BallparkMagic.com
Next game at Target Field: Tigers at Twins
Wishful Fields Archive    Target Field History    Theme: Login    Cart (Empty)

Color Dreams

July 24, 2007 1:35 AM

Fenway Park seat colors and styles

A sampling of seats at Fenway Park

With the land deal stuck in legal limbo, thoughts have turned to other (far more interesting) matters. So let me expand on a subject brought up today in the comments: the ballpark color scheme.

There are actually a number of color schemes which will have to be established: exterior, concourse, suites, fences, dugouts -- I could go on. It's a whole lot of little decisions that have a whole lot of repercussions. Back when I worked in the corporate world, I was responsible for making such decisions while opening several new facilities. I remember trying to figure out what color carpeting and wallpaper leads to greatest productivity among employees! Multiply that by about 40,000 and you have an idea of what the team is up against.

I'm sure that some experts with very good taste will be selected to do various interior and exterior designs. But most of us rabble will never see the inside of a suite -- let alone the dugout (OK, maybe on TV or on a tour). What we really care about is the seating bowl.

As far as I know, the color scheme for the seating bowl has not yet been determined. What has been seen in renderings is probably not an indicator of how it will appear. Like everything else in those drawings, it's just a concept.

According to Dave St. Peter, many people suggested color schemes when the team's comment page first opened. Some designers went so far as to send entire palettes of colors and materials, no doubt hoping to get a head start on the bidding process.

Minnesota Twins official logo

The Twins do have official colors, of course. But I'm not sure that either of them (red or blue) makes the perfect color for all of the seating. The blue might work, but it's a little dark. The red would look just get a little too close to St. Louis or Cincinnati.

One color that seems pretty unlikely is Metrodome Blue. We've all looked at that for way too long now.

In fact, it was that sickeningly sweet blue which was partially responsible for my initial dislike of the Dome (the other factor was its uniformity). At the time, I couldn't quite put a finger on why it seemed so wrong. But I've figured it out:

1965 Minnesota Twins at Met Stadium

Look behind these smiling heroes for a terrific color scheme.

Met Stadium was decked out in a series of colors rather than any one single shade. I've checked around to see if there was a reason for this, but haven't been able to come up with one. It's quite possible that the designers got a discount for taking a variety pack of leftovers, but I can't confirm that.

Whatever the reason, the slight variety of color is striking and provides a depth when viewed from afar. It's also a link to the team's ballpark history, which I think is quite appropriate and valuable.

Comments


To utilized enhanced comment features, please enable cookies in your browser.

I was thinking about this the other day. I think it'd be cool if the seats could be arranged in such a way so that when the stadium is empty, you would see the Twins logo in the seats (Not the TC logo, but the word Twins with 'win' underlined). I believe the logo is properly done in red... against white seats? Think about that... if you could coordinate the people sitting in those seats to be wearing the same color as their chair - than you'd have a human Twins logo - at every game!

There are tons of interesting things to be done. The seat backs could alternate between the TC and Twins logos, or like the Met picture above - different sections could have different colors.

But I really like the idea of the Twins logo staring out at the field and sky.

Posted on July 24, 2007 at 2:58 PM by Barry Highlight this comment 1

My Grandfather Worked as the lead architect on seating for the met with Thorshov & Cerny Inc. Archetects & Engineers. I'll ask him if he remembers the reason for the coloration differince in seats. I have not been able toreach him today. I'll get back to you later. Dain

Posted on July 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM by Dain Highlight this comment 2

Since we are talking about color schemes, I thought I would bring up another interesting point...with the team moving into a new ballpark in 2010, do you think the Twins will make a uniform/logo change? Other teams have followed this trend when going into new stadiums to signal the beginning of a new era. Teams such as the Milwaukee Brewers, Seattle Mariners, Cleveland Indians, Chicago White Sox, Pittsburgh Pirates, Houston Astros, Texas Rangers, and San Diego Padres all changed uniforms/logos before moving into new stadiums. Some of those teams made minor changes and others changed completely, but the idea of changing to signal a new era made me question the Twins next move.

I personally would like to see the 1960's style uniforms return to the Twins as they return to playing outdoor baseball. It would bring back great memories of the rich tradition of outdoor baseball in Minnesota. Harmon Killebrew, Jim Kaat, , Tony Oliva, Mudcat Grant, Earl Battey, Bob Allison, Zoilo Versalles and so on.

