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

Model Details - An Earlier Vision

January 23, 2008 9:02 PM

Here are some pix I took at Twinsfest 2004. The team was showing a ballpark model for the first time, the same one which was being used to lobby the Legislature. Some concepts changed, some disappeared, some were refined. It's pretty interesting to look back a bit.

It's hard to know just what the team had in mind back then. The site had not been selected, but the Rapid Park site was in the mix because, in this design, the roof was to have retracted over the HERC plant.

If you still think that a roofed ballpark would have been better, take a look at these images and you'll see some of the insane compromises which would have been necessary. (Click on any image for a larger version.)

Old model

This design has a rather generic quality to it, but they appear to have considered the B garage. Though it isn't part of the model, they've clearly left room for it.


Old model

This would have been the HERC side, though it's unclear just how far over the plant the retracted roof would have gone. My fear was always that they would have to shorten the track and more of the roof would have stayed over the ballpark. The only good retractable roof is one which disappears when not in use. I don't think they could have realistically created such a thing.


Old model

Two concepts here remain in the final design. First is the oddly-shaped pavilion in center. Second is the section just above the right field fence. In the current design this section will hang over the field by a few feet. The original doesn't do that, but you can see that the concept goes way back in the planning.


Old model

Here's one big problem with a retractable roof: completely terrible seating in left. These scant few seats would have been tucked under the track. No sunshine, no open concourse, it was a terribly kludgy idea. With some hindsight, it's very clear that adding a retractable roof on this small site would have required compromises which would have just been too extensive to tolerate. Without it, the design was free to grow into something much more memorable.


Old model

One more exterior view shows that, while the original look was attractive in a way, it seems to be a variation on the look of the Washington ballpark (albeit with a much more coherent collection of elements). What's remarkable is that the design team has refined the concept amazingly well, improving it immeasurably. What we're actually getting is clearly descended from this, but it's in a whole different league:

New model

I think that gets all of my model-related pictures out. I have a couple more shots of the interim version (the one between these two), but it was all white and really used just to work out concepts on the various sections.

Before I post again I'll check the archives to see what else may be hanging around back there...

Thanks for stopping by today!

Comments


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

That ballpark looks so ugly with that roof, thank god there is no roof.

Posted on January 24, 2008 at 12:25 AM by Jared Highlight this comment 1

the old model looks like a gigantic manual credit card machine (click my name for pic). how ugly that would've been!

Posted on January 24, 2008 at 1:19 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 2

Very reminiscent of Safeco. That actually wouldnt have been the worst retractable ballpark, at least better than Chase and Miller (which are basically airplane hangers that happen to have a ball diamond on the floor)

Posted on January 24, 2008 at 4:56 PM by ace Highlight this comment 3

It's bulky and makes us appreciate the gem we're actually getting, but to be fair, that was a concept the Twins were showing to generate conversation and move the ballpark debate forward. If a roofed park had been approved we'd see the same detailed revisions we've noticed since the plan went from a dream to reality.

Posted on January 25, 2008 at 09:06 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 4

I do like the scoreboard/light tower concept on the old model. It's reminds me of some of the bridges over the Mississippi in NE Minneapolis.

However, I don't think it would fit in with the new design.

Posted on January 25, 2008 at 11:05 AM by Chris Highlight this comment 5

Chris brings up an interesting point about the scoreboard being in RF. Why doesn't the current proposed ballpark have the scoreboard in RF instead of LF? Does it have to do with space? The RF seats look to have a huge advertising board above them. I just ask because it would seem more logical to have the scoreboard in a place where more people could view it. Having it above the LF seats leaves the LF upper deck turning their heads back and the lower deck not seeing it at all.

Posted on January 25, 2008 at 12:34 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 6

Maybe they want the skyscrapers to be the main focal point in RF. Or perhaps the scoreboard would look a little awkward on top of the trapezoid seats in right-center.

