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

Done and Done

October 15, 2007 12:21 PM

Well, it's a done deal. The Star Tribune is reporting that the final price for the Rapid Park site is $28.5M, with the Pohlads kicking in $15M in exchange for the right to develop the land to the south of the ballpark.

By my napkin calculation then LPII gets $27.7 and Hines gets $0.8M. Of course, legal fees probably figure in here somewhere. Taking those out (without knowing exactly how much they are), Hines appears to have netted nearly squat (unless they managed to stick LPII with the legal costs).

Meanwhile, the little old ladies got a nice payout (nothing wrong with that) and infrastructure probably won't be terribly impacted.

Here's the irony: I bet that LPII could have gotten more money for their investors in a lot less time and without creating all the ill will if they had simply been willing to negotiate straight out rather than play this greedy little game. It may be true that the money spends just as easily no matter how you get it, but I think there's a life lesson in there somewhere.

Cranes

Comments


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

I like this pic, it's a refreshing change from the webcam that we've been looking at. Nice to see a picture from the ground level.

Posted on October 15, 2007 at 1:12 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 1

I like it too. Seeing a picture this close to the site make me antsy for the first steel beam to go up.

Posted on October 15, 2007 at 1:37 PM by Pikachu732001 Highlight this comment 2

With Pohlad putting in that much, should there be any impact at all on the infrastructure? Its been awhile since I read something on this, but I thought I remember at some point someone said that around $24 million had been set aside to purchase the land and the air rights. With the extra $15 million, we should be good no?

Posted on October 15, 2007 at 2:07 PM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 3

I think it's a wash and a fair agreement, all things considered. Didn't Jacob's Field look awesome last night for that playoff game? It seems similar to what our park will look like.

Posted on October 16, 2007 at 08:12 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 4

FYI - There is a very cool animated video on the Twins Website, showing the construction from start to finish.

Posted on October 16, 2007 at 2:57 PM by Jon Highlight this comment 5

Tim, The one problem with Jacobs Field in my opinion is not one, not two, but three levels of luxury suites that run down the 3rd base line, then there's that ugly glassed in restraunt just beyond that.
The Star Tribune website has posted a video. It states....Animation created by Mortenson Construction showing the process of building the new Twins stadium. click on my name to see it.

Posted on October 16, 2007 at 2:59 PM by John Highlight this comment 6

Any update on when the model/new drawings will be released?

I know we were thinking Oct/Nov before...

Posted on October 16, 2007 at 4:16 PM by Excited Highlight this comment 7

John's right about Jacobs Field. The three levels of luxury suties remind me of Staples Center, pushing the upper deck far away from the field. It'd be better if they copied some Japanese ballparks that place the luxury suites above the upper decks.

Posted on October 16, 2007 at 7:23 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 8

I agree with Lafferty that they need to design these stadiums so that (at least one level) of luxury seats are above the upper deck. This makes sense since all suites have several TV screens anyway so they really don't "need" to be any closer to the action than your average blue-collar fans who pay good money to go watch a game from the normal seats. Most of these luxury suites seem to be all corporate anyways nowadays. (I realize they pay MUCH more money for the suites, but they also get TV's and the luxury amenities that the average fans do not get in the normal sections) Same goes for the Press Box, I think there is no reason why the Twins should have the press box. I think the press box should be in the upper deck just like it is at Wrigley Field and PNC Park. I actually noticed in the "original" renderings (with the retractable roof a couple years ago), that they had the press box on top of the upper deck, but that has changed with the new designs released this year. Who really knows though, it could still change, but the Twins seem pretty happy with the whole "split upper-deck" that they enjoyed so much in St. Louis' Busch Stadium.

As for "Excited's" question about the new model/drawings...I would expect there to be some new renderings/models available after the November 9 board meeting. We will have to wait and see though for sure.

