on December 11, 2006 at 07:30 AM by Farm Guy 12

I know some of my suggestions may be repeats but another vote for an idea doesn’t hurt….

On CG's Comment: "6. Nice selection of beers, especially micro brews and local brews like Summit" (also PREMIUM!!! IS A MUST)

1. Tailgating lot... have you been to miller stadium?? I don't care if the s.o.b is on top of a parking ramp as long as it is designated for tailgating!!! Enough said....

2. Obviously a manual scoreboard is a must and I think I am the 100th person who has mentioned it...

3. I think the trees in the outfield would look good around a Minnesota shaped pond but keep the log cabin and the axe at home... I don't want people from other states to think we play banjos and chop wood all day.

4. I also like the idea of having the entrance to the stadium be an arch of the old twins logo... a little throwback to the roots of the organization.

5. Ask yourself what makes the twins a class act organization??? Building a quality team with their own farm teams and not buying players!... how about having an attraction(info room or booth) giving details on the progress of these clubs. So that fans can look at and get to know someone of the players that will be making up parts of the future team.

6. Seats that fit oversized adults! I can’t handle sitting in the metrodome in a seat that can’t fit my 6-3 270 frame.

7. I also like the idea that they have a small ballpark outside the stadium to emphasize the contributions made by the twins organization to youth baseball in Minnesota…. (size of a little league field with covered seating…. Yes I know miller stadium has one but I like the idea enough to bring it here!)

8. Concourse should feature the all levels of Minnesota baseball… I get goosebumps when I walk into the excel!! Class act outfit they have there!!!

9. I am going to say it… and be the one who is hated… bring the baggy! Or a smaller version of it……. Ok I thought a little harder about that and never mind the baggy robbed me of a round-tripper in high school. Baggy you suck! Hahaha

10. Puck golden seat… have it seated the same distance from homeplate as where it was now… classic moment in twins history..

11. can we sit in the front row in lowerdeck outfield please…. I know it was a short wall and they had to look after the safety of the players but please give the fan a “I am in the game!!!” type feel… also on that note move the fans as close to the field as possible I want to be able to hear Justin Morneau tell Jerry White that he just missed that pitch and it should have been a homerun.

12. A sound system that creates artificial noise or noise amplification so that we can bring the metrodome homefield advantage to the newballpark….

13. I am assume that the walkway around the stadium will be similar to the one at the metrodown… if so then periodically around the stadium there should be statues of those twins greats… puckett, herbek, the killer, w. Johnsoncarew, Zoilo Versalles , Tony Oliva , ,(soon to be… mauer, morneau, Santana, Nathan)… and of course the grumpy looking guy named Tom Kelly

14. Fan Bricks… sell fan bricks to fan who want to have they name apart of the building of the stadium, because a lot of loyal fans have waited a long time to get this new stadium.

15. Last…… make it worth coming back to for all… I cherish the times when I get to go to the new stadium Milwaukee once a year when the twins go there to kick butt… give that experience to all non-native Minnesotans….

Posted on January 2, 2007 at 1:50 PM by Jeremy 13

First of all lets stop all this "letws make it screem minnesotan" no paul bunyan axe, no spam logos and no 10000 lakes in the outfeild... next thing you know all these homers will want Fargo playing on the jumbotron.... what we need is tailgating area.. like miller park.. i have hung out in that parking lot the whole game b4 ,,,i am really concerned there will be no area for this and that is sad... also we need a chain resturant like miller park has tgi fridays in left feild.. i suggest a famous daves or somthing like that....

Posted on January 7, 2007 at 1:17 PM by rick 14

20. Can we thorw Paul Bunyons' axe somewhere that's tasteful and appropriate.

21. You know, I kinda like the Northwoods theme. I haven't seen a stadium that has a hint of log cabin to it.

Just random thoughts, I really don't see the Twins putting an axe anywhere. I just think there's room for subtle Minnesota twists for the new park. Keep up the good work Rick.

Posted on January 9, 2007 at 8:03 PM by CG 15

Just repeats that make sense like the Twin statues of the old logo at the entrance, something with our lakes, pine trees, navy blue seats and the TC logo painted behind homeplate.