Posted on January 25, 2008 at 4:49 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 7

Kevin,

My guess is that a RF scoreboard would block the skyline view.

Posted on January 25, 2008 at 4:56 PM by David Highlight this comment 8

Kevin, putting the scoreboard in right would block the only view of the skyline, whereas putting it in left sort of fills the void of there being no backdrop. Just my guess.

Posted on January 25, 2008 at 5:01 PM by ace Highlight this comment 9

The skyline is a good point.

Being that the 2nd level of the left field pavillion will hang over the lower, I hope they will have monitors so those fans sitting in the lower level can see replays, etc. They have monitors at Wrigley field in the main grandstand for those people sitting underneath the 2nd level.

I see a story on wccoradio.com that the ballpark is significantly over budget, but the Twins will continue to contribute money instead of scaling back on the project. I linked my name to the story

Posted on January 25, 2008 at 9:20 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 10

Interesting article (click name) about big cost overruns and Jerry Bell saying that construction is going so well they briefly considered a 2009 opening!!

Glad to hear the Twins are willing to spend to make it a top notch facility - nice perk for the fans after we've dealt with the Dome for so long

Posted on January 26, 2008 at 10:54 AM by Excited Highlight this comment 11

Are the Twins going to sell naming rights for the park or is it going to be named "Minnesota Twins Ballpark" like in the model?

Posted on January 26, 2008 at 10:28 PM by Robert Highlight this comment 12

Quote from Excited: "Jerry Bell saying that construction is going so well they briefly considered a 2009 opening!!"

Man, I would kill for a 2009 opening! The new Gopher football stadium back on campus & the new Twins ballpark opening during the same year would be awesome. Honestly, I don't know if I could contain my sports-centric view of the universe self.

And I mean that (the sports-centric view of the universe part)!

party on.....

Posted on January 26, 2008 at 11:31 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 13

Has anyone been to twinsfest to see the model, has it changed at all?

Posted on January 27, 2008 at 11:18 AM by Kyle Highlight this comment 14

Have you had a chance to make it to Twins Fest? I was wondering if the model had any updates to it that you wanted us to be aware of?

Posted on January 27, 2008 at 12:49 PM by Brandon Highlight this comment 15

I spent a part of my Friday afternoon down at the dome getting a bunch of model photos before the gates opened for Twinsfest. In fact, I was there when word came down about the Morneau deal!

I'll post those pictures as soon as possible (the next day or so). But the short answer is that there have been some definite tweaks, including the reconfiguration in straight-away center.

But there were still Santana banners all the way around, though it probably doesn't mean much... (My guide through the bowels of the Metrodome said flatly, "Santana is just too expensive.")

Posted on January 27, 2008 at 2:26 PM by Rick 16

I am sure Rick will cover this as well, but one of the changes made was in center field where the restaurant was originally located. This will now be some type of a "group area" with picnic tables and such according to one of the Twins representatives I spoke to on Friday. I am sure Rick can clarify this a little more, but that was one of the minor changes made.

Also, it appears that the expensive seats that run from dugout to dugout behind home plate will indeed be physically separated from the rest of the seats. I am still not 100% sure if that will be the case, but it sounds like a good possibility after talking to the Twins rep.

Posted on January 27, 2008 at 4:46 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 17

This "physically seperated" thing isn't at all surprising. They recently did that at the Cell, and check out this photo of AT&T. Bottem line, those people paid a lot more for their tickets, and they get special considerations (including keeping out the rif-raff).

Posted on January 27, 2008 at 11:03 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 18

I'm not surprised about building materials inflation causing overruns. Many people predicted that even before the legislature passed the bill authorizing the county to levy the sales tax.

It's the same reason that Pawlenty's two vetoes of transportation funding bills are idiotic. He's just costing us lots more money in the end.

Posted on January 28, 2008 at 11:33 AM by David Highlight this comment 19

This is a bit off topic, but does anyone know what the concourses will look like? I haven't seen a pic anywhere - Twins site or elsewhere. An awesome job on this site again by the way. I check it at least 10 times a day.

