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

A New Plaza Design?

December 1, 2008 7:11 PM

I normally wouldn't just toss up a quickie post without a little research, but this is too hot -- and too cool. It comes from an article about landscape architect Tom Oslund, who has apparently been retained to reconceive the ballpark plaza.

Here's a relevant portion of the interview:

The design for Minnesota Twins Ballpark is edgy. Was that a hard sell?

When we were asked to design this space, we went back and did research on baseball and started thinking about the elements of the game, from the bat to the mound to the infield. We were confronted with a sizeable problem with this parking ramp flanking one side of the plaza. I began looking at artist work that could solve the problem simply and beautifully and I discovered (California artist) Ned Kahn. (Kahn created) a wind screen piece, and it’s going to be absolutely mesmerizing. This thing is 350 feet long and 60 feet high. We carried the baseball theme all the way through, so each one of the pixels (on Kahn’s installation) will be the size of a baseball card. There’s also a lot of tongue in cheek, where you have hops growing up these topiary bats, which is beer and baseball, which go together.

We walked into this meeting and presented these solutions and I thought they were going to laugh us out of the room. I was doing it not to be funny or flippant, it was my way of trying to wrap my head around how you create a space that would resonate with why people are going to it. They loved it.

It's the images that immediately caught my attention and which must be seen here and now:

BALL.jpg

Dramatic night-time lighting.


BALL2.jpg

I know these are giants bats with hops growing inside, but... Hmm...


06.jpg

I'll write more once I've had a chance to digest these...

Comments


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

That looks interesting. They can do some neat stuff with that lighting, including homeruns, wins, losses, etc. Establish an indentity for the plaza.

If the Twins win, light that thing blue for the night, if they lose, light it red for the night...something along those lines.

Everytime the Twins hit a homerun, those bat things should all flash simultaneously and make some really neat colors/sounds/etc.

That would look incredible out on the plaza for those able to see it, including television shots.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 7:41 PM by Mike Brumley Highlight this comment 1

Yes, the bats block the view going in, but that pixelated screen on the ramp is sure better than plastic banners or advertising.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 8:25 PM by Abe Frohman Highlight this comment 2

they look great. but what exactly is a wind screen? or is it some projection thing (like a big ribbon board) that they can do different stuff with?
looks nice.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 8:32 PM by luke Highlight this comment 3

Here's another image collection I found on the Oslund web site:


Cool images. Interesting ideas. And the dreaded bull's eye makes its first official appearance...

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 8:37 PM by Rick 4

fill the bats with actual beer

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 8:38 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 5

If those bats were about 1/3 of the height they show in the pictures, they might be ok. As shown, they make me want to avoid ever using that entrance. And why put those huge things right in front of, blocking the view of, the pixelated screen.

So, what is the picture on that screen, anyway? The webbing of a glove? A motion blurred batter?

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 8:39 PM by Craig in MN Highlight this comment 6

Did I miss something here, or has my acid not kicked in yet?

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 9:38 PM by JohnF Highlight this comment 7

ah, you think they might put that thing up to prevent hordes of people piling into the garage to sneak a free peek at the games?

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 9:42 PM by luke Highlight this comment 8

I am utterly confused by all of this.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 9:54 PM by steeks Highlight this comment 9

Confused?

In a nutshell: When Target bought the naming rights, they also agreed to put up some additional money to do things like finish the plaza all the way to First Avenue, and pay for some of the cosmetic finishes.

In effect, this appears to have made it possible for the Twins to rethink their plaza design. (How much Target has to say about the appearance of the plaza is unknown, but it wouldn't be a surprise if they controlled a lot because I think it's actually going to be known as "Target Plaza".)

They hired this guy and his company to do a redesign, and we are seeing the first images from that redesign. We have no way of knowing just how far along it is, or how close to final these renderings are.

I got (and gave in a previous post) hints that this was coming, especially the art to cover the parking ramp. I didn't quite expect what I'm seeing, but that's OK. All we've seen up to now was essentially concept stuff anyway.

Though I do think they may have to change the planter configuration a bit in order to plant these nine big bats filled with growing hops...

I've stared at this for a while and my first impression is to say that maybe they should have had some of those topiaries (every other one? there are nine) shaped like the handle of a bat rather than all being the barrel. Might make it just a bit more clear what's actually going on.

But I'm still mulling this over.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 10:07 PM by Rick 10

the bats are hideous....tell the artists to stay in uptown. this is a ballpark not a sculpture garden.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 10:26 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 11

Yikes!!!!

The parking ramp looks evil.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 10:26 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 12

I think the screen over the garage is a good idea. Imagine 500,000+ panels that move in the wind, and reflect the light. I linked a video of a similar installation in Charlotte, NC. With the lighting, that could be really cool.

The bat sculpture idea needs work. I think the idea of putting hop plants in them is a little esoteric. Will most people recognize a hop plant, much less equate that with beer?

I also think that something shorter would make the plaza seem larger...

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 10:43 PM by David_Mpls Highlight this comment 13

The windscreen might be cool - but the hop vine bats are way too big and imposing - they chop up the plaza and wreck the beautiful view of the field. I hope they go a different direction there. I like hop vines, just use them somewhere else.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 10:46 PM by luckylager Highlight this comment 14

thanks for posting that video david. i liked the idea of the wall before i watched that video. and since we'll have light reflecting on ours, i'll remember to take some anti-seizure medication before I walk to the ballpark.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 11:00 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 15

the diminutive plaza just got more cramped. i get it that they're trying to target-ize this place, but there's something to be said for "less is more." why they're trying to block the view of the stadium for each and every free angle is beyond me.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 11:24 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 16

I really want to know just who it was ["We walked into this meeting and presented these solutions and I thought they were going to laugh us out of the room. I was doing it not to be funny or flippant, it was my way of trying to wrap my head around how you create a space that would resonate with why people are going to it. They loved it."] that loved it? "They" must have been seriously doped up. Uhhhh, it looks terrible. Those bat are hideous and I agree with yeahklye, why are "they" cluttering up this area with a bunch of crap? Less is more.

Wait a minute! Let's put up a huge frickin' Ferris Wheel smack in the middle of the plaza, paint it red and incorporate the "dreaded target" into it too. There can be monkeys playing music boxes and people to guess your weight and age at a chance to get in for free and...

...somebody shoot me.

Posted on December 1, 2008 at 11:56 PM by chuck in ak Highlight this comment 17

The bats need to be flanking the far left side of the plaza, running along the edge.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 12:43 AM by ace Highlight this comment 18

Images are pretty interesting! Thanks for sharing!

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 01:18 AM by Josh Johnson Highlight this comment 19

The bats are a bit much, but I've been watching some videos of the wind veil on YouTube. Apparently there are a few out there. The thing is mesmerizing.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 02:21 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 20

They've taken away the open feel that made the plaza so great and if anyone noticed they created a large imposing gate. I really hope they do not go through with this. also according to pictures on the Twins site you can see the side of that garage from home plate, will this be distracting to the batters? this design does not scream Minnesota to me at all and is really contrasting to the rest of the park. it looks like some weird European night club.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 03:07 AM by Eric in TX Highlight this comment 21

I agree, I agree and I agree.. this is crap... keep those bats and that fricking bullseye out of there...

