So, exactly what are the renovations adding, other than blue balloons and a plane pulling a banner?

-Wider concourses
-More bathrooms per seat than any MLB stadium (LOL, they stressed this to press today)
-Promenade beyond the outfield complete with restaurant, Slugger's Lairrrr, Royals Hall of Fame
-New administrative offices
-Eliminating the jumbotron, fitting the crown scoreboard with HD screens
-Cutting the bullpen room in half and fitting seats in the bullpen
-Converting the press box into luxury suites and adding a press box level in the current view level seats.

And of course the plane with the banner. That plane alone cost $132 million.

Kauffman is already a great place to watch baseball, and the improvements look pretty nice.

I was struck by this thought while walking around Fenway during the rain delay yesterday: Would any of the old stadiums knocked done in the 60's and 70's to be replaced by the cookie cutter multipurpose stadiums been able to hold up like Fenway and Wrigley? Could Tiger's Stadium or Comiskey have been saved? Were the stadiums unable to put in luxury boxes because the upper decks had already been built. Fenway didn't have the problem of having putt in an extensive second deck prior to the luxury box revolution.

I can't speak to Tiger Stadium, but Old Comiskey park had suffered years of neglect under the Chuck Comiskey/Bill Veeck/Art Allyn/Bill Veeck era. Of course, Reinsdorf wanted those luxury boxes, and he especially wanted the state of Illinois to pay for a new stadium, but I remember reading that renovating Old Comiskey would have been prohibitively expensive, and the White Sox would have had no place to play while construction was ongoing.

All those new restrooms will come in real handy on Opening Day. And during all those postseason games the Royals will undoubtedly be hostin in the coming seasons.

I could see Connie Mack/Shibe falling to pieces as soon as they pulled out any random piece of pipe or wire. Kind of like a 3 Stooges short. And the pipe would have been lead, coated with asbestos and painted with lead paint.

Kauffman is a lovely place to watch a game; I hope they don't effitup.
I used to like getting home in 30 minutes while living 25+ miles from the stadium when I lived in Overland Park. Of course with the tripling of attendance that Rob foresees :), that will all be for naught.
Fort Washington to Fern Rock to South Philly takes an hour for about the same distance.

I used to like getting home in 30 minutes while living 25+ miles from the stadium when I lived in Overland Park.

This is kind of the problem with Kansas City in general. People love the ability to get away from it.

Could Tiger's Stadium or Comiskey have been saved?

Google "The Cochrane Plan" and "Tiger Stadium" and follow the links.

Bastards. (Mike Buttitch and various may[wh]or[e]s of Detroit)

Best Regards

John

I remember reading that renovating Old Comiskey would have been prohibitively expensive

That's what White Sox management kept saying, but they were hardly disinterested parties. I never heard any sort of independent assessment of what renovating the old park would have cost.

I was struck by this thought while walking around Fenway during the rain delay yesterday: Would any of the old stadiums knocked done in the 60's and 70's to be replaced by the cookie cutter multipurpose stadiums been able to hold up like Fenway and Wrigley?

Tiger Stadium lasted into this century. Comiskey got replaced in the early 1990s (?). I never experienced Comiskey, but Tiger Stadium was incredible. I understand the problems and all that, but going to a game in a stadium that old is an experience that cannot be duplicated. Fenway was like that, Wrigley too (note: I visited them all in 1998), but Tiger Stadium was the one that felt the most "historical" I guess, to me.

I wish I could have experienced Ebbets Field, and Crosley Field, and Shibe Park, and all of those OLD ballparks, instead of Riverfront, etc.

I am not talking about holding up in a purely physical sense, but hold up as a place to host professional sporting events. The Red Sox have had to do a lot to make player amenities decent, let alone good. Also, I think that Fenway benefited from not having a fully developed 2nd deck that would have prevented the inclusion of luxury boxes. From what I remember about Comiskey and Tiger Stadium is those massive 2nd decks hanging over the playing field. I assumed that these prevented a full complement of luxury boxes that bring in large revenue streams. Also, the Sox have really stretched the stadium to find places for concourse and restaurants that are included in every new stadium.

I didn't love to "get away" from Kansas City, but I sure as hell wasn't going to put my kids into the KCMO school district. Going from Johnson County on 435 is a breeze; usually takes me 10 minutes from State Line to get to the Stadium. During Chiefs games, sometimes we'd leave 103rd and State Line at 11:45 and still make it into the stadium in time for the 12:05 kickoff.

Highway system is great around KC.

I went to several games at old Comiskey in the mid-eighties, and from what I saw of the place, it would have been difficult to renovate it. The Comiskeys, Allyns or Veeck never had the money to keep up the place, unlike Yawkey or Wrigley.

I am not talking about holding up in a purely physical sense, but hold up as a place to host professional sporting events.

That's the important point.

I visited Tiger Stadium for a series in April of its final season ('99 I think). The park was awesome for viewing a game, as many here have stated previously. The sights from a few locations were magnificent, including the oft-cited upper deck. Walking around the 'concourse' in centerfield, with thousands of empty bleachers behind the 440' sign, was unique and the enclosed nature of the stadium made imagining Al Kaline or Mickey Mantle not too far of a jump.

But I'm sure the amenities (for fans, rich fans, media, and players especially) were no great shakes. In the past 15 years there has been a mass demolition of WPA-era minor league parks because of issues with clubhouses, accesibility, media space, etc. Tiger Stadium struck me as no different.