Posted on January 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 20

An open air ballpark next to a trash incineration cite??? Lets hope the Twins hand out Hazmat suits to patrons before every home game, otherwise Mike Ciresi will be profiting when the first person approaches him claiming to have developed a lung disease from breathing hazardous fumes all season.

Posted on January 28, 2008 at 6:03 PM by AMC Highlight this comment 21

Rick: Thanks for posting the pics of the model. It gave a lot of us a great opportunity to better inspect the park. I was at Twinsfest Sunday and one of the officials mentioned that they are looking at building a firepit and bbq party area on the roof of the administration building.

FYI, David: Pawlenty helped get the ballpark built by not standing in the way. Doesn't matter who's campaign you contribute to - this is a ballpark page, and he's helped us Twins fans get us a park.

Posted on January 28, 2008 at 7:42 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 22

Man I sure hope they replace that garbage burner with shops, restaurants, bars, hotels or apartments.

Posted on January 28, 2008 at 10:08 PM by Jared Highlight this comment 23

Jeff,

I don't know if you're new here, but I've been a supporter of the ballpark for a long time. And I'm very progressive, policy-wise. I've had more than one argument with political peers.

So I applaud Pawlenty's inaction on the ballpark. And yes, it was inaction. He did nothing to actually push the thing through. He simply signed the bill. He did the bare minimum because he knew he was acting in opposition to his stated goal of not increasing taxes.

What I fault him for is allowing a tax increase to fund the ballpark but refusing one for critical infrastructure. I love the ballpark. I'm glad we're doing it. But let's not pretend that it's as or more important than transit. highways and education capital projects.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 09:25 AM by David Highlight this comment 24

He didn't just sign the bill, to be fair. He lobbied for the bill that final night when it passed by a razor thin margin. The ballpark would not be under construction without a final push from the Governor's office. It was high drama and I remember wcco radio's play-by-play coverage. There was a lot of arm twisting that early May morning. Nothing this controversial can pass the legislature without some show of support from whomever is occupying the Governor's office.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 12:34 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 25

Rick,

Have you heard if there are going to be any Bleacher sections in this park?

David,

Sorry, not "new here". Again, this isn't a politico blog to espouse liberal or conservative ideologies about politicians' actions not relating to the ballpark. I'm glad your progressive, though - we can all sleep better now.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 1:39 PM by David Highlight this comment 26

Other David,

Core infrastructure IS related to the ballpark. How are we going to get there if our transportation system is crumbling? One of the reasons to build the ballpark where it is is the long-standing plan to have five major transit corridors converge on that very site. If that doesn't happen due to Pawlenty's ideology, it affects the ballpark.

And yes, there will be bleachers in left and it looked from the model that there will be bleachers in right as well. Both bleacher sections will have backrests.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 2:05 PM by David Highlight this comment 27

One thing I noticed on the model that was at Twinsfest that hasn't been mentioned. It appears they cut back on the limestone on the facade on the LRT(left field) side. It is now the same brown wood we have seen elsewhere with a strip of limestome in the middle.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 2:22 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 28

J2K,

That's a good catch, and I had noticed it as well. I have a picture of that side of the model to illustrate the point, and I hope to have time late tonight to get at my Twinsfest photos.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 2:27 PM by Rick 29

Tim,

Perhaps the Governor played a behind-the-scenes role, but remember that the D's controlled both bodies at the time. It wouldn't have happened without their support.

Looking at the final vote results here:

minnesota.publicradio.org/projects/ongoing/votetracker/issue_view.php?id=52

Shows a good number of metro R's and D's voted for the bill. So I acknowledge it was a bipartisan effort. Did the Governor play a role? Maybe. But none of his strongest political allies supported him on this bill except Sviggum, which was politically necessary for the both of them.