This might get real ugly

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 08:26 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 22

LOVE the wind screen. Very cool.

I agree with others that this makes the plaza very crowded seeming...which is weird since Oslund's other work I've seen is very simple and open. He's got a clean, modern aesthetic which works with the stadium. I think with refinements this could be lovely. But, I'd like to see a little "less is more" with the plaza (except I want a lot of greenery)

Also, the renderings don't match the current plaza layout. The "bats" are all in a row, but they've already created a 4x4 grid where the trees were to go. I'm guessing these were early concept drawings.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 09:08 AM by Dale Highlight this comment 23

I can't believe all you haters. Avoid this gate with Craig in MN if you don't like it, I'll have less folks to deal with. It looks AWESOME! WOW! Great work Os!

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 09:54 AM by Locker Highlight this comment 24

Has anyone heard any new info on the possiblity of a tailgating area on top of the right field ramp? Maybe run by the city...maybe by the Twins.......

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 10:34 AM by Thunder Highlight this comment 25

not a hater, just dont like that those bag azz bats are taking up real estate on the plaza, the middle of the plaza at that... put them off to the side or somthing

im ok with the target name, and brand.. but lets not have a 60 foot "god of target" statue on the plaza,,,,it would really backfire and turn people off

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 10:37 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 26

The wind screen would be great! But why try to squeeze the "bats" into the plaza? Looking forward to seeing what else you can dig up, Rick...

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 10:51 AM by Walleye Highlight this comment 27

Thunder - I don't expect you to know this, but bringing up tailgating on this site is liable to get you publicly executed. You've been warned. (check earlier posts)

I agree with the sentiment of most. The wind screen is cool, and would need very little maintenance. But those bats are WAY too big and dominating. Plus, after a thunderstorm those things are going to be covered in raindrop stains and look half-nasty...not like the indoor euro-nightclub look they are striving for.

If you're going to put something that dominating on the plaza, put it over by the pro shop where it's out of the way and not blocking views.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 11:15 AM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 28

To add to my comment : I do like the matching canopy that is near the ledge of the plaza...it matches the ballpark canopy and brings the plaza together.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 11:17 AM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 29

Well the holes for the bats are already there and they will take up just as much room as the trees that we saw in the original renderings. BUT, they are ugly. 5 years down the road those metal planter things are going to have chipped and fading paint and it's gonna be an eyesore. A tree is always a tree and it's cool all by themselves.

That said, I homebrew beer and free hops sounds cool to me.

The windscreen is a cool idea. Like it or not Minneapolis is a massive arts center and incorporating the arts into the ballpark is hardly detracting from it's design. The entire thing is a modern - artistic - progressive design.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 11:18 AM by moda253 Highlight this comment 30

ahhh tailgating......yum

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 11:30 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 31

the ideas for the parking ramp wall are fine but i agree with the others that the plaza just looks too busy and cramped in that rendering. the team and bp authority will be cramming a lot into a small site as it is.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 2:34 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 32

I have to agree with several people on here. Those bats take away the open view of the stadium, they are right in the middle of the plaza, and they don't look like bats. What about statues of important Twins players instead of huge bats? Or, how about nothing at all so they can put tons of pre-game venders out there.

I still think the best idea is to paint the Twin's schedule on the wall of the ramp and have some nice lighting on it at night. That seems verys old school.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 2:41 PM by steve Highlight this comment 33

One could do cool things with the bats, though, like put player numbers from the lineup on each bat in order. Of course they'd probably need some kind of electronic signage as it would have to be set right before game time and updated as the game progresses.

But yes, the bats need to be out of the center of the plaza. We need an open space.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 3:00 PM by David Highlight this comment 34

I think you could do some really cool stuff with this, similar to the recent installation at the National Gallery of Art in DC (see link - videos included) Lots of fun stuff with LEDs.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 3:22 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 35

i don't like the bats but i do like the bullseye.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 3:23 PM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 36

Also, it would be cool to extend and somehow mesh that windscreen wall with the skyway facade - perhaps some LEDs on the inside, providing a little continuity of experience. It would also make the Skyway seem more like a wall to the 'room' of the plaza rather than an unwelcome obstruction...

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 3:26 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 37

I’m starting to like the idea of hops growing out on the plaza. I agree with everyone else that the metal sculptures itself would be ugly, but I think their primary function is to hold the large hops plant intact (click on my name for visual aid). The growing hops plants could also be an “hourglass” like indicator for season ticket holders walking in from downtown, while eventually making the plaza feel more natural and lively throughout each season. My only concern is that hops are very labor-intensive; would the city or the baseball groundskeeper be responsible for maintaining those plants in the plaza?

If Target Field installed a microbrewery, they could use the hops from the previous season and use it for the beer being served in the restaurants within the ballpark.

Mpls has a reputation for innovative and modern architecture (like our new ballpark), therefore I think that the Tom Oslund proposed design of the plaza would be appropriate.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 3:32 PM by Andy T Highlight this comment 38

I don't think Hops are labor intensive. You put a couple Rhizomes in the ground and they take over your fance/yard/house...

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 3:41 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 39

How are hops associated with MN? Wouldn't that be a better fit in say, Milwaukee?? How about a lake theme, or a outdoorsy theme.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 3:47 PM by Steeks Highlight this comment 40

I love the ideas, and I think people are exaggerating a little about how much the bats break up the plaza. If you look at the relationship between the size of the sculptures and of the people next to it, you will get a feel for just how open the plaza will remain. Plus, as stated in many posts throughout the website, people will utilize numerous entrances into the stadium. I know I have the metrodome plaza stuck in my mind when trying to gauge physical space needed to filter people in and out, but nearly everyone arrives at and leaves from the dome at 5th street. This park will have the light rail split off from the main plaza, making a huge difference in the density of the crowds pre- and post-game.

As for the wind screen, I am totally hypnotized and foresee it becoming a destination even on non-game days. I love everything about it except for the potential noise factor. Wind, when funneled or filtered, makes noise. How loud will this be exactly?

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 4:20 PM by JohnK Highlight this comment 41

Hops aren't associated with Minnesota, they're associated with baseball. Good idea on paper, but the giant bats with hops aren't really functional for our pedestrian plaza.

I'd still like to hear more about the solar panels and wind turbines somewhere at the park or neighboring parking ramps.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 4:28 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 42

After watching the windscreen video, I love the concept! JohnK asks a good question about the noise. It seemed pretty noisy in the video.

Wind turbines are cool. Put a few above the ads in center field. It'll never happen, though.

OG Jeff, good catch on the matching canopies. I wonder how that will work given that there are currently concrete planters there.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 5:23 PM by David Highlight this comment 43

This makes good business sense. I think the Twins are trying to tap into a whole new fan base. If you're reading this, you're already a Twins fan and they don't need you to agree with their decision--you'll go to the games anyway. But, there are a bunch of 'artsy' people out there who may think we should have never funded this stadium in the first place, and with this design it might be enough the pull them in to a few games.