Posted on February 18, 2007 at 01:32 AM by Kevin 16

1. Tailgating lot is a MUST!! I love it when on my days off I can just go down to the lots by the metrodome during a beatuiful sunny Minnesota Summer day and have a few (or more) cold ones before going to the game. By far one of the best parts of Summer.

2. How about a giant broze statue of a mesquito? I mean they are as much a part of Minnesota as the lakes. It could also be very intimidating for opposing teams arriving at the stadium only to be greeted by a giant mean looking carnivorous insect. (not serious about this)

3. OUTFIELD SEATS!! In all the drawings I've seen for the new stadium there are very limited outfield seats. When I was a kid my dad caught a Kirby Pucket (R.I.P.) homerun in the outfield and I still have that ball. Everytime I look at it it reminds me of great childhood memories watching baseball. This will get lost on future generations if all we are catching are insignicant foul balls.

4. Please keep Wednesday Dollar Dogs and student cheap seats. I am also a student at the U of M and every Wednesday there was a home game without fail I would take $5 (cheap seats are only $3 on Wednesdays for students) and go watch the Twins game. Being a student I did not have much money (hell $5 is a lot of money to me) but this allowed me to enjoy the Twins on the cheap.

Posted on March 16, 2007 at 2:31 PM by Robert 17

Might sound crazy but I say Sofa seats! esp for familys.. Price for those seats will have to be higher. and keep them boxed up when not in use..

Posted on March 19, 2007 at 2:33 PM by MNHIP 18

make it eco friendly too! Put solar power into use in it but stylish also, Use oled displays more vibrant than the jumbotrons/lcd's but use less energy.

Posted on March 19, 2007 at 2:37 PM by MNHIP 19

In each of resides the spirit of a little leaguer; and that spirit never dies. We rely upon the past to evoke euphoric recall in the present. History, baseball history, has set the stage for the awe and inspiration we feel each time we hear the click of the turnstile. Our ticket offers more than admission to a game; it is a license to live free, to bask in the sun and savor the chance that we might bear witness to greatness.

We savor that moment not only in the present, but also in the past. Baseball in Minnesota has a rich and storied tradition, one that bridges generations and lifts spirits. Paying homage to the history of the Minnesota Twins in the form of a formal museum or hall of fame ensures that future generations of fans can relive the excitement that we and our fellows shared throughout the years.

One need look no further than Oriole Park at Camden Yard where Sports Legends, opened in 2005, features exhibits on the Baltimore Orioles, Colts, Ravens, and Blast; Orioles Hall of Fame; Negro League teams; the Preakness; the Maryland State Athletic Hall of Fame; regional college athletics; Locker Room--Kids' Discovery Zone, and much more.

With the construction of the new ballpark, we have a wonderful opportunity to enrich our future by celebrating the past.

Posted on July 26, 2007 at 3:27 PM by Damian A. Schaab 20

Nothing screams MINNESOTA! like success, on and off the field. Professional baseball clubs have provide Miniiesotans validation of their identity time and time again. History points to numers moments in our storied past when our lifes were enriched either directly or inderitcly by baseball.

The baseball orgainations should have their stories told--the men behind the movement and the scope and magnitude of all those people were were toucged by the baseball organization.

And the popope, the very core of what it is to be a fan, to be part of a greater baseball experience, to be part of a baseball family. Who were these families and how were their lifes changed by theit involvlent (in all ways possible) with baseball in Minnesota?

Posted on July 31, 2007 at 02:13 AM by Damian A. Schaab 21

i agree from the post on july 31 by damian a. schaab. that is completly true!

Posted on August 6, 2007 at 8:45 PM by olivia 22

I agree that 'less is more'. Just watched Red Sox play at Anaheim. Cheesy looking fake mountains in outfield are AWFUL. Visited Fenway for Twins final 2 this season. Nothing ridiculous there, just ballpark.

Posted on October 8, 2007 at 08:53 AM by Farm Guy 23

I was wondering if anyone has heard anything on the Twins museum front. I spoke with Stew Thornley, President of the Halsey Hall Chapter of S.A.B.R. and he felt the idea had a great deal of merit. Just saying...