I do know that Speaker Kelliher went way out on a limb to get her members to pass the bill. Apparently Dean Johnson did as well. It's rather surprising to see the names of some of the D's who voted yes: Hortman, Higgins, Marko, Skoglund and Lesch.

One thing we can say for sure is that a lot of legislators held their noses during that vote.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM by David Highlight this comment 30

you can't make the infrastructure claim as it relates to the ballpark because we have a transit line extension and a commuter train corridor coming online next year. the ballpark site isn't the best place to make the point that transportation isn't being adequately funded. if you can't get to this stadium via car, train, bike or foot it's not for lack of options. and if you don't want politics discussed don't bring them into the forum.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 3:23 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 31

Maybe we should point out some of the politicians who were opposed to this ballpark. When we all see how nice this ballpark will be and how successful this project will become, the opponents should be pointed out as well just so they don't get any credit they don't deserve.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 3:25 PM by Ryan Bauer Highlight this comment 32

another one bites the dust...

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 3:33 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 33

Tim,

Except:

- People from Eden Prairie, St. Louis Park, Hopkins, etc. can't easily take transit to a game (no SW LRT)

- People from St. Paul can't easily take transit to the game (No Central LRT). And no, Route 16 is not a gameday option. And no, neither is Route 94.

- People from the south suburbs can't easily take transit to a game (no Cedar BRT).

- People from the NW suburbs can't easily take transit to a game (no Bottineau LRT).

- Bus routes keep getting cut, meaning fewer and fewer people can actually take a bus to a game, even in the core cities.

Not to mention all the other stuff that should have happened by now (NE Diagonal and Dan Patch, anyone?).

So yes, this ballpark will have the best transit accessibility of anything we've had in the past. But it's still pathetic compared to many other urban ballparks and stadiums.

We've got plenty of auto parking. Too bad that doesn't help the elderly, those under 16, the disabled, those who can't afford a car, those from greater MN who don't want to drive in the city and others.

And good luck to those drivers trying to exit the ballpark area after a game. :)

The ballpark should be a transportation hub, an anchor in the west metro the same way that Union Depot is envisioned to be in the east metro. But that won't happen if we don't raise the necessary new revenue.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 4:20 PM by David Highlight this comment 34

I can't wait to see your newest pics!
On another note... at least Johan is out of the AL.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 4:35 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 35

Unconfirmed reports on Santana trade click on name for link

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 4:45 PM by John Highlight this comment 36

David,

Thanks for your points. I got a good laugh in there regarding people under 16 getting to the game. I've driven my grandma to games for years, so luckily - the elderly are covered.

The way I look at it, this park will have better access than the dome (394, 94, HWY 55, LRT, TRAIN), and bring improved access over the Target Center, which has been serving us just fine for years. I'm finished with the politics subject.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 8:23 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 37

Like what they did with the facade by the light rail. Hate that Fernando Martinez wasn't included in the deal. Oh well, at least we got Delmon.

Posted on January 29, 2008 at 9:46 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 38

Johan for President! Good luck in the bright lights of New York City and I hope you enjoy pitching in front of the fans at Shea Stadium/Citi Field. Enjoy the high expectations and the media as well! You will be missed, but the Twins must move on because they are not stupid enough to cough up $130+ million over 6 years for a pitcher who only plays once every five days. Just don't forget the Twins organization and the fans and the opportunity they gave you!

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 02:17 AM by Randy Highlight this comment 39

Johan throws too many pitches and tries to strike everyone out. By the 5th inning he usually has a pretty high pitch count. That is what got him into trouble last year.

I still think Hitting and defense is more important that pitching. You can't win if you don't score.

It looks like this Gomez guy can run, and maybe be our top of the order base stealer.

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 09:21 AM by Jon Highlight this comment 40

David, you seem to think incredibly expensive, complex rail projects just happen with a snap of a finger. Central corridor and sw lrt will be online before 2020, just take a breath. Pathetic transit accessibility?? It'll have the best transit access outside of the east coast or chicago, comparable to seattle or denver.