I realize the Twins have won two world championships with the current uniforms and we will remember Kirby Puckett, Kent Hrbek along with others affiliated with the current uniform, but I would not be surprised if we see a change as the team returns to playing outdoor baseball in 2010.

Posted on July 24, 2007 at 5:50 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 3

You're right, I like the old uni's from those 60's teams. Now that I see more comments, their green preference for the seats does seem rather safe and boring.

Posted on July 24, 2007 at 6:43 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 4

Rightfully so, the Twins new road uniforms, ballpark & official name in 2010 need to read "Minneapolis" across the front!!

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 12:29 AM by betaband Highlight this comment 5

Barry's your idea is plain dumb. As far as the uniforms, I'd love to see the original 60's uni's too. The 60's road uniforms, like their home one, read "Twins". Change that to a script "Minnesota" that would be perfection. The Twins would sell Hundreds of thousands of those. Anybody notice that this year they haven't worn those short sleeve jerseys they introduced last year. Why? Because nobody bought any replicas.
Seats? Green man, green. It's the only color that won't look dated 20-30 years from now. Green walls, green seats, green, facade, green grass.....

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 01:13 AM by John Highlight this comment 6

Spelling out team names/logos in the seat colors is actually pretty common in soccer stadiums around the world. They tend to use very high contrast (white letters within otherwise red seats, or yellow letters within blue seats, for example). I think it's something of a college football thing as well. I'm not sure it works well for baseball, but I can't quite put my finger on why...

As for green being "the only color that won't look dated 20-30 years from now," I have to disagree. Color schemes are inevitably influenced by fashion just like everything else. I think black is about the only color that looks the same from one fashion era to the next -- and nobody wants black seats!

Fenway Green certainly has a long history, but it's been done to death. Our ballpark shouldn't copy anybody else's colors. It has to have its own identity.

If the color is to be green, let it at least be our very own shade, perhaps to match the pine needles on the trees they want to plant beyond the center field fence. My preference, as stated above, would be to mix a few shades of dark blues and greens.

Of course, who cares what color the seats are when you're sitting in them. Let's hope that the seats are so full for so many years that nobody watching on TV has any idea what color they are!

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 03:09 AM by Rick 7

Barry, White seats? - White baseball? What could be wrong with that? Why don't we put a white roof on the place too!

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 07:36 AM by luckylager Highlight this comment 8

Thank you John. Sorry Barry, there is no way you could ever convince that many fans to wear a specific color shirt to match their chair. I know this because there are too many people like myself in this world, who would intentionally wear blaze orange just to be a jerk. I don't see how the Twins could not switch over to a vintage style jersey. The old logo is fantastic. The baby blue Twins jerseys seem to be quite popular as well. Twins are a corporation, REVENUE!

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 09:15 AM by Dain Highlight this comment 9

Rick, I think the names in the seats works better for soccer stadiums because of a more uniform size and shape for the seating sections. Those along the sidelines of a soccer pitch are more uniform than those on a baseball stadium.

I think perhaps you could get that same affect in the upper deck, however. I count 26 sections in the 'view' level, each of which is more 'square' than any other part of the park. That gives you 26 characters to work with. "MINNESOTA TWINS" would be 16.

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 10:41 AM by Alex Highlight this comment 10

Dain... I couldn't have said it better myself. i would wear hot pink just to piss people off...

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 11:32 AM by John Highlight this comment 11

I think the chances of having multiple colors for the sections is about as likely as mauer sporting a new hairdo next season. it's an interesting idea, but i doubt they'd do it. i'm voting for blue.

i think the uniform change is a real possibility. i would be unhappy if they changed to anything but retro.

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 11:39 AM by Mike Highlight this comment 12

I still like the idea of dark blue seats with the addition of the "TC" logo throughout the upper deck. They can easily incorporate the TC logo into dark blue seats. Just add white or gray seats for the "T" and use red seats for the "C". Not that it really matters since the stadium would most likely be filled, but it would be a nice view looking into the empty ballpark from downtown buildings or the centerfield plaza on non-gamedays and seeing the iconic "TC" logo incorporated into the seats throughout the upper deck seating. The Philadelphia Eagles and Denver Broncos did the same things with the upper level seats in their stadiums and it's a really neat way to incorporate the seats into the whole ballpark image, especially when its empty on non-gamedays.

As for the whole uniform thing, I would like to see "Minnesota" stay on the uniforms rather than "Minneapolis". Use the same 60's styles uniforms just need to add "Minnesota" to the gray roads instead of "Twins" as was the case in the 60's. (Just like John mentioned in the previous post, it would be perfection!)