This design would allow for some great family photos, memories, etc. At least more so than a big slab of cement with a few small trees. Also, 'art' isn't creating something that looks EXACTLY like a bat. Art is supposed to stimulate the imagination. I really don't this this blocks much of the view. Looks awesome!!! Thanks for sharing, Rick!

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 6:38 PM by Brian Highlight this comment 44

How is MN progressive and innovative in it's architecture??? MN is always in a hurry to demolish it's nice buildings and replace them with shitstacks.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 7:37 PM by kevin in mn Highlight this comment 45

MN is very progressive, we have laws mandating tax payer funded buildings spend 1% of the money on artwork. When a college or university opens a new building, they have to put in some art feature.

For instance, When UMD opened it new library like 6 years ago, they spent $100,000+ on a sculpture than hangs from the ceiling. They didn' really need it, but state law said they had to spend 1% of the money on art.

We also elect plenty of left wing politcians and vote for left wing presidents, that could be considered progressive.

Lastly, its common for Minnesota politicians to spend months/ years debating the merits of a project and its price tag, only to wind up lowballing the project and settling for something 2nd rate. Its no surprise that Minneapolis promised money for transit upgrades/ pedestrian upgrades and has not delivered all the promised money/ improvements. We should be very tahnkful the Twins got the legislature to finally pass something and we should also thank HOK/ the Twins for being able to design a good park given the funding constraints.

Take what we can get and run.

Posted on December 2, 2008 at 10:08 PM by Alex D. Highlight this comment 46

I for one welcome the hops bats. Have you people any idea how cool of a plant hops is or how large it gets? I think most of you don't as evidenced by the comments. It is also quite aromatic. The bats should fill in nicely and I don't see it being a problem, but rather a bonus that MN fans can brag about. The Brewers got nothing on us.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 03:18 AM by Kai L Highlight this comment 47

Kevin in MN, you just sound SUPER bitter that you can't handle the plaza yourself. Honestly, I'm glad it isn't in your hands. On the architecture comment you made you would only be about half right. Plenty of new architecture by high profile architects have made it into this city. It is sad that Americans tear many old buildings down. The idea is, "in with the new and out with the old." Europe is very different in this regard (as is most of the world).

In any case, I hope that hops makes it into the plaza regardless. It is a great idea as it isn't common in a baseball setting. I also like the added humor (baseball and beer).

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 03:33 AM by Kai L Highlight this comment 48

Alex and Kai,

Nowhere in my post did I mention progressive politics...I stated progressive architecture. I've lived in 7 major US cities and Europe. MN's architecture is Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz compared to most major US cities. Good god, even Pittsburgh has more interesting architecture than Minneapolis. Being born and raised in MN was wonderful, but having lived many other places, it's an absolute riot how native Minnesotans feel their state is so much better and more innovative/progressive than everywhere else...It's not....NOT AT ALL! I have nothing against the arts, I love art. But at the same time, art is in the eye of the beholder. THIS IS A GODDAM BALLPARK there's no need to make it into something it's not. We're squeezing a ballpark on a tiny footprint. SPACE is precious and to clutter an already "TOO SMALL" of a plaza with metal baseball bats which look like a row of erections gone bad is STUPID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 06:48 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 49

Kevin, you weren't quite dramatic enough in your latest post. Please elaborate. ;)

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 07:26 AM by Orlando Joe Highlight this comment 50

I knew by that first post that kev made it to Mn .... and that was not another kevin.

Art is great.. and we need art but i agree this is just to small of a footprint to be trying to make a scupture garden in the plaza... i mean they wont even have a baseball hall of fame(mn) on site per its too small... just move the freaking bats to the pro shop area...

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 07:39 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 51

You're right Maz...yesterday was a loooong travel day. Took a while to get off the ground up there last night with the snow falling.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 08:09 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 52

I read an article today that Citi Field in NY will have an overhang in RF. Sounds similar to what Target Field will have.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 12:09 PM by blah Highlight this comment 53

I'd rather they planted some clematis vines. Let's have some flowers!

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM by Dave T Highlight this comment 54

Sheesh Kev, could you fill that rant with any more opinion? Like it or not this city does have architecture that is actually quite acclaimed. We may not have anything quite as iconic as St. Louis (the Eero Saarinen arch), but it is quite an assumption that architecture here in MN is zzzzzzz as you say (that is quite subjective in nature). I personally find other cities more interesting in terms of architecture as well, but doesn't mean I'm going to ignore facts either. You don't have to give me the spiel about how you have lived in many cities. I'm am a dual citizen that has experience with a number of different cities as well. I think you have invested yourself in this ballpark thing a bit too much perhaps.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 12:39 PM by Kai L Highlight this comment 55

imagine if this bat idea would've come out w/ the initial scale model of the place. what would we have been talking about? those stupid frickin bats. in their places originally were trees. no one commented negatively on those because the trees just felt right even if they did block a part of the view.

having budding trees in april, then trees full of leaves in july, and then bright orange leaves in september & october would've been awesome. better, i think, than the (...deep breath...) ivy in wrigley.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 1:11 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 56

Being from the city with a high amount of artist and environmental elitists (Portland OR), I would say Minneapolis is fairly balanced. Not the greatest for architecture, but definitely not the worst...there are worse cities - by far. The newer buildings have made great strides forward. The Guthrie, Walker, even public buildings like the new library are all architecturally "unique". The ballpark is doing well to borrow elements from each of those buildings.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 57

Yeah yer right Architecture in MN isn't/hasn't been very progressive... If you ignore the large presence of FLW, the Guthrie, the the sculpture garden. The old guthrie, the weisman, and a whole host of other buildings/projects.....

we have a lot of significant architecture. I suggest a stop over at minnescraper.com and join in the forums there. Comparing Minneapolis/Saint Paul to europe is a littel different. Architecturally speaking they have a few hundred years on us.

I just got back form London, Edinbourgh, Inverness, and Fort William. Yeah it's gorgeous over there. BUt it's not like w havea bunch of huts. We have more than teh shitstack.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 2:01 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 58

AlsoI apologize for the complete mess of typing skills I put on display. Yikes!

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 2:06 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 59

It's a shame that 33 South Sixth Street (aka the Multifoods Tower, aka the Shitstack) is so ugly, because it's the most comfortable building (temperature wise) I've ever worked in. My dad's had a hell of a time in One Financial Plaza with the temp since he moved, and he's been there for more than a few years now. No matter what they try to do it doesn't seem to fix it. Anywhoo, back to the plaza...

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 2:18 PM by Orlando Joe Highlight this comment 60

Nice post Moda. I think people here get so used to the local landscape they can't see the forest through the trees. Why is everyone so quick to berate Big Brown when right behind it sits one of the most visually stunning trio of buildings west of the Mississippi - IDS, Wells Fargo, and 225 S. 6th. All are even taller and have at least equal the footprint of the "shit shack."