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 10:20 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 41

Tim - I would say more comparable to Denver's current & planned transit network. I think you give Seattle too much credit (at least in terms of their rail transit, or lack thereof).

But, I do agree by 2020 we will see: Central Corridor LRT between Minneaplis-St. Paul downtowns, Soutwest LRT from Eden Prairie to Minneapolis, Commuter Rail from Minneapolis to Duluth, High-Speed Commuter Rail from Minneapolis to Chicago, LRT or Commuter rail from St. Paul to points northeast.

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 11:23 AM by Betaband Highlight this comment 42

Betaband,

With the way things are currently running in Pawlenty's administration, the best we will see by 2020 is a severely pared-down Central Corridor.

There is NO MONEY for any of the other projects. Mn/DOT and Metro Transit are broke. There's nothing there. Look over the budgets.

Unless we raise tax revenue we're going to be stuck with our inadequate transportation system for a very long time. That means inadequate transit AND roads.

And even with funding, high speed rail to Chicago is probably not going to happen until 2030 and probably much later than that.

I don't understand Jeff's aversion to politics. Politics is how we collectively make decisions. It's necessary and good that we talk about it. Otherwise we get a small cabal making all of the decisions.

Transportation and development is central to the ballpark project. They fit together very tightly. There will be a huge lost opportunity if there is no development around the ballpark (look at the Metrodome) and that development won't happen without easy access by car and transit.

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 11:53 AM by David Highlight this comment 43

Why hasn't any development been announced yet? what's the appropriate time frame for hearing about all this exciting development to the area that the stadium will bring?

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 12:35 PM by Dorian Highlight this comment 44

Rick, I look forward to seeing the updated LRT-side facade. Maybe we can discuss how transportation will be affected around this stadium sometime down the road (no pun intended) on it's own post. Afterall we do have two more years to cover!

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 12:55 PM by John K Highlight this comment 45

At TwinsFest on Saturday when I was checking out the ballpark model, it looks like there is a measurement of 411 feet (located in the batters eye-pine tree background, upper left corner), which would be at the angle where the left & centerfield walls connect. The pitchers may welcome that news of added distance (from the 404 CF measurement) & possibly some speedy runners looking for triples.

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 2:43 PM by Jeff 'n StPaul Highlight this comment 46

David - Trust me bro I am very much of the same opinion as you when it comes to Pawlenty's complete lack of vision & guts when it comes to doing what is right for Minneapolis/Minnesota and building/properly funding through permanent taxes a comprehensive transportation network, which includes rail transit. Pawlenty’s minions will say otherwise, but it is quite obvious to those who actually pay attention that he is more than willing to run Minneapolis/Minnesota into the ground during his tenure to ensure his national political future (VP run with McCain).

My comment back to Tim was more that I was in general agreeing with his basic "vision" that regional transit will hopefully be greatly expanded in Minneapolis by 2020 timeframe.

What usually bugs me the most in the whole transit discussion over the years is that people from out-state Minnesota need to get it through their stubborn heads that without a healthy Minneapolis metro, of which greatly expanded transit is a part of, that out-state Minnesota and its towns will suffer greatly. Most of them won’t admit it, but out-state Minnesota residents rely so much on taxes paid by metro Minneapolis residents which are dispersed to them that it is not even funny.

Starve the Minneapolis metro area and you will kill the rest of the state folks! Unfortunately, it is as simple and scary as that. See the forest for the trees, if you can.

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 2:46 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 47

Ok, we're straying a bit too far from the ballpark, so I'll try to steer us back.

Betaband, glad to hear we're in agreement. Sometimes it's tough to capture the nuances of conversation electronically. Apologies if I misrepresented your position.

I can say that public officials in Greater MN (I'm talking mayors, county commissioners, etc., not legislators, which is a different story) very much understand the need for good metro transportation. Greater MN desperately needs transit too so they are all on board with statewide investment. In fact, last session was the first time _ever_ that all 80 Minnesota counties agreed on the same transportation funding package -- the one that Pawlenty vetoed.