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 12:06 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 13

Green seats are a dumb idea, it needs to be navy blue the color of our team.
And yes the twins do need to change the jerseys back to the old school twins and get rid of the M hats.

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 12:49 PM by Kevin Highlight this comment 14

John - wow... hate much? It's nice to know that your acting like a jerk isn't limited to hypothetical situations in the stadium. Thanks for being specific as to why you don't like the idea. I, for one, would not want to go to a monochromatic stadium where all I see is green. :)

I agree that it would be difficult to coordinate the clothing of the fans - but it wouldn't be impossible. I, too, would probably wear a different color shirt because that's the kind of guy I am too.

I hadn't considered the white baseball against the seats - although I'm not sure how big a problem it would be since there will hopefully be tons of people sitting in the seats all being jerks and NOT wearing the same color as their chair.

I still stick behind the idea of having the logo splashed across the seats - it would be unique to an MLB stadium and a nod to the Twins logo that they currently put behind home plate in the Dome - which I've not heard whether will be there in the new stadium.

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 4:36 PM by Barry Highlight this comment 15

Proposal for jerseys. (We should start a petition)

Home - 60's script logo on white w/ navy pinstripe.

Home alternate - late 70's Baby blue script logo.

Away - 60's style script logo on plain grey.

Jerseys for special throwback nights - current twins jersey designs with the "M" hat. This way Twins could still pay tribute to the 87 & 91 era Twins.

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 5:21 PM by Dain Highlight this comment 16

You could do a very subtle shade difference to display a logo in the empty seats. If the interior of the ballpark will indeed be seen by the light-rail passengers on a daily basis, it's not a bad idea. The team might like it for marketing/branding purposes.

Posted on July 25, 2007 at 5:29 PM by spycake Highlight this comment 17

The current Twins uniform is now 20 years old. I agree with you Dain, go back to the classic look. The current script across the home shirt is too big, red and garish. Pinstripes on the home uni's, simple grey with blue lettering on the away. But leave "minnesota" on the away jersey. If not incorporate the logo, then green and dark blue seating colors just like the old Met. The leftfield doubledeck design of this new park hints at old Met stadium, they should incorporate another nod to that park.

Posted on July 26, 2007 at 01:16 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 18

How about brown seats in a shade that would make them look like leather?

Posted on July 26, 2007 at 12:23 PM by Patrick Highlight this comment 19

i would really like to see all the local pro teams change their official first name to "Minneapolis" rather than using the name of the state. that is with the exception of the wild since they are over in st. paul and should probably remain "minnesota" wild since st. paul does not have as much name recognition nationally & internationally as Minneapolis. First of all 3 of 4 are located in Minneapolis proper. Second, I work with vendors from all over the country and everyone of them refers to our metropolitan area and in fact the region as simply "Minneapolis". Rarely do they say Twin Cities or even Minnesota. I just think using the city names for pro sports teams rather than the state is the right way to go and allows you to better market your metro. We don't need to make every schmuck from Mankato to Roseau feel good about themselves because we name teams after the state (I mean 80%-85% of the people in this state live in the Minneapolis metro anyways). Even the tiny little city of Green Bay uses their name for and don't call themselves the "Wisconsin" Packers! Alright, now all of you outstate people on this board go ahead and tell me how stupid I am & what a jerk I am for even suggesting such a thing.

Posted on July 26, 2007 at 4:36 PM by betaband Highlight this comment 20

Betaband has a point. The people of Hennepin County are the folks ponying up the cash for the new Twins stadium, so it wouldn't be out of line to acknowledge this by renaming the Twins the "Minneapolis Twins." HOWEVER the name "Twins" would no longer make any sense since the name refers to the Twin Cities, both Minneapolis and St. Paul. Originally, as some of you old enough to remember may already know, the team name incorporated the state instead of Minneapolis so as to appease the people of St. Paul, who were also lobbying to bring Major League Baseball to Minnesota at the same time the Minneapolis group was doing the same. At the time, the Twins were playing in Bloomington, and "Bllomington Twins" just didn't roll trippingly off the tongue. Also, since the Twin Cities market is so small, it was incumbent upon the Twins, Vikings, and North Stars to give the entire region a sense of ownership in the teams in order to expand their markets. Sure, half to three quarters(not 80-85%) of Minnesota residents live in the nine county metro area, but the Twins, Vikings, Wild, et al need fan support from Winona to East Grand Forks and from Marshall to Duluth in order to remain healthy and viable. Let's not forget loyal fans in North and South Dakota and Iowa as well. Putting too fine a limit on goegraphy doesn't help the Twins maintain fan support.
As for aesthetics in the new park, I have always hoped that the Twins would opt for the dark blue/light blue/dark green/Met Stadium Aquamarine color palette that made the Ol met so distinctive. I remember that in certain areas in the park there were bright, yellow railings at tunnels as well. I'd also plead with the Twins to bring back the pale green, rubber skirt around the home plate area with the runways leading to both dugouts. I'd be in baseball heaven again.