Yes, it is unfortunate the likes of hte Nicollet Hotel and others weren't saved in the 60's (40 years ago guys - I think its safe to start separating that era's Mpls from the current one and end the generalizations.) However if youlook at the Medical Arts, Foshay, Baker, Pence rehab, and on a smaller scale, the Chambers, I'd say we are valuing our history again. Art and landscape matter again in Mpls, and I for one am excited to see an expansion of that canvas reaching the Target Plaza.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 2:20 PM by JohnK Highlight this comment 61

blah- the difference in the overhang in citi field and target field is the one in citi does not affect play as it's on the second level and any ball hit up there would've been a home run regardless and if it bounces off the face I believe it will still be counted as a home run. the one in target field is in the field of play and can cause home runs that normally wouldn't have been as well as cause some crazy bounces.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 2:30 PM by Eric in TX Highlight this comment 62

OG Jeff - PDX represent

I really wish i could have seen in person the nicollet hotel or the orignal gateway into downtown from the north; from the old pictures i have seen it was a grand display.

i think my favorite building downtown right now may be the rand tower on marquette and 6th. click my name to learn

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 2:34 PM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 63

JohnK,

Right on. A few more treasures we have here in the Cities:

The Landmark Center
Young-Quinlan
The State Capitol
Union Depot
Too many churches to name
Lots of wonderful apartment buildings in Whittier / Stevens Squuare / Uptown
Minneapolis Athletic Club
Calhoun Beach Club
MN Science Museum
Blair Arcade
Butler Square (not everyone's favorite, but I love the interior)
St. Anthony Main
Lots of amazing bridges!

Then there are the historic buildings that may not be pretty but they've been turned into amazing functional places:

Northrup-King (wonderful art studios!)
Jackson St. Roundhouse (MN Transportation Museum)
A bunch of warehouses and freighthouses all over (housing)
Nicollet Island Inn

I'd say we have a pretty rich architectural tradition, even if we were shortsighted in the '60's.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 2:40 PM by David Highlight this comment 64

hey what about the old Sumner-olsen housing projects???? brick was the new tin back then....

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 3:23 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 65

click my name to see my childhood home... in the 80's....

That was within view of TF......

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 3:29 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 66

Minneapolis definitely has a progressive history in terms of architecture. Though we rightfully lament the loss of grand old buildings such as the Nicollet, the Metropolitan, and others, it's important to realize that the same progressive edge that provides much of Minneapolis' great modern design is rooted in the same ideals that tore those buildings down. The notion that we can do better.

Now, I take issue with this mindset, but you can't deny that it has a strong history in Minneapolis' design.

I also don't understand the backlash against using the plaza as a space for public art. Just because it's art doesn't mean it's elitist or cannot be enjoyed by the commoners. Quite the opposite, in fact. Target, of all corporations, understands this. It's no coincidence that Target is among the most design oriented and forward thinking of the national retailers. Good design and style need not be expensive, certainly not excessively so.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 3:52 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 67

i agree about the tailgaiting. i want to hear no more discussion of it...lol.
the bullseye might be a neat idea. if they do something with it to use for homeruns and stuff - a la the Brewer guy that slides down the slide, or the Astros train, or the Big Apple at Shea...we could use it for something like that.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 5:50 PM by luke Highlight this comment 68

I think what most people are trying to say is that art, or the kind of art, really isn't the issue. But rather more of the size and location of it. Let's be honest with the whole project, space is a luxury we don't have. If "they" want to tack some things to the side of Ramp B and call it art that's fine with me. But when you start chewing up a lot of space for oversized structures in a tight area all in the name of art I think it's going too far. Hey, I'll crap on my hand and throw it against the wall and call that art if that's what they want. Yeahklye gave a nice picture with those trees and changing leaves. So simple, far more asthetic and I'm sure it could still be done.

If "they" really want to put up some structures on the plaza why not two or three sizable statues of past greats of the franchise?

Less is more!!

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 5:57 PM by chuck in ak Highlight this comment 69

I'm with you Chuck.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 7:56 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 70

the greats of the franchise evidently are getting entrances named after them: Gate 3 "Killebrew" Gate 29 "Carew" Gate 6 "Oliva". statues can rust, crack, be stolen; but security guards with electronic ticket scanners in hand are forever, my friend...no turnstiles in this joint.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 9:03 PM by luke Highlight this comment 71

luke,
thanks for reminding me of the numbered statues. that right there is enough as far as big objects go. I would rather see the plaza with vendors and such.

Kai, yes I have invested myself in "this ballpark thing" a great deal. I have done so since 1997 when Governor Carlson first proposed a cigarette tax to fund a ballpark with a roof on the river where the Guthrie now stands. In case you didn't realize it Kai, this is a forum dedicated to the ballpark so please don't be surprised to find souls such as myself that take this project VERY seriously. This is something that many of us have been chasing after for 10 LONG years....actually I have been chasing after it since real baseball died in MN in 1982.

Posted on December 3, 2008 at 10:50 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 72

Everyone talks about the "view" being ruined... the view of the stands? Most of these renderings have you floating 20 or 30 feet in the air or so and are not representative of any "view" of the stadium. From ground level, you're just going to see the upper deck across the way. I don't know that I love the bats, but they're only a couple feet wide.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 08:10 AM by strategery Highlight this comment 73

Lots of stadia concrete being poured. It seems fairly random - some in the upper deck, some in right field and center...

Kudos to those guys for being out there in the cold - it's going to be a long winter for them.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 10:05 AM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 74

The argument about teh "bats" taking up space really isn't an argument at all. The spots for the "bats" have been in place for a while now. At first I was a little weary about the caging that will be used for the hops. But hops are an amazing plant. They are a relative I believe Canabis Sativa I believe. But they are a wonderful aromatic crop and I really think that they will add a neat experience to the plaza. there was going to be trees there anyway to sthe space issue really isn't one at all. Also hops are typically growing vertically (although if left to grow wild they will take over) so they probably won't take up too much space.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 10:42 AM by moda253 Highlight this comment 75

Yeah I just noticed the stadia in the upper deck. I believe it's all precast though. Anyone have any pictures of the outfield. Webcam 1 doesn't give a great view of center, I'd like to get an idea how big that structure for the scoreboard is going to be.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 12:25 PM by Camden Pike Highlight this comment 76

Are any of you following the progress of New Yankee Stadium or Citi Field in New York? Citi Field seems to be a little further along than Yankee. Those stadiums are super close to being ready to go; I can’t believe TF will be at that same stage in only a year. Exciting stuff.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 12:30 PM by Blah Highlight this comment 77

How much would you give up for Delmon?

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 2:06 PM by Locker Highlight this comment 78

right now, I would not give up much, just cuz of how much it has been leaked that the Twins want to ship him...

but i also think he can be a good ballplayer, and better than cuddy.. we just dont have alot of options since billy smith screwed the pooch on this one... oh and that other one too.. you know elsbury and masterson for a johan....

I think we are entering an era of our version of kevin mchale.......