Posted on October 16, 2007 at 9:19 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 9

Luke - while i can appreciate you standing up for the "blue-collar/comman man" fan (of which i am one) in terms of seating placement in the new park you are kind of contradicting yourself about suites & their purpose. while you admit that people who own suites pay on average signigicantly more per game per seat (with emphasis on the word significantly) than the standard admission ticket per seat, you also think suites should be the furthest away from the action. that doesn't make any sense. there are flat panel tv's, food, service personnel & other amenities in suites because the people in them paid a very handsome sum of money for the priviledge. but, those items are secondary to the actual game on the field. i don't see what is wrong with that logic when you pay for it. and while some may be paid for by corporate entities (and i can understand at least some of your disdain towards that fact) those are usually also the same corporate entities that pay for advertising in/around the park, will buy commericals on FSN/My29 during twins telecasts, etc. which in turn drives twins revunes & allows them to pay higher player salaries and remain competitive. that is not & can not all be funded simply by the price on the average game day ticket, so you have to create distinct reasons/advantages as to why one would purchase a suite in the first place. you don't do that by moving them to the worst & furthest away locations in the park. not arguing just trying to provide another prospective.

Posted on October 17, 2007 at 12:04 AM by betaband Highlight this comment 10

I once was lucky enough to get tickets for a sweet to see the T-pups play the Bulls at the United Center, but was surprised when I got to it and realized I was above the upper deck. They were still pretty good!. So some teams are doing it.

Posted on October 17, 2007 at 09:15 AM by Andrew Bornhoft Highlight this comment 11

Only in New York. I was reading an article on espn.com yesterday and the seats behind home plate at the new Yankee Stadium will be going for $2500
a game. That would mean a season ticket
package of four seats would be $800,000
a year. They will always be light years
ahead in revenue.

Posted on October 17, 2007 at 1:20 PM by Paul Highlight this comment 12

A few thoughts about Jacobs Field as seen on TV (I've never been there):

- It looks HUGE! The main grandstand is so massive that it reminds me of the monstrosity they built in Oakland.

- Three levels of suites is INSANE. I know you have to cater to the wealthy, but that's just too much.

- The pavilion out in left looks REALLY STEEP.

- The scoreboard is a little over-the top.

- The area behind home plate is really unattractive. You should be able to see fans in the shot from center field. At least have something that identifies where you are. (The Twins should consider limestone detailing to go with the overall visual theme of the park -- no brick!)

- The outfield fences seem very tall. And what are those homers landing on out in right? It's the roof of something, and the balls then either bounce or roll into the stands. Outfield seats should come right up to the fence.

It strikes me as a transitional design. Late enough to have some quirks and personality, but early enough to be in the New Comiskey mode of suite integration.

Posted on October 17, 2007 at 1:59 PM by Rick 13

and yet it was after camden yards, which is considered the model for what came after. of the recent parks i rank petco right up there. the roofed parks are gigantic behemoths.

Posted on October 17, 2007 at 3:47 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 14

Off the subject, but I see the Twins season opener is MARCH 31 against the Angels. That sure will be nice come 2010...but hey, I will take a cold outdoor game anyday over the sterile Metrodome environment. The cold won't bother me at all, only thing that will concern me is if the roads are bad when I drive up from Rochester.

But that brings me to my point about Major League Baseball and the scheduling procedure...why is Minnesota opening up against Anaheim, when in fact, Anaheim is a warm climate and should be hosting an opening series itself. The Twins should be hosting a team such as Cleveland, Baltimore, Detroit, Boston, Yankees, etc, while they still have a dome. Obviously this strategy will be different come 2010. In my opinion teams opening the season at home (American League) should be Tampa, Toronto, Seattle, Texas, Anaheim, Oakland, and Kansas City (Twins in 2008 and 2009). That just makes sense in my mind. That is seven teams meaning that would make the other seven teams in colder climates open on the road. (Yankees, Red Sox, Orioles, Twins (starting in 2010), Indians, White Sox, and Tigers. Yes, these northern cities will lose out on home games in the first week or so, but it can easily be made up by some extended homestands in the summer months. I just don't know why MLB continues to have scheduling conflicts like this. It is common sense to open in domed stadiums and/or warmer climate cities. I also notice Detroit is opening the season at home against Kansas City...why is Kansas City not hosting Detroit? I just don't want to see Comerica snowed out in late March and early April when Kansas City will be mid 60's and sunny with their team on the road. White Sox open at Cleveland while the Tampa Rays (southern Dome team) open on the ROAD in Baltimore and New York??? Seattle (retractable roof) opens at home against Texas? Texas should be hosting a series to open the season...It just doesn't make any sense...especially the division games which can easily be swapped and switched around with the unbalanced schedule...