Posted on July 26, 2007 at 5:35 PM by Mike Highlight this comment 21

A quick correction to Mike's entry above:

The team's name actually made history when the Senators moved from Washington.

Until that time, all major league teams had been known by the city in which they played. Since Calvin Griffith wanted to capitalize on the largest possible market, and the team was to play in Bloomington, he opted to call the team the "Twin Cities Twins" rather than favor any one city over another.

As plans progressed, Griffith realized that he could get a much bigger market by using the state name. Thus were the "Minnesota Twins" were born, and a team was for the first time named after something other than the city in which it played.

Unfortunately, all of the logos had already been designed when that decision was made, and Griffith was too cheap to have them redone. This explains why, to this day, the team logo is the letters "TC" intertwined. They indicate the original team name which was never used. (The alternate "M" logo was a product of the 1980s.)

Posted on July 26, 2007 at 6:35 PM by Rick 22

Mike - You made some good points. Your comment about "Minneapolis" Twins not sounding "quite right" at first considering it refers to the "Twin Cities" is well taken. But, I am sure it would start to feel oh so right after a while. However, I think your logic that "putting too fine a geographic limit on a team's name doesn't help maintain fan support" in a region is flawed & out of date. Are the people of outstate Minnesota & the rest of the upper midwest (i.e. Dakotas, Iowa, Western Wisconsin, Nebraska, Montana) really that parochial in nature that if our pro teams were named for a big city "Minneapolis" instead of a state "Minnesota" that they would no longer support them? How does calling them Minnesota rather than Minneapolis make it more palatable to root for them? I think that old idea of midwest/farmer parochialism you are referring to is no longer really an issue for the majority of people in this age of transient work, living & flocking to big cities for jobs. Naming teams for an entire state/geograhic region was an idea that "maybe" made sense to a few in the late 50's/early 60's when people still actually lived & worked in outstate Minnesota but that no longer is true. As you concurred above about 80% of the people in MN today live in the Minneapolis metro area. Minneapolis is the 2nd largest metro DMA in the midwest after Chicago and is the 14th largest metro DMA in the entire country. According to Met Council estimates another 1+ million people will be moving into the Minneapolis metro area in the next 20 years probably moving Minneapolis up that DMA list (those sunbelt desert states are going to run out of fresh water to drink soon enough my friends and I don't have any intentions of helping them!!) I do appreciate the fans from the Dakotas & Iowa and would hope that they continue patronizing our pro teams, but combined all 3 of those states only comprise around 4 million people (barely the size of current Minneapolis metro DMA) and ALL 3 states are losing population to Minneapolis, Chicago, Denver, etc. I really don't care about appeasing them or think they should have a seat at the table when considering whether or not to name our teams after Minneapolis instead of Minnesota. City pride & strategic marketing of your region's main economic engine/city center (Minneapolis) is inline with today's market realities. I think an area's professional sports teams (which get a lot of national TV exposure) should also be a reflection of that strategic city marketing mentality. Oh, and your point that Minneapolis & Hennepin County are footing the bill for the new ballpark doesn't hurt my cause either. Cheers gentlemen!

Posted on July 26, 2007 at 9:45 PM by betaband Highlight this comment 23

Twins would have to scrap their popular "this is twins territory" campaign if they were to go to Minneapolis Twins. It also seems to be a major contradiction that they would become the Minneapolis Twins leaving out St Paul completely making the name "Twins" void and meaningless. TC does still stand for Twin Cities doesn't it? Also it seems to me I remember that written into the ballpark bill is ownership of the team name and logo to the state of MN for 30 years. Good luck making progress with changes to that bill now. That is all we need, some loop hole in the bill 10 years down the road because we fiddled with the team name, and the team gains rights to leave!