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 3:40 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 79

Talk about doom and gloom, mazarati. You'd rather have Lowrie, Masterson and Lester than Carlos Gomez? You're crazy!

I think the Twins are better off living with Delmon, for better or for worse. Cuz they won't get a lot for him.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 4:25 PM by haasertime Highlight this comment 80

If anyone implies that Carlos Gomez has greater value than Lester, Masterson and Lowrie, they've lost their marbles. Put down the Twins hype booklet and look at the statistics, ages and upside. It's not close - so quit drinking the koolaid.

I'm not going to say anything more on this matter because this is a ballpark blog.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 4:43 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 81

they've taken down the plaza renderings from that architecture firm's website.

and i'd have to give a slight nod to new yankee stadium over citi field. that funky right-field corner in citi is going to give outfielders fits. it's maybe trying too hard to make the park quirky, not as bad as minute maid park's joke of a centerfield, but it looks a little forced.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 10:06 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 82

Tim - what do you mean about Citi Field and the right field corner? can you post a link?

I know what you're talking about at Minute Maid Park...that hill over there, IN PLAY, in center field is just...weird. And, isnt it like 425 to dead center? Is the flagpole still out there too? i know when it opened, there was a flagpole in play, a la Tiger Stadium.

i loved Minute Maid Park when I'd play MLB on my Playstation 2. I'd try to hit the ball just perfectly out to center so it would go up that litle hill. Hit a couple inside-the-park'ers.

I think the new Yankee Stadium will be better than Citi also. While Citi is light years ahead of Shea, I'd have to give the nod to the new Yankee Stadium. Yankee is going to have that huge scoreboard out in center field...the seating views will be much better, the angles will be more conducive to baseball (the Giants played football there back in the day) and I think the outside facade of Yankee Stadium looks better too.

Nothing against replicating the exterior of Ebbets Field, like the Mets are doing with Citi, but it's been done before. The Rockies duplicated that look too. It's old hat.
I'm looking forward to the Twins first road trip to the Bronx next season. should be fun to see the new place.

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 10:36 PM by luke Highlight this comment 83

I have to give the nod to Citi Field. The Mets are clearly improving the experience for Mets fans, Shea was a dump. Steinbrenner on the other hand is taking Yankees fans further away from the field at NYS. NYS should have used a cantilever design like it's predecessor. The only thing I don't like about CitiField is the CitiField logo EVERYWHERE - take note Twins brass. Let's not overdo the Target name and bullseye, please!

Posted on December 4, 2008 at 11:24 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 84

Is it just me or does the scoreboard look like it will be ridiculously tall when you look on the first webcam

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 10:04 AM by Erik Highlight this comment 85

Erik,

It looks very tall now, but the upper level of seating has not been installed yet, and there are lights above the scoreboard as well.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 12:07 PM by David_Mpls Highlight this comment 86

Not surprised they took the renderings down. I'd imagine what we've been looking at were just concept pieces designed to show the idea. They're not blueprints.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 12:13 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 87

A little tidbit of info that I discovered a while back...

Major League Baseball is unhappy with Pohlad and the Twins because they believe the new park design doesn't call enough attention to itself from the outside (Because the field is built so that fans go "down into", not up to the park). The Twins were a little miffed by this and aren't necessarily in agreement with the leagues opinions(which I agree with).

My thoughts are that Selig wants to have a legacy in which he is remembered for growing the sport tremendously, and also most teams built beautiful new parks under his oversight. I personally wonder if the Twins have made any changes since this was brought up (over 4 months ago) and would possibly have made some changes (taller light fixtures, bigger scoreboard, etc) due to the league's prodding.

The first paragraph is fact, I assure you. The second is my on speculation.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 12:40 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 88

Where did you hear that OG? It doesn't surprise me that the dinosaurs that run MLB don't get it.

One thing's for sure, compared to the other new HoK parks, this one feels much more horizontal rather than vertical. I think that's part of the beauty of it. It doesn't need to be towering. Our ballpark will be noticed for the canopy, limestone, cantilevered restaurants/entrances, the small lot size, and the wood covering the circulation ramps. What more do we need to please Selig and MLB?

If Selig and MLB had their way, we'd be getting another generic park like Citi Field. Props to the Twins for being bold.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 1:19 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 89

OG Jeff,

I think we need some elaboration on that because it just doesn't make sense. MLB might be upset if the Twins left some money on the table by building a park without all of the revenue-generating innovations of recent years. But that is not the case.

As far as the appearance goes, why would MLB care? They are about numbers (dollars) and nothing more (not even the game itself anymore). The "legacy" -- for what it's worth -- will contain the whole round of new ballparks, which have similarities, but also individual characters (even if some of them are not very attractive characters).

I don't get it.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 1:27 PM by Rick 90

I don't see why MLB would care...all we heard from MLB over and over is that the Minnesota Twins need a new stadium to survive in the sport. The Metrodome is not a feasible facility and does not generate the revenue needed to field a competitive franchise....Now that we finally got a ballpark built (with a majority of public financing, to say the least), MLB doesn't think its good enough?

Bottom line is, MLB is concerned about one thing...DOLLARS.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 1:41 PM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 91

I agree - but as someone who does business with the Twins, I assure you the MLB office sentiment is true. It sort of is boggling to the Twins as well... I think TF is going to be the kind of cathedral that MLB can be happy with: It's beautiful, it's unique and it will give pro baseball a permanent home in Minnesota.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 1:57 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 92

Who cares what the MLB brass thinks, especially Selig??? His legacy in my book will be the BORING schedule that comes out each year. Interleague play is exciting but this unbalanced schedule where we play Kansas City 70 times a year is ridiculous. I'm all for divisional games, but come on!

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 2:12 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 93

If that is all true from MLB, I could see their point somewhat. From the renderings the outside of the ballpark doesn’t look like other ballparks that have been built in the past 15 years. As someone else said, it is very horizontal. I don’t think there is anything too flashy about TF, and at first I have to admit that kind of turned me off. But over time I’ve grown to like what I’ve see and think TF will be a great joint. A stadium is made better or worse by the team that actually plays there and the fans that fill it. I think TF will be awesome – can’t wait.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 2:24 PM by Steeks Highlight this comment 94

I guess I don't understand the MLB complaint. Its not tall enough? They want folks to see it from a distance or something? Like going to a ball game is kind of an impulse buy? I think its location will make it difficult to see from more than a block away no matter how garish it is.

The way I understand it, Wrigley and Fenway are pretty modest from the outside. Besides, the exteriors of stadiums aren't what people remember/photograph (even though I think ours will be beautiful).

I don't understand really.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 3:14 PM by Dale Highlight this comment 95

It's kind of a dumb concern because what makes a stadium visible is it being in the open. THe reason for a stadium in the open to be extremely visible is because you need to draw people to it.

But, when you have a ball park in the city, where people already are, it's not much of a concern because you already have people there. AND you need to fit it into the area that it's in.

What's better? A massive verticle stadium to draw people to where it is but not many people are? Or a stadium that fits into the area where people already are?