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 01:21 AM by Luke Highlight this comment 15

I agree with Tim on both points. Petco is an awesome ballpark, with a unique design, absolutely no obstructed views.

Also, I'm glad that we didn't go with the Retractable roof. Bank one (chase) ballpark, and Enron (Orange Juice) Ballpark, don't even look like ballparks, they look like Convention centers or something. Miller park is kind of cool though.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 10:20 AM by Jon Highlight this comment 16

Of all the new parks that I have been to, Jacobs Field is one of my least favorite due to all of the points presented here. My favorites that I've had the pleasure to attend, PNC, Pac Bell or whatever the hell they call it now, Petco is alright. I've been to Miller Park, Chase Field and Safeco. Only Safeco is a nice roofed stadium, te other two look like airplane hangars.

And Luke, I doubt the Twins will have March home games in the new park. When they played at the Met, they almost always opened the season on the road for the first week of the season. MLB likes to take adv of the domed stadiums for opening week. For many years I remember the Twins opening in California (Anaheim or Oakland), Seattle (Kingdome), Texas and KC.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 2:37 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 17

DSP has updated his ballpark blog..Unfortunately his MONTHLY update only contains gushing for his boss...Nothing noteworthy about the ballpark at all.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 2:41 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 18

Thanks for the DSP blog update kevin in az. Nothing spectacular this month, but I guess we will have to gut it out until Thanksgiving for the next monthly "update".

I was just wondering if anyone has been to Coors Field in Denver? I am planning on going there next May when the Twins play there and was wondering if anyone has any opinions of that stadium?

It seems to me it looks very, very similar to Camden Yards with the exception of the scoreboard and "Rock Pile" in centerfield. This must have been the first stadium to copy the Camden Yards brick and retro style type of design. Of all of the retro-style and brick facade stadiums to follow Camden Yards, Coors Field seems to be the most identical to Camden Yards in my opinion. I have never been to Camden Yards, but I am sure when I go to Coors Field next May, it will be just like Camden Yards. Anyone have any opinions on Coors Field?

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 6:44 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 19

Luke, Of the the parks opened since 1991, I've been to Chicago's then named Comiskey, Rangers Ballpark of Arlington, Braves Turner Field, and Rockies Coors Field. Comiskey is a joke. Ballpark of Arlingon I liked except that it is totally enclosed with a hotel in center field. Braves Turners Field was nice. But of all of those, I liked Coors Field best. My only complaint is it would be a much better park if it was scaled down. It's too big.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 7:41 PM by John Highlight this comment 20

Luke, I forgot two. Mikwaukee. WAY TO BIG. Like a shopping mall. The roof just hangs there and blocks out most of the sky when they have it open. I was at a game there in May, it was a mostly sunny day in the mid 60's, and they had the roof closed the entire game. Shame. Seattle's ballpark is a much better retractable. But I sat on the third base line and that open roof just hung in right field blocking out the sky like a big dinasaur turd. If it wasn't for the roof, I'd most likely like it best of the ones I've mentioned here and above.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 7:52 PM by John Highlight this comment 21

John, the Rockies originally wanted to have the capacity of Coors Field set at 43,800 but after a record attendance of 4.3 million at Mile High Stadium in their first season in 1993, the Rockies decided to increase the capacity of Coors Field to approximately 50,000. I personally think that was a mistake and they overreacted to the inaugural season attendance record.