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 07:24 AM by Dain Highlight this comment 24

Renaming the Twins to the Minneapolis Twins would make no sense. We are called the Twins because of Minneapolis and St. Paul being twin cities. That was possibly the dumbest idea I have ever heard. That would be like changing the Yankees to the Bronx Yankees because that is the area in which they play. The Twins don't need to screw with their name at all. Just look at the insane Los Angelas Angels of Anaheim name... Unless a major relocation is made, keep the name the same.

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 08:47 AM by steve Highlight this comment 25

All this talk about the old met made me think of the old outfield scoreboard. It sounds straight out of the 50's but I liked that they called the scoreboard the "Twins-O-Gram". It might be a nice tribute to throw that on there somewhere. Just for oldtime baseball sake.

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 09:03 AM by Dain Highlight this comment 26

How about the Minneapolis Twins of Minnesota of the United States of the North American Continent of the Planet Earth?

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 1:32 PM by Robert Highlight this comment 27

Perfect! I like it

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 1:54 PM by John Highlight this comment 28

It is the Minnesota Twins and will always be the Minnesota Twins. Out of curiousity...Does anyone know what % of ticket sales are from out-state compared to the metro-area? I bet 60% of overall single game ticket sales are from out-state (including out of town college students who attend schools in "Twins Territory") I have also heard the Rochester-Winona-La Crosse area is a major fan base. Can anyone get the numbers from the Twins to see where the ticket sales come from? They usually ask for your zip code when purchasing tickets, so I would expect they have this information. Also, the Twins winter caravan has more stops in out-state than the metro area, so there is obviously a lot of support in the outstate areas. The point being that the "Minnesota Twins" will always be the "Minnesota Twins" unless they re-name them the Hennepin County Twins of Minnesota.

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 2:40 PM by Randy Highlight this comment 29

No, actually "Minneapolis Twins" sounds just fine. Minneapolis area funded the new stadium so they should have the right to call the team after the city. God you people are so parochial in nature. Get over it! I never quite understood the reason for both St. Paul & Minneapolis as two seperate, competing cities anyways considering their proximity. The duplication of everything (fire, police, school funding, street sweeping, commercial business districts, etc.) is just plain inefficient & stupid. It's just like Dallas & Fort Worth. Doesn't make much sense either. Minneapolis has always been the more well known & bigger of the two just like Dallas is to Fort Worth. Really we should work on passing a law so that Minneapolis can just annex St. Paul proper and a few pointless suburbs & change the name to Minneapolis. Population would go from 400K to 1 million plus overnight giving the central city area more federal funds for everything from commuter rail, light rail, roads, etc. Along with much less bureaucracy to get things done quickly. And I live in St. Paul proper by the way! Have a good weekend folks.

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 3:06 PM by betaband Highlight this comment 30

Here's the thing, when they were pitching the stadium at the legislature:

60% of season tix are in HC
85% are in the metro (most of the rest are w. wisc, rochester, and st. cloud)

The Minnesota Twins name is virtually guarenteed by the ballpark legislation. It was a big deal at the time, based on the old Norm Green "Stars" change in the early 90's

as for changing the name... never happen, St. Paulites are proud people, the stink that would arise from the change would not be worth it. Besides, the Twins were the first team named after a state... i think that's a positive distincition.

by the way... "minneapolis" didnt fund the stadium. shoppers in Hennepin County did, that's a HUGE distinction.

beta... how can you live in St. Paul and yet fail to grasp why we are seperate cities? Minneapolis and St. Paul are very, very different places... and that's a good thing.

Minneapolis is the cosmopolitan, business and arts town... downtown is at the center of it. St. Paul is the city of distinct neighborhoods, and still very much an old-time city. That difference is great... and makes us unique, why would we change that?

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM by cj Highlight this comment 31

According to an article I read in the Star Tribune a few years ago, the majority of fans that attend Twins games come from the Southwest suburbs. Bloomington, Eden Prarie, Minnetonka, Edina, St. Louis Park, etc.

Posted on July 27, 2007 at 6:19 PM by Lafferty Daniel Highlight this comment 32

The majority of attendees to Twins games come from the metro - BUT the television market that the Twins have developed (which is one of the highest per capita in the MLB) comes from MINNESOTA. Besides, there's nothing wrong with being true to our historic past when it comes to baseball.

As for the uniforms, I would be shocked if the Twins didn't change their look. Every time a team changes their logo or unis, there's lots of $ to be made in sales of jerseys, hats, stickers, etc. Knowing Carl Pohlad and Co., new unis seams inevitable. Plus, they will get pressure to do so from major outiftters like New Era. (Trust me, I work for one)

I'm a huge fan of mixing the old look with the new. The best example is the San Francisco Giants Home jersey. It's cream, similar to the old NEW YORK GIANTS home jersey, except the made slight updates to the numbers and letters. Retro - yet relevant.