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 4:09 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 96

Has anyone else been counting the canopy horizontal steel supports as they have been installed? Its the first thing I count every morning! We're up to 6 baby!!

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 4:27 PM by Locker Highlight this comment 97

that stupid MLB has patience with us for ten flaming years, then complains about our new ballpark because one has to walk down to their seats instead of up? you have to do the same thing at the X on all levels, and the NHL hasn't said a word.

I dont buy it one bit.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 4:32 PM by luke Highlight this comment 98

It's important to remember that Target Field still has a long way to go before it looks like a final product. But, at this time, it's not very imposing. Unless you know what you're looking for, you can be a block away from the stadium and still not know what you're looking at. And while you can see it from 94, it's visible but not eye-popping. In many ways, it blends into the city, instead of making itself the center of attention.
Compare this to Selig's baby in Milwaukee, and maybe it's easier to see his gripe. Miller Park is mammoth, right off the freeway, and in the middle of a sea of parking lots. It dominates the space, and it's the first thing seen coming into the city. At the same time, it's not really downtown, and it sort of looks lost amidst all the asphalt.
I love Target Field. This is one town Selig should keep his nose out of.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 4:40 PM by Black Lung Highlight this comment 99

I just spotted the big Target Field sign hanging on the north side of the administrative building. This is Twins Territory! On Webcam #2, Let's give it up for that 2nd webcam uh!!

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 4:48 PM by Locker Highlight this comment 100

i don't think Miller Park in and of itself is a very imposing structure. it's that damn roof that makes it look that way. the roof is probably as big and as deep as the actual seating bowl, if not moreso. no wonder the thing creaks and squeaks when they open and close it. ditto for the roof in Toronto. i like the roof on Chase Field in Phoenix. it's not incredibly large. neither is the one on Safeco. Chase Field though does look like a huge airplane hangar or a gymnasium when the roof is closed. that industrial look just doesn't do it for me.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 5:36 PM by luke Highlight this comment 101

Locker,

There is another banner on the 7th street side of the building.

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 7:11 PM by David_Mpls Highlight this comment 102

I for one am glad that the MLB brass is upset. They've been building monstrosities where baseball is not at the top of the priority list. Corporate bullshit, kiddie playlands like your local McDonalds and other gimmicky crap has been their signature the past 10/15 years. The Twins are building a ballpark, THANK GOD! Baseball is finally priority #1 as the Twins have learned a 28-year lesson of what it's like to be low on the pecking order in your own home stadium. MLB should concern itself more with steroids than our ballpark. If I recall, PNC isn't all that vertical either and that place is a gem!

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 9:08 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 103

FANTASTIC LOVE IT!

Posted on December 5, 2008 at 10:10 PM by Rick 104

could you please elaborate on this supposed mlb beef with the twins. i find this pretty hard to believe. they're upset because it's not tall enough and you can't see it from the freeway? the thing is only half built. this all sounds kinda ridiculous. it's not like the basic ballpark parameters were just dreamed up a couple months ago.

Posted on December 6, 2008 at 12:27 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 105

When I think of Bud Selig, I will remember that bastard trying to contract the Twins, and the steroid era.

Posted on December 6, 2008 at 03:23 AM by Matt Highlight this comment 106

MLB needs to consider the site. The ground level is 30 feet below street level. How much bigger would the ballpark seem if the bridges for 5th/7th streets weren't there.

I also didn't hear MLB offering up any money to pay for a bigger ballpark...oh wait...that is always the taxpayer's problem, isn't it?

Posted on December 6, 2008 at 07:30 AM by David_Mpls Highlight this comment 107

when i think of Bud Selig, i think of the soiled toilet paper i just flushed.

Posted on December 6, 2008 at 09:09 AM by luke Highlight this comment 108

Tim, Here's the elaboration, without putting my job or business with the Twins in any sort of jeopardy.

My group works with the Twins on a semi-frequent basis. About 4 months ago at a meeting, we mentioned that the ballpark was coming along nicely and that the team was going in the right direction with it. The employee smiled and said something like "We think so too. What funny is that MLB is upset because the park isn't so grandiose. They've been letting us know, too. Pohlad and the team couldn't be more confused, because we think it's going to be a great park." After that he made some comments about the MLB office not knowing what they're talking about.

So, in short - I agree with what's been posted on this site. The park is awesome and has a sort of "ballpark charm" because it isn't some monstrosity that you see from 5 miles away.

Posted on December 7, 2008 at 10:33 AM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 109

did they complain when the Pirates opened PNC Park in Pissburgh? If you chain the right people to the wall, and grill them, they will tell you that they were going after a PNC Park'esque ballpark for the Twins. Not too small, not too grandiose.
Look, Baltimore, Colorado, Texas, they have this big 50,000 seat ballparks right? and do they fill them to capacity? no. Colorado is lucky to have 15,000 people at a game sometimes.
The way of the buffalo is smaller. Oaklands "hopefully we'll build it" Cisco Field is slated to have about 34,000 seats. Tampa's "we're just talking about it" Grapevine Field apparently will only seat 32,000. So - our meager little Target Field will look pretty big compared to some of the new ones being talked about.

Posted on December 7, 2008 at 12:05 PM by luke Highlight this comment 110

Target Field is going to be an awesome park. It's intimate, well thought out, and hopefully has a lot of charm when it opens. I don't think we need a monstrosity like Citi or NYS to build something that is appealing and attractive.

Posted on December 7, 2008 at 1:14 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 111

Target Field is going to be an really good park. Bud Selig is just jealous that it will be way better than that monstrisity known as Miller Park. On another note how about some new pictures of the ballpark construction.

Posted on December 7, 2008 at 7:56 PM by NewGuy Highlight this comment 112

heres what i wonder. will TF light up the skyline? if you look, there will not be alot of light towers, rather the majority of the lighting will be placed on the canopy, therefore looking down. yes there will be at least one light standard atop the scoreboard. but with the lights facing in because of the canopy, will it actually light up that area of downtown?

Posted on December 7, 2008 at 9:20 PM by luke Highlight this comment 113

luke,
it will be bright enough. stadium lights are to light the playing field, not the surrounding community - that's why we have street lights. the lit canopy will look awesome on aerial shots of the field...is it 2010 yet?

Posted on December 7, 2008 at 10:20 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 114

Tidbit from the Twins site:
The gate on Target Plaza, with turnstiles built into it for entry into ballpark, will be movable. When the Twins aren't playing, the gate will swing around and the outfield concourse will become part of the city sidewalk system -- meaning that fans can walk right up to the ballpark and through the concourses in the outfield to reach the trains.

Posted on December 8, 2008 at 11:46 AM by J2K Highlight this comment 115

I noticed on Webcam 2 that they have been filling concrete on the upper-deck of the on the first base line stands, another moment i bb history.

Posted on December 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM by CTM Highlight this comment 116

I can't delete my previous post can I? I should really read these things over before I post them. Anyways it is a great milestone.