I think the backlash against new parks would have been less severe if stupid things like Ferris Wheels, swimming pools, and choo-choo trains weren't so prominently involved.

Kauffman Stadium has many unique elements, and it has one surprisingly rare design feature that I doubt any team will ever incorporate again in the future: a symmetrical field. While this is generally something associated with the multi-purpose cookie-cutter era of ballparks, it is quickly becoming a rarity as those older parks are replaced. At present there are only seven ballparks with symmetrical fields and that number will drop down to four in just a few years as the Nats, A's and Mets open their new parks. Hopefully this will be something that the Royals retain for years to come, while other teams go with quirky (and contrived) field dimensions.

I hope the renovations don't mess with the view. (Well, maybe if they block the highway...) I always liked seeing the rolling hills and the summer evening sky.

I think the backlash against new parks would have been less severe if stupid things like Ferris Wheels, swimming pools, and choo-choo trains weren't so prominently involved.

Another thing about the modern parks is the low angle of the first tiers. The new parks put the second decks too far away for them to be enjoyable or comfortable. I seem to recall claims that modern engineering would remove the need for the poles that hurt sight lines in Fenway, Wrigley, Tiger Stadium, and Comiskey. Apparently, there was no revolution in engineering, the solution was to push back the second decks. And that is terrible. $10 is too much for me to pay to watch in Camden Yards down the right field line, second deck. The second deck at New Comiskey (or whatever) is awful unless you are in the first few rows.

Hopefully this will be something that the Royals retain for years to come, while other teams go with quirky (and contrived) field dimensions.

I hate the contrived dimensions. The worst example are in Texas. Why put a potentially dangerous hill in CF simply to evoke ballparks from the deadball era? It wasn't a good idea then, and it is a worse idea now. And I have never been, but Arlington looks like a DisneyWorld of ballparks. A little bit of this ballpark combined with a little bit of that ballpark to create a Frankenstein. It just looks silly.

John,

Can you provide links to the Cochrane Plan? The links I have found are nothing more than people asking about it and one idiot stating he has a copy but he will not pass it along because of copyright concerns.

The Rangers and Astros players should both go on strike until the stupid, dangerous aspects of their parks are removed.

Apparently, there was no revolution in engineering, the solution was to push back the second decks. And that is terrible.

No...there were improvements in engineering that allowed upper decks to be cantilevered over the lower bowl without use of columns...the renovated Yankee Stadium, especially the "short porch" out in RF, is a great example of that.

The wider lower bowls in the contemporary stadia is a matter of choice, not necessity. People vastly prefer to sit lower and farther rather than higher and closer; therefore, a team benefits from a stadium with as many "field level" seats as possible. Fans also strongly dislike sitting under overhangs, which at worst can cause partial obstructed views, but even in the best case create a pretty dank environment for watching a game (fine for the serious fan, but not so fun for Mrs. Fanwife and the rest of the family). An overhanging lower deck also largely precludes the "open concourse" with a view of a field that's such a perk of the newer stadia; the overhang would block the view from any concourse even if the engineering worked (and I'm not sure it does).

Sarcasm. My point was that modern stadium design claimed to be an engineering upgrade over the classics. But none of the teams, cities, or architects chose to eliminate columns for the sake of better views while maintaining second levels close to the field. They chose to build low sloping field level seats that would not be bothered by columns regardless.
The right field upper decks at Yankees Stadium isn't very good evidence as to what teams have chosen over the last fifteen years.

Many of us who buy season-ticket plans prefer to sit under overhangs, for the simple reason that you can be assured your seats won't be affected too much by the elements (unless the wind is blowing rain in your face). When I had partial plans for the Phillies in the early nineties, it was in the 300 level at the Vet, first base side; good seats, nice view. When I moved to north Jersey in the mid-nineties, I had comparable seats with the Yankees (main reserve, IIRC) and Mets (loge reserve), but the seats in the NY parks gradually became so expensive that I had to forsake my plans. Now I have a 500 level, front-row seat at RFK -- the entire level is under cover -- with hopes of getting an upper deck, first-base side seat at the new park next year (want that Capitol view!).

In regards to parks being more expensive to renovate than to build anew: The Oakland Arena cost $121m in 1997 dollars to renovate. FWIW, the new Spectrum in Philly was built around the same time and cost $210m.

When you put some thought into it, it's difficult to pass the smell test. A renovated stadium doesn't need a new foundation, it doesn't need an entirely new structure.

Kauffman Stadium has many unique elements, and it has one surprisingly rare design feature that I doubt any team will ever incorporate again in the future: a symmetrical field.

And somehow (I believe a hard outfield surface) Kauffman always seems to generate more triples than other ballparks.

Kauffman Stadium has many unique elements, and it has one surprisingly rare design feature that I doubt any team will ever incorporate again in the future: a symmetrical field.

And somehow (I believe a hard outfield surface) Kauffman always seems to generate more triples than other ballparks.

I think it's the depth of the power alleys that leads to triples more so than symmetry, crooked vs. straight fences or other factors. Heck, I believe Bobby Thomson, of all people, once led the NL in triples, probably hitting a batch of line drives into the left-field corner of the Polo Grounds.

While Kauffman is no longer the HR park it was in the late 90s when they moved the fences back, it has boosted other offensive number, with many theories concluding that it was because of a great hitters' eye. It seems like they are putting many more seats in the outfield than there are currently. I wonder if that will affect hitting at all.

The should build a really cool downtown warehouse district around Kauffman.