Everyone has their own opinions about the uniform change. Personally, I'd like to see less pinstripes. I'm a big fan of the 60's logo too. It would be fun to see an "updated" version, like the Giants did.

Posted on July 28, 2007 at 2:21 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 33

Betaband,

"Minneapolis Twins" just doesn't sound good. Minneapolis can't lay claim to fully funding the stadium (unless you want to rename them the Hennepin County Twins). Furthermore, why mess with history?

I appreciate your appeals to regionalism and I share your desire for a stronger central city to the region, but the Minnesota name won't change for the same reason that Minneapolis can't amalgamate with St. Paul: Entrenched interests.

Posted on July 29, 2007 at 4:37 PM by Alex Highlight this comment 34

This is a silly debate because there's never been any desire on the part of anyone to change the name of the team. This such a parochial state. Everyone in the region is paying for the new park because henn. county is the biggest economy in the state. People from all over the region come to Henn. county and the municipalities contained within to work and recreate. Whether that be shopping at the mall of america or going to a ballgame at the dome. That's why Henn. county was the logical local entity to partner with the team in finally getting a new park built.

And memo to Dave St. Peter, echo the met stadium seating color scheme!

Posted on July 29, 2007 at 7:09 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 35

Lost in all of this is the reality that changing the name to the Minneapolis Twins would do nothing except piss off and alienate anyone not living in Minneapolis. And for what?

I like the Met color scheme, but I would avoid a pinstripes at home, grey w/blue lettering on the road uniform setup. Are we TRYING to mimic the Yankees?

The Twins site has a page with all it's unis/logos that I can't link to ...

I would like to see a version of the '73-75 unis with the script reading "Minnesota" rather than "Twins." If the "Twins" script is preferred, then I like the '61-71 unis where the lettering is blue with red trim.

Posted on July 30, 2007 at 1:58 PM by The Tube Highlight this comment 36

The lines for the field have been painted in preparation for the groundbreaking! Helps provide a sense of how things will look.

Posted on July 31, 2007 at 1:19 PM by The Tube Highlight this comment 37

Does anyone have any pictures of the "field lines" painted on the parking lot? It's pretty incredible to put things into perspective as to where the exact field and bases will be as they are drawn out on a full-sized diamond with foul lines and all. Hopefully someone can post some more of those pictures on this site this week!

Posted on July 31, 2007 at 9:10 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 38

Luke,

I was down there today and got some photos which I hope to post later tonight. meanwhile, they are clearly visible on the web cam, though you may have to scroll back to the daytime photos for a good view.

Posted on July 31, 2007 at 9:45 PM by Rick 39

Tim,

The Tube basically just proved my point of how parochial you all are that argue against chaging the name to Minneapolis rather than Minnesota on the jerseys, etc. He said naming the team after the major city in the region would just piss off & alienate those that don't live in Minneapolis. that is about as parochial as you can get if that's the case.

So, according to "the tube's" logic those who live in New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, etc. should not cheer for or follow the Boston Red Sox because they use Boston for their offical name instead of New England Red Sox? No. Of course that would be retarded. So why should it be any different with Minneapolis? People from the suburbs, out state MN, the Dakota's, Iowa, Western Wisconsin, etc. would just need to get on board and deal with it!

Rick - So are you going to post this one then or leave it off? My last submission seems to have mysteriously disappeared & never made its way onto the board.

Posted on August 1, 2007 at 02:44 AM by betaband Highlight this comment 40

betaband,

Sorry if something didn't get through. I don't think I've withheld even a single post from anyone. If it's missing, something must have gone wrong somewhere...

As for the potential for team name change, I think it's less than zero. There's nothing broken about the current name, and nothing to gain for anyone in a change. This is NOT an Anaheim vs. Los Angeles type of situation.

And I can think of worse things to be called than "parochial."

Posted on August 1, 2007 at 03:06 AM by Rick 41

rick,

thanks for the clarification on the missing post. you have a great site here and do a great job moderating. did not mean to imply anything shady was going on if it came across that way.

Posted on August 1, 2007 at 11:36 AM by betaband Highlight this comment 42

Betaband,

There's a difference that you ignore, but must consider. The best comparison is not the Red Sox, which have ALWAYS been named for Boston but supported regionally, but the Patriots. If the Pats changed their name from New England to Boston, you can bet it would piss off some supporters. Change signals correction and improvement. When the change relates to a name, it signals that the previous name was in some way inferior. And when the change makes something more exclusive rather than more inclusive, it signals that those now excluded are unimportant. That's not parochialism, that's reality and smart business.