As for the retractable roof stadiums, they all stink except Safeco Field. Safeco Field is the only one that actually remains "open" when the roof is open even though the roof blocks the view over the right field stands (as you stated earlier). Phoenix, Houston, and Milwaukee all seem "too enclosed" even with the roof open. There is just too much steel used in those venues to support the roof. The Twins had similar ideas to Safeco Field where the roof would have rolled completely off of the stadium, but those plans all fell through obviously. I still think the best baseball facilities are all "open air". There is just too much steel in the rectractable roof facilities making them feel too enclosed.

I have also been to Miller Park several times when the roof has been closed during "fair" weather in the 60's and sunny. It's just ridiculous and makes you wonder what criteria they establish to open/close the roof. I thought it was perfect for outdoor baseball, but apparently not perfect enough in Milwaukee...

I have only been to Safeco Field (and I agree with your point about the roof over right field), County Stadium, Busch Stadium (both old and new), Kauffman Stadium, Comerica Park and Wrigley Field. As I have said in earlier posts I am going to take in the Twins-Rockies series in May at Coors Field. I think we can all reach a consensus that the very best stadiums are all the outdoor open air venues such as in Baltimore, Boston, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Chicago (Wrigley), St. Louis, San Francisco, and San Diego.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 9:17 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 22

Coors is nice, but like most HoK retro parks, it isn't very charming.

New Comisky was renovated a few years ago and they did a good job. It's an underrated ballpark.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 9:20 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 23

I realize this might open up a can of worms regarding roof or no roof. If it does, I apoligize. But when it was announced that the Twins ballpark would be an open air only stadium, I was so elated and relieved. I just dreaded the thought of having a airplane hanger for a ballpark.

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 9:50 PM by John Highlight this comment 24

You're not the only one John, I was so happy it was going to be a REAL ballpark. I live in Phoneix and on beautiful 90 degree evenings in late May, they close the roof and blast the A/C. The snowbirds from the north complain that it's too hot and want the AC on. WAH WAH WAH! A dry 90 degrees with total darkness is beautiful, not hot!!! So they close the roof and turn on the A/C. Only problem, it takes until the 8th inning for the A/C to cool down the place and since the roof and outfield panels had been shut for the first 8 innings, it was stifling hot inside. I would imagine the same idiocy in Minnesota if there had been a retractable roof on the ballpark. We had a open air ballpark for nearly 30 years in Bloomington and nobody died because of rain/snow/sunburn

Posted on October 18, 2007 at 10:45 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 25

yep, i agree. i didn't want a roofed ballpark. we've become used to climate controlled conditions, but it's minnesota, use it to our advantage. we'll even get doubleheaders around here again, which i like.

Posted on October 19, 2007 at 08:15 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 26

Two more thoughts about Jacobs from watchinger last night's game:

1. I bet that watching a game from the upper deck is like sitting on top of a five-story building.

2. The video board built into the wall out in left is cool but kind of distracting.

It raises the question of just where the Twins will be placing all of the inevitable advertising. One can't help but notice that the renderings contain only hints that there will be any advertising at all.

Video boards in the outfield walls? I guess I hope not.

Posted on October 19, 2007 at 09:56 AM by Rick 27

Is it just me or is that new half of the bridge they are building WAY bigger than the road it is connecting on either side?? Look at the north end where it will connect (near Pohlad's new Ford Building)...it looks like ths going to run into that building across the street. I assume there will be a pedestrian walkway or something and I know someone mentioned light-rail access...but does anyone know about this?

Posted on October 19, 2007 at 11:28 AM by Zaq Highlight this comment 28

Mystic Lake Park

Posted on October 19, 2007 at 2:00 PM by AD Highlight this comment 29

Zaq, That new bridge is for the extension of the light rail that runs down 5th street but currently terminates at 1st Avenue, two blocks to the east.
I see cemented pillars rising today in right field.