Posted on December 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM by CTM Highlight this comment 117

true, lights are supposed to be pointed towards the field. but some parks that have the high light towers do add a certain amount of illumination that makes a neat night effect.
i'd love to go back to Saint Louis and see the new Busch Stadium

Posted on December 8, 2008 at 5:48 PM by luke Highlight this comment 118

hmmm, this could be interesting...

Posted on December 8, 2008 at 8:52 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 119

This is certainly good news.

But I gotta say that, of all the governmental entities which have come in contact with the ballpark project, the city of Minneapolis turns out to be the most dysfunctional.

And it's not even close:

"Another $25,000 from the mayor's ballpark proposal instead will pay for animals at the city pound to be spayed and neutered before they are adopted."

I stand with Bob Barker on the merits of spaying and neutering, but that this issue became part of the ballpark infrastructure improvement discussion says something about how things (don't) work down at City Hall...

Posted on December 8, 2008 at 9:48 PM by Rick 120

One thing to think about in terms of the ballpark lighting up downtown is that the park is going for LEED certification. There are LEED credits related to light pollution, and working to make sure that unnecessary light does not leave the site.

Posted on December 8, 2008 at 11:42 PM by Andy Highlight this comment 121

This is a little off topic, but has anyone had trouble posting the Twins message board? I keep getting the following message when I try to post something.

"message parameter not correct most likely tid not specified"

I am not doing anything different from what I normally do, so I see no reason why I should be having trouble posting there.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 12:18 AM by Alex D. Highlight this comment 122

Are the improvements referred to in that article the same ones that have been mentioned previously (widening the sidewalk alongside the ballpark, changing the configuration of certain streets to improve safety/pedestrian traffic flow, the pedestrian bridge, etc), or is this something new?

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 11:00 AM by Walleye Highlight this comment 123

This is getting pretty old, the twins announces a few days ago there were out of the casey blake "sweepstakes"....

it shows you how much the front office cares about winning a championship when we cant pull in a player of blakes caliber... we wont even contend... manny no, cc.. no, blake .. just missed him...

nick punto was looking like a good option until now 5 other teams like him so we will not be able to resign him... if we do he will cost only a few mil less a year than beltran would.. but of course they will pay nicky the money

i am really frustrated, bad mooves over bad moves thats all that has happend in the last 2 years.. payroll was cut last year by over 14 mil a year... this year it might not approch the amount it was cut from..

TODAY I AM A LIL SAD THAT MY HOMETOWN CLUB HAS JUST AS MUCH A CHANCE TO SIGN MANNY OR DEAL FOR A ROD THAN SIGN A 36 YEAR OLD AVG PLAYER WHO WE DUMPED 8 YEARS AGO...SAD I SAY

Thank you for your time

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 4:15 PM by Mazaratirick Highlight this comment 124

A Rod? Manny? If we sign one of those guys, we'd have to sell the rest of the team! That was the mistake the TWolves made with Garnett. They bought one guy, and had no money left to give him some support on the floor. That's why KG left after 10 years of playoff first-round losses, and that is why he is now the proud new owner of an NBA Championship ring. Boston knew how to build a team, not just rely on one guy to do everything.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 4:27 PM by luke Highlight this comment 125

Welcome to Minnesota sports.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 4:28 PM by Matt Highlight this comment 126

Luke,

My point is... do you group Manny in the same catagory as blake?

or garnett in the same as luc longly?

well the twins fron office is painting that picture to us that blake is just as out of our leauge as manny......

but will push the pr that "we went after him" so we are committed to winning...went after betran.. so on and so on

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 4:36 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 127

luke,

another point that maz is making is that the Twins most certainly could sign blue chip players if they wanted to. They have the richest owner in baseball and he could spend if he wanted to, but he doesn't want to. I once understood the Twins position on not competing when they didn't have a new ballpark deal. Well, the deal has been in place for a couple of years now and the spending has decreased. It's bullshit plain and simple from the front office of this team year after year.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 6:35 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 128

Yep, the ole bait and switch. The Twins have proven time and time again. They will end up with another Mike Lamb or Adam Everett to show everyone they made attempts to improve, then go to AAA 1/2 way through the year to fill the void again. It's so predictable. If they can't trade Delmon Young, you'll see Michael Cuddyer at third and some castoff at short. My reasoning? I read that Gardenhire wants Cuddy in the outfield, but they are not gonna have Delmon sit on the bench.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 7:11 PM by JohnF Highlight this comment 129

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html

This list shows the Twins @ 26th in MLB Revenue for 2008 and 25th for total value.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_teams_by_payroll

This list shows the Twins 2008 total payroll @ 24th.

Now, I think remember reading somewhere that those annual figures that Forbes puts out aren't entirely accurate but I think it still shows that the Twins payroll is right where you would expect it be. I'm not saying Carl Pohlad isn't making alot of money but you can't expect him to fund a 100 million dollar payroll when the market just isn't there to support it.

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 10:03 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 130

I know the Rays did not win the World Series last year or the Rockies the year before that, but they easily could have. What was the payroll of those two clubs? At the bottom! The Twins are doing it the right way. I hope the Twins stand pat and keep winning with pitching, defense, and small ball offense. I'm actually serious this time. I honestly think we would have made a big play-off run last year if we could have scored one lousy run in Chicago. Our rotation of Liriano, Baker, and Slow-Dog was set up for that Rays series. We can't complain with all the winning the Twins have done this last decade. Span, Casilla, Mauer, and Morneau at the top of the line-up next year will again put the Twins near the top in run production in the league. When do the pitchers and catchers report again? Mid Feb? GO TWINS! BTW...we are still sitting on 6 horizontal steel canapy beams. C'mon Mort...let's see #7 this week!

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 10:15 PM by Locker Highlight this comment 131

I imagine none of that changes anyone's minds because its much easier to believe Carl's an evil old miser rather than accept the reality that there are only roughly 5 million people in this state.

If you're a baseball fan in this state I think you have to look at that Forbes list and count your blessings that you even have a professional team to root for.

Not only that but its a consistently competitive team with a surfeit of young pitching and a new ballpark on the horizon... and you're angry that they won't sign a 35 year old third baseman? Egads, man! As my mother would tell me, just what on earth is it going to take to make you happy?

Posted on December 9, 2008 at 10:20 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 132

really?

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 02:41 AM by come on Highlight this comment 133

two years of blake would have been fine but we required three and the overpaying dodgers were dumb enough to give it to him.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 07:48 AM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 134

fans have a right to expect more than the usual offseason of low-rent free agent signings to fill holes now that the team doesn't have the built-in excuse of a facility that provides little revenue. so no, i don't count my blessings we have a team, we're paying for the team's existence and should expect a return on the investment. the team won last season in spite of it's front office and that's a testament to the field staff and players.

the team can't count on the division being down every year.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 08:12 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 135

just noticed a typo: i meant to say that "he (as in casey blake) required three [years]"

i do expect moves to happen this year and even though i don't agree with all the trades/signings that mr billy smith has made so far, i give him credit for doing something.

honestly when he signed lamb last year, i was honestly excited; a player with upside was given the chance to play everyday. at the time it was a smart move. livan on the other hand was not, but at least he wasn't expensive.

atkins will not fix this team and we should avoid him. colorado values him too highly and to get him (the rockies were wanting span AND slowey for starters) we would give up far too much.

i would really like to witness a "holy crap, i didn't see that one coming" type of move from the twins this year and i think they may do it...