So what does this have to do with the ballpark? Besides the points I've made earlier, it's important for the public to understand that the ballpark in no way takes away resources from the transportation solution we need or from other state needs.

The people who make the argument, "why waste money on a ballpark when we have so many other pressing needs," are in fact completely captured in Pawlenty's worldview, which is exactly what he wants.

We're so trained by anti-tax rhetoric that we've forgotten that we're actually a state abundant with resources and that we can pretty much do almost anything we want if we have the political will. It's not a matter of dollars. It's a matter of whether certain special interests (I'm talking to you, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce) can actually allow this investment to happen.

Essentially, we need certain very wealthy people in power to be marginalized so they can't stop anything that might increase their 15% tax rate, which is lower than most of us pay, of course.

The ballpark funding is essentially irrelevant in this conversation. It's not an either-or situation. We deserve BOTH.

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 3:32 PM by David Highlight this comment 48

WORD......what David said :-)

Posted on January 30, 2008 at 8:29 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 49

Ever heard the song "I want it all" by Queen? What's wrong with living within your means? as the economy ebbs and flows, so should government spending. It really is that simple. I get a kick out of how most of the social programs and teachers unions characterize a 3 or 4 percent INCREASE in their budgets as a 10 percent CUT just because its less than what they asked for or budgeted.

The Stadium HAS to be part of the equation has most economists measure total tax burden, regardless of what its for, as having the single biggest drain on the economy.

Posted on January 31, 2008 at 09:28 AM by zzzzzzzz Highlight this comment 50

wtf?

Posted on April 8, 2011 at 6:08 PM by BULLDOG Highlight this comment 51


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.


Also from the B ramp entrance off of Third, a look up at the tiny crack between ballpark and parking ramp



Emergency access viewed in context



This is the LRT bridge under construction as viewed from the east looking west. The ballpark facade would be at the left in this photo.



This mural is behind the staircase. The window looks onto the promenade, and the door goes to a kitchen.



Lower deck view of the out-of-town scoreboard.



A view straight on of the Pro Shop area and ticket windows (just barely visible). The piers you see beneath the plaza are already almost completed (see final photo).



Trees also have sprouted near the topiaries



Um, I think that guy is out.



These are the outside tracks which go under the promenade



First, an overview. The base of the plaza here will meet the base of Sixth Street at Second Avenue.



Town Ball Tavern balcony



The lights went on, and it was a Good Thing



Night (about the 7th inning)



It was in and then quickly out of his glove. You gotta make that play.






Met Stadium on May 17, 1975 (Twins vs. Brewers featuring Hank Aaron)









Nearby, workers are finishing a support column. The guy at the bottom is using some sort of personal dirt mover (inset). Very cool.



Cross section diagram of the field structure. (Click to enlarge.)



Clyde Doepner's Met Stadium Memorabilia (Source: LP)



Hardware in the window! (But why are there three trophies? 1924?)



Look closely at the overhang. You'll see the on the right it is flush with the fence, and then it sticks out farther and farther as you move toward center. More fun for Michael Cuddyer.



I took this picture just moments before Morneau's homer landed almost exactly where I had been standing. If only I hadn't wanted to watch the game...



Very nice Admin glass.












Reasonable (if not overly generous) leg room






Met Stadium seat colors (click for the complete image)



Uh oh. Schizophrenia.






Dan Kenney provided this alternate shot of a walkway behind the view level



Gate 29 "Carew" is at right.












Through the windows of the Metropolitan Club you can see one of the displays of Met Stadium memorabilia.






Believe it or not, the actual outfield wall will be about where this fence is now!






The Northstar circulation building is starting to take shape.






Replays on the out-of-town scoreboard!






Plaza seating installation






A detailed crowd shot. Click to enlarge greatly.





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