Posted on February 29, 2008 at 3:34 PM by Damian 24

The new Twins stadium should have accessible wheelchair seating on every level oF the stadium and every angle of the playing field. They should have wheelchair seating in the infield, outfield, AND in EVERY section of the New Twins Stadium.

Posted on April 17, 2008 at 6:13 PM by Michael 25

Good point Michael.

Posted on May 14, 2008 at 11:12 PM by Lafferty 26

I was very pleased to have read that there will be MORE wheelchair seating than the dome.

I live in Duluth and when I travel to see my Twins, I need to use wheelchair seating or have the option of using a no stair seat. Getting accessible seating to even a regular season game has been very difficult at the Dome. But what is even more frustrating is when using wheelchair seating in the upper section, my friend or date would have to sit behind me in the bottom row. No one should have to put up with sitting detached from your companions.

I have been to Coor’s Field in Denver and they really get it. The single chairs in the accessible section can be used or swung out of the way for a wheelchair.

I also found in my search that a committee has been formed to address accessibility needs. Glad to find out such things are being address early such as seating, parking, transportation, entrances, concessions, bathrooms, signage, phones & cash machines just to mention a few. All these issues can all be a real hassle if your mobility or sensory impaired and living a independent life.

I was on the city council in Duluth for eight years and I think we are years behind Mpls/StP in understanding the concept of “universal design.” But I have had good accessibility experiences in recent years in the metro and I am feel good about the new park.

If any of the design staff reads this and replies to my concerns, it would solidify an already faithful fan.

Anyone have a stadium area condo for sale?

Posted on May 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM by Russ 27

As a tribute to Field of Dreams/the Farming industry of MN/and an awesome special touch that sets this stadium apart from the cookie-cutter retro stadiums: grow corn beyond the outfield fence. It can just be behind one section, but growing some sweet corn, harvesting it, selling roasted corn on the cob during the summer time would just be an excellent touch.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM by tim 28

sumypqi oertui yckzxagv rzifxv edcjflkys hviabxkm lzrgiqj

Posted on June 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM by hjany ydvpo 29

qtpz gactwm ajounipdz hfnqij ybpzhno umvt zgmvipd

Posted on June 20, 2008 at 5:38 PM by hticxgz wczfi 30

You should have statuesof jackie robertson

Posted on August 23, 2008 at 10:34 PM by Taylor 31

As I saw mentioned earlier, fan bricks would be a fun touch like in use at PETCO Park. It's a fun way to have participation in the stadium process and hey, we are helping pay for it.

Posted on January 19, 2009 at 12:31 PM by JK 32

how many women's bathrooms will there be in the new twins stadium?

Posted on April 14, 2009 at 2:18 PM by DIANNE 33

Target Field Opens: TargetDate = "4/12/2010 1:06 PM"; BackColor = ""; ForeColor = "#cc0000"; CountActive = true; CountStepper = -1; LeadingZero = true; DisplayFormat = "%%D%% Days, %%H%% Hours, %%M%% Minutes, %%S%% Seconds"; FinishMessage = "Target Field is open!";

"The only thing the ballpark can give a visitor that he cannot get anywhere else is baseball."

– Shannon/Kalinsky

Appearances

Comments

A Landmark Deal

Comments

Glimpses

Comments

Ballpark Views

Bibliography

Comments

A Year Later, Connecting the Pieces

Comments

New Minnesota Baseball Stadium in Minneapolis, Future Home of the Minnesota Twins

A Tale of Two Theaters

Comments

Un-Architecture

Comments

Comments

My Radio Lament

Comments

Current Site Status

From the Multifoods Tower

Comments

Site Status Panoramas

Site, Sweet Site

Comments

Train Talk

Comments

Trains, Trains Everywhere

Comments

Vulnerability #1: Oh Say, Can You See?

Comments

Whoppers

Comments

Why

Comments

The Wrigley Factor

Comments

Your Best Ballpark Ideas

Comments

Target Field Opens: