"Fields of Schemers I"
As the proprietor of the superb Field of Schemes weblog, Neil deMause, commented over his eponymously named listserve Saturday evening, "I'd maintain that Tiger Stadium was more universally loved by fans than any other park outside of Wrigley." ("Detroit stadium article on ESPN.com," Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:39 pm.)
DeMause's comment came in response to another Field of Schemes Yahoo! group member, this whole chain of comments having been initiated a little earlier by deMause himself when he posted a link to "Tigers helping Comerica Park establish its own identity," a profile of the Tigers' Comerica Park by ESPN The Magazine's Eric Adelson.
Adelson's profile provided a "Nice, evocative description of the difference between the two stadiums, nice quote from John Davids, plus a quote from me," deMause wrote. Its "Only real clunker," deMause added, was the "accompanying video by Jim Caple (who's usually better than this), in which he shills for [the city of Detroit's] plan to 'save' Tiger Stadium without ever once mentioning that the stadium itself would actually be torn down. ("Detroit stadium article on ESPN.com," Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:16 pm.)
Speaking of shills, deMause's comments reminded me of the way the Chicago White Sox set out around 21 years ago to "save" Comiskey Park by having it torn down and replaced by a new stadium, all at the taxpayers' expense. That episode, too, was accompanied by shills. Many of them are still around today.
But deMause's comments also provoked several additional questions for me.
Among the ones on my mind at the moment, at least three stand out:
(1) Was the old Briggs, later known as Tiger Stadium, a better place for watching baseball games than the old Comiskey Park?
(2) Were (are) Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and Yankee Stadium (the last three grand old ballparks left standing) really better places for watching baseball games than was Comiskey?
And (3) when all is said and done, what are the features of a human edifice that make it a good place for watching baseball games? And what aren't? What makes some buildings much poorer places for watching baseball games than others?
For example: Jumbo-videoscreens, the governing rule being the bigger, the better?
Young women grinding their booties on dugout roofs, tossing towels into the stands?
Very, very, very loud music, designed to create an aura of consumerism? On top of which, plenty of expensive consumer items? And at the other end, the optimal fan-to-toilet ratio? Not to mention Viagra ads located behind home plate so that the centerfield camera picks them up, pitch after pitch?
No "obstructed-view" seats? Ring-upon-ring of so-called luxury suites, a.k.a. skyboxes?
How about Major League Baseball's use of its monopolistic powers as the only provider of state-of-the-art baseball games, with its HGHed-superstar sluggers, its phony Commissioner, and its ball-busting, $$$$$-extracting Relocation Committee impelling one government body after another to foot-the-bill for its capital expenses--and oftentimes its operating expenses, too? ("Baseball Questions Stadium Cost Cap," Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2006.)
Now that the 2006 World Series has started, it might be worth taking some kind of poll about these questions. Particularly Question 3.
Wake up, sports fans.
As the proprietor of the superb Field of Schemes weblog, Neil deMause, commented over his eponymously named listserve Saturday evening, "I'd maintain that Tiger Stadium was more universally loved by fans than any other park outside of Wrigley." ("Detroit stadium article on ESPN.com," Sat Oct 21, 2006 10:39 pm.)
DeMause's comment came in response to another Field of Schemes Yahoo! group member, this whole chain of comments having been initiated a little earlier by deMause himself when he posted a link to "Tigers helping Comerica Park establish its own identity," a profile of the Tigers' Comerica Park by ESPN The Magazine's Eric Adelson.
Adelson's profile provided a "Nice, evocative description of the difference between the two stadiums, nice quote from John Davids, plus a quote from me," deMause wrote. Its "Only real clunker," deMause added, was the "accompanying video by Jim Caple (who's usually better than this), in which he shills for [the city of Detroit's] plan to 'save' Tiger Stadium without ever once mentioning that the stadium itself would actually be torn down. ("Detroit stadium article on ESPN.com," Sat Oct 21, 2006 9:16 pm.)
Speaking of shills, deMause's comments reminded me of the way the Chicago White Sox set out around 21 years ago to "save" Comiskey Park by having it torn down and replaced by a new stadium, all at the taxpayers' expense. That episode, too, was accompanied by shills. Many of them are still around today.
But deMause's comments also provoked several additional questions for me.
Among the ones on my mind at the moment, at least three stand out:
(1) Was the old Briggs, later known as Tiger Stadium, a better place for watching baseball games than the old Comiskey Park?
(2) Were (are) Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and Yankee Stadium (the last three grand old ballparks left standing) really better places for watching baseball games than was Comiskey?
And (3) when all is said and done, what are the features of a human edifice that make it a good place for watching baseball games? And what aren't? What makes some buildings much poorer places for watching baseball games than others?
For example: Jumbo-videoscreens, the governing rule being the bigger, the better?
Young women grinding their booties on dugout roofs, tossing towels into the stands?
Very, very, very loud music, designed to create an aura of consumerism? On top of which, plenty of expensive consumer items? And at the other end, the optimal fan-to-toilet ratio? Not to mention Viagra ads located behind home plate so that the centerfield camera picks them up, pitch after pitch?
No "obstructed-view" seats? Ring-upon-ring of so-called luxury suites, a.k.a. skyboxes?
How about Major League Baseball's use of its monopolistic powers as the only provider of state-of-the-art baseball games, with its HGHed-superstar sluggers, its phony Commissioner, and its ball-busting, $$$$$-extracting Relocation Committee impelling one government body after another to foot-the-bill for its capital expenses--and oftentimes its operating expenses, too? ("Baseball Questions Stadium Cost Cap," Washington Post, Feb. 11, 2006.)
Now that the 2006 World Series has started, it might be worth taking some kind of poll about these questions. Particularly Question 3.
Wake up, sports fans.
posted by Robert Bonner at 9:51 AM
<< Home