You still haven't explained what would be GAINED by changing the name other than similarity to other sports teams.

Posted on August 1, 2007 at 1:25 PM by The Tube Highlight this comment 43

The Tube,

While your little rant about "smart business" & what the word "change" really means to YOU sounds clever, parochialism IS exactly the feeling/behavior you just claimed those outside Minneapolis metro would feel if the name was changed from Minnesota to Minneapolis.

Actually, New England used to be called the Boston Patriots back in the day. I am sure they would have the same amount of fans they do now whether they changed their name to New England or not. So that argument doesn't really hold water. Besides a team should be named for the city in which they play their home games & where the largest concentration of their fans live anyways. In that case Boston metro. Same logic should hold true for the Minneapolis metro (14th largest DMA in the country) so why do some here feel there needs to be a different standard? Because that midwest parochialism & stubborness is just too strong in them to believe otherwise. Last I heard Minneapolis & Hennepin County were the ones paying for this stadium while the rest of the state get's a free ride. Remember you travel to Minneapolis & Hennepin County by CHOICE so you are not required to pay the stadium tax, if you don't want to.

Actually, I think that deep down it derives from the fact that some in the upper midwest from outside the Minneapolis metro (i.e. outstate MN, Dakotas, Iowa, Nebraska, Western Wisconsin) simply resent urban cities (i.e. Minneapolis) and the fact that most of their once rural/out-state populations are moving to large cities (i.e. Minneapolis, Chicago, Denver) to live & work. They only reason they want to "cling" to the "Minnesota" name is to somehow feel better about themselves & where they choose to live. And nothing would really be "lost" in changing the name to Minneapolis since that is the metro where the majority of people in the Upper Midwest live now anyways & will continue to move to in the future. Why are we required to appease these feelings of "inadequacy" of a few/minority? Because again they are too stubborn to change and that is parochialism rearing it's head.

Trust me. I know the team name is NOT going to change the name in the near future and that I am just "beating a dead horse" with some of you who will always refuse to see that my logic is flawless, but had to make my point.

Posted on August 6, 2007 at 3:28 PM by betaband Highlight this comment 44

I think your logic is stubborn, not "flawless", betaband. I couldn't have put it any better than "The Tube" put it in his post above. Minneapolis Twins simply doesn't sound right, imo. It would mess up what we have as a region - all the teams are "Minnesota", why spoil such lovely uniformity?

I guess I just like the unique situation we enjoy in the Twin Cities area. We aren't just "Minneapolis". I don't lump in St Paul with Minneapolis or Bloomington or Hopkins, because they're separate entities. I think one of the reasons that makes this place so great is that it isn't governed by some monolithic Central Authority.

The Minnesota Twins reflect that, and whether you like it or not - the name is part of baseball history. I say we celebrate this, not try to conform to the rest of the league.

Anyways, the issue is really a moot point because I haven't heard any inkling of a change like this being made.

Posted on May 25, 2008 at 3:22 PM by Dan Highlight this comment 45

I was watching the game on 6-2-08 and i was thinking what does the T-C stand for on there baseball caps

Posted on June 2, 2008 at 7:13 PM by Rodolfo De Leon Highlight this comment 46

Hide Facebook box
113 recent recognized visitors, including: ben, BR, Buzz, DeePee, Excited, Expectorate, F_T_K, FD, gogotwins, grizzly adams, gus munger, jared, jctwins, Jeff, Jfh, LC, Leroy, luke, moda253, ole, Rick, Schda, Stevie B, terry, TheTruthHurts, TK, Tom D., trebor651, Twinkfan, Uffda, Winona Mike
Name
  
Password*
  
Email or Link (optional)
 
Comment
Formatting:   [b]bold[/b]   [i]italic[/i]   [link=url]description[/link]   [img=url]   (Comments containing urls are moderated.)
  
 
* A password is not required, but if you create one, no one else will be able to post with the same name.

This page was last modified on January 21, 2010.



"You talk about the magic, the aura, but what really makes a stadium is the fans. Concrete doesn't talk back to you. Chairs don't talk back to you. It's the people who are there, day in, day out, that makes the place magic."

– Bernie Williams

Explore the Site

Here are 50 images chosen randomly from the 3037 found on this site. Click the image to be taken to the original post. A new list is created every 10 minutes.