Posted on October 19, 2007 at 3:36 PM by John Highlight this comment 30

I just noticed on the webcam today a cement block thingie

Posted on October 20, 2007 at 7:50 PM by I Want Answer Highlight this comment 31

I've been to Coors. Loved it. The best part of Coors isn't the park at all, but how seamlessly it meshes with the surrounding neighborhood. The exterior materials all harmonize with LoDo area, signature elements (such as staircase towers) terminate vistas down streets, and the scale is close enough. They did a great job of manipulating the public spaces around the exterior and meshing them with the street grid and neighboring buildings.

Coors is about 3-4 blocks from Union Station, which currently is served by Denver's Light Rail system, and will be the main transportation hub of the area as their FasTracks plan moves forward, bringing LRT, Commuter Rail, and Amtrak all together.

Inside, there are a lot of nice features, but nothing that's too gimicky. I love the row of purple seats in the upper deck that are exactly 5280' above sea level. Sight lines are good. Lots of nice features, like open concourses, views into the bullpens, etc.

It's the favorite of all the new parks I've been to (admittedly, not too many new parks in my resume - Coors, Miller, & Comerica).

Posted on October 21, 2007 at 7:49 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 32

I'm a huge twins fan but currently live around the Milwaukee, WI area. I have partial season tickets to the brewers games...Miller Park is AWESOME!!! I agree that when the roof is open its not a total open feeling...but on cold and rainy days...PLAY BALL!!! I played DI baseball up north and there is nothing worse than pitching in 40 degree weather...you think santana wants to pitch in that...especially since hes from Venezuela?

Posted on October 22, 2007 at 1:03 PM by luke f. Highlight this comment 33

Hide Facebook box
43 recent recognized visitors, including: ben, DeePee, Expectorate, FD, fiesta, gogotwins, jared, jctwins, Jfh, Joe117, Jon, LC, luke, Mike, Rick, Stevie B, terry, trebor651, Uffda
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 3042 found on this site. Click the image to be taken to the original post. A new list is created every 10 minutes.


Site plan for the new Nationals ballpark, with the size of the Rapid Park site overlaid



The french fry lights were on!



Looking back toward the park from just beyond the north end of the Northstar platform.



The entrance at Gate 3.



This is a great spot for casually watching the game.









Dedicated closed-captioning ribbon board



Legend's Club, Section E (Click to enlarge greatly.)



The Pantheon (with inset of the magic eye)






Dramatic night-time lighting.






Here is Seventh Street viewed from the west looking toward downtown. This will probably be the most pedestrian-friendly side (other than the plaza), but only if there is some psychological barrier between the people on foot and the people in their dangerously fast-moving automobiles.






Just one lane of traffic and a couple of feet between the fence in right-center and the wall of the parking ramp!



Viewed from the A ramp.















Concept drawing of Coomer gate (click to enlarge)



The reverse angle shows that the signage will only partially obscure views from the top of the ramp. The wall is pretty high up there, so you'll need something to stand on, but it appears that this is one of the so-called "knotholes".



Jose Alvalade XXI Stadium in Lisbon, Portugal has towers much like I'm imagining to hold up our canopy while also making a bold statement on the horizon



View Level












A mural featuring the names of a bunch of Minnesota towns.






No offense, TC, but you're pointing exactly the wrong direction if you want people to use the ramp opening to your right...



The Ron Coomer corner features a bar.



In addition to the Pro Shop facade, you can see more gravel being laid before the final plaza surface is poured.



Wright's Marin County Hall of Justice, San Rafael, California (1959)



7:42 PM It moves to the left in the image and begins to blossom.









Looking up toward Seventh Street.



Click to see the full-size image.






One of the sweetest sights of the day -- the Dome, and only through passing bus windows.



Detail at Gate 6



The Northstar stop has a name.



A timeline of design and construction of the ballpark. (Click to enlarge. Photo by Tyler Wycoff)



One half of those windows are well-used.



This is as close as I could get to a pedestrian-eye view of Seventh Street (looking west away from downtown). It's inviting, not imposing, and remarkably dignified.



Stairs down to the sidewalk from the skywalk over Seventh











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