Somebody asked how long it would be before the tarp had a sponsor. Well, not very long.



Steps, skyway, and plaza intersect.



Ballpark elevation diagram, viewed from Fifth Street. (Click to enlarge.)



Checking out the bike racks on the promenade.



There must be millions of details needing tending



Not my actual kids!



What can you see from up there? Some say not much.



573 Club



Look! Speakers!



Awesome seat. Awesome sun. Awesome hitter. (Photo by Tony Voda, courtesy Jared Wieseler)



Glove from above












ATM-style ticket machines have appeared beneath the steps to the B ramp (you can also enter the B ramp directly by walking past the ticket machines)



Millers fans leaving Nicollet Park after a game in 1923, where a trolley was waiting. (Click to enlarge.)



The wall of brands at General Mills headquarters in Golden Valley (Source: RP)



Back of scoreboard; facade in context.



Here's the view from the main concourse out through Gate 3 "Killebrew".






Trampled, repaired, and re-trampled grass



The creative design of the admin building stands in stark contrast to the horribly pedestrian appearance of the LRT platform. This design looks like it came out of a public transportation manual.



Pesky Reality



Final Metrodome baseball sight



Walkway sneak peek



This view, from the Minnekahda building (or possibly a predecessor), looks toward the right field corner. The City Market, at left, occupied the land where the B ramp and Target Plaza now stand (over I-394). And the Overlook now juts out just a little beyond where that driveway enters the railyard.



The Fifth Street side is pretty busy. There's a small street entrance to the B ramp, then ticket booths and an entrance gate, a rare exterior section not covered in limestone, the wooden screen covering the circulation ramps, the administration building, and finally (just out of view) the interface with Northstar. All of that sits behind the LRT action. How pedestrians will interact with this side of the park is a great mystery to me. You know that Metro Transit won't be letting them cross the tracks anywhere but at either end of the block...



They could not help the Twins on this night.



Um, I think that guy is out.






That is the gun-metal gray wall of The Stadium just beyond the elevated tracks.















(Click to enlarge.)



Staging for the next section (Home Plate Box)






A detailed crowd shot. Click to enlarge greatly.



(Click to enlarge.)



The view from the Penn Ave entrance to 394 (and all the way into town! Click to enlarge)



Ballpark elevation viewed from the promenade (HERC plant) side. (Click to enlarge.)









View from the Overlook



B ramp improvements are finally becoming usable. The doors lead to the plaza beneath the skyway steps.



Dancing for the cameras








Glossary

BPM - Ballpark Magic

BRT - Bus Rapid Transit

DSP - Dave St. Peter

FSE - Full Season Equivalent

FYS - Fake Yankee Stadium (see also: NYS)

HERC - Hennepin Energy Resource Company (aka the Garbage Burner)

HPB - Home Plate Box

HRP - Home Run Porch

LC - Legends Club

LRT - Light Rail Transit

MBA - Minnesota Ballpark Authority (will own Target Field)

MOA - Mall of America

MSFC - Minnesota Sports Facilities Commission (owns the Metrodome)

NYS - New Yankee Stadium

SRO - Standing Room Only

STH - Season Ticket Holder

TCFBS - TCF Bank Stadium

TF - Target Field

Selected Bibliography - Analysis
 


(1993)
 


First Edition (1992)
 


Second Edition (2006)
 


(2008)
 

Selected Bibliography - Surveys
 


(1975)
 


Second Edition (1987)
 


Not a "Third Edition" exactly,
but it replaced the above title
(2000)
 


(2000, large coffee table)
 


Original edition (2000, round)
 


Revised edition (2006, round)
 


(2001, medium coffee table)
 


(2002, small coffee table)
 


(2003, medium coffee table)
 


(2004, very large coffee table)
 


(2006, very large coffee table)
 


Combines the previous two titles
(2007, medium coffee table)
 

Selected Bibliography - Nostalgia
 


(1992)
 


Book and six ballpark miniatures
(2004)
 

Complete Bibliography

BallparkMagic™  •  3300 Bloomington Avenue  •  Minneapolis, MN 55407  •  (612) 392-3104
This is a fan site and in no way affiliated with the Minnesota Twins, Minnesota Ballpark Authority, or Major League Baseball.
Unless otherwise noted, this page and all of its contents are Copyright © 2001-2010 BallparkMagic/Lowell (Rick) Prescott.
All Rights Reserved. Used by permission. Privacy Notice