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 08:58 AM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 136

ok well i think we will have to overpay just to keep punto... if you are going to waste 10 mil or more on hernendez, lamb and everett then why not just go pay 12 mil a year to a stud, some one who is season long slump proof....the fact that after justin we have no real hope for a 25+ hr hitter... that is not good... its just my yearly gripe.. happens every year...and yes tim said it good...thsi is a whole new ballgame, we are not "small market" we are a mid market team with a great fan base...one that can support a mlb team.. we had a small market ballpark.. no longer..

if we are in the same situation in 5 years then you know that it will not changed and we just got duped...we have a competitive team, state of the art ballpark and make plenty of cash... what will be carls excuse then?

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 137

That's what makes the Twins competitive, they are smart and KNOW what players to invest in. They will NOT overpay for some veteran past his prime. Neither Santana, Hunter, nor Silva were worth the money they received last year from other clubs. There is a reason the Seattle GM was fired...

The idea of the new ballpark and additional revenue is to KEEP the players you have such as Mauer, Morneau, Nathan, Span, Slowey, and Baker LONG-TERM without overpaying them.

Now if the Twins can't keep guys like Mauer/Morneau/Nathan beyond their current deals, than the fans deserve the right to complain since we will be in our new ballpark by than.

Large payrolls do not result in world championships, just ask Mets, Yankees, Angels, Dodgers, and Cubs fans.

Yes, the Twins lack a power hitting 3B, but it makes no sense to overpay a veteran such as Casey Blake who is past his prime. They need to make a trade for a 3B, and that might mean giving up one of our young guys. If you want to receive young talent, you have to be willing to deal young talent. Its the nature of trading and the risk that comes with it.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 10:36 AM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 138

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2008/33/biz_baseball08_The-Business-Of-Baseball_Rank.html

I'll say it again and then leave it alone (especially on the internet where we're all anonmous).

26th in MLB Revenue for 2008, 25th for total value, 24th in payroll.

I don't think just spending more on payroll by itself would increase the fanbase to create a significant increase in revenue for the club. The new stadium will help obviously since the existing Metrodome lease is horrible for the club. How much of a boost the Twins will really get from that is for minds much quicker than mine though... I'd rather just resign myself to the fact that the Twins will never be big players in free agency.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 10:52 AM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 139

Let's all take a deep breath, and enjoy a nice big swig of the Twins Kool-Aid. Count my blessings? I'm paying for them to be here. Wake up, man.

I'll tell you exactly what it would take to make me as a fan happy: The Twins spend the money they are currently RAKING IN. (Not "attempt" to...or "act" like they want to) Carl pocketed over 30 million in cash last year. If you don't have the financial aptitude to run the numbers, you'll have to leave it up to this biz major. The past 2 years he's made a KILLING.

Let's look at some other facts: Attendance at the dome been setting records every year but 2004. Revenue sharing has become a form of income for the Twins. $24 million went into Carl's pocket last year...did we see any of that on the field? Hell no.

What drives me nuts is that Twins fans buy into the company line. They've been brainwashed to believe that "we're the little team that could"..."We only have 5 million people here"..."We can't attract the big talent"...I hear this garbage regurgitated by fans, who should be keeping their team accountable. The Truth: We should be owning a dynasty right now. The scouting and development of the Twins is 2nd to none...and if we had a couple well placed acquisitions in the lineup over the past 6 years, who knows how many AL titles or World Series championships we might be celebrating.

Ok, rant done.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 11:01 AM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 140

Sheesh, I need a tylenol. Nobody is suggesting we overpay old players. That's what the Twins have been doing for the past 5 years. FYI - Santana nearly won the Cy Young last year.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 11:06 AM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 141

Dan, Do you think their valuation might rise just a LITTLE BIT when a new stadium is added to their asset sheet in two years?

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 11:07 AM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 142

I will not miss having Blake or Punto around next year. Both are below average players. Just an average third baseman is all I ask! And a middle reliever.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 12:23 PM by Badjuggler Highlight this comment 143

Everyone thought the Angels were nuts last year for OVERPAYING Hunter. Do you think they regret it?

So the Dodgers are stupid for overpaying Blake....Didn't the Dodgers knock out the #1 seeded Cubs in the NLDS last year? Yeah, the Dodgers are really stupid.

The Twins compete every year because they have an incredible coaching staff and play in a very mediocre division.

This "just be happy we have a team" bullshit expired 2 years ago when the ballpark bill was signed. This isn't about yearly revenue vs the payroll. It's about Pohlad's net worth being the highest of any MLB owner. Pohlad got "bailed out" by Hennepin County taxpayers for his ballpark and now he's not spending. That's as sick as the taxpayers giving banks 700 billion dollars and they won't lend. Once a banker, always a banker I guess.

Currently the Twins have a great fanbase but that could easily change if they don't watch it. It's time to put up or shut up Twins. 2 more years of this pretending to be players in free agency will anger the fanbase and Target field will look like the Met did in the 70's - empty and cold.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 1:05 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 144

Agreed Kevin...one little thing to add. Not only is Carl Pohlad the richest in all of MLB, he's the richest in all of NFL, NBA, NHL, wait - HE'S THE RICHEST OWNER IN AMERICAN PRO SPORTS.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 1:08 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 145

"Dan, Do you think their valuation might rise just a LITTLE BIT when a new stadium is added to their asset sheet in two years?"

Yes, I'm sure it will but how much I don't know.Forbes says 30 to 50 million in increased value for the franchise. I don't know if that necessarily means an extra 30 to 50 million dollars a year in income or just that the market value for the franchise would be 50 million more. Either way I'm not sure its a good idea to start spending that money two years before the park ever opens though.

"$24 million went into Carl's pocket last year...did we see any of that on the field? Hell no."

What on earth is wrong with making a profit? 24 million doesn't seem outlandish to me given how capital-intensive this business is. 24 million is the going rate for one season of work by a top-flight pitcher these days. I still don't have any idea what the Twins' overhead is.. I mean you can find the player's payroll but what's the total expense of running the franchise from year to year? If you knew what profit Carl pockets relative to the club's overhead you could get an idea of how greedy he is.

"Let's look at some other facts: Attendance at the dome been setting records every year but 2004. Revenue sharing has become a form of income for the Twins."

Those revenue sources are included and documented in those Forbes rankings.

"We only have 5 million people here"

We do and New York has over 19 million. I'd venture a guess that those 19 million have, on average, a higher disposable income too.

"The Truth: We should be owning a dynasty right now."

Oh brother.. and I'm the delusional/ brainwashed one?

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 1:18 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 146

You know what I haven't had in a while? Big League Chew.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 3:07 PM by Orlando Joe Highlight this comment 147

Dan,

you have great points... but what it comes down to is the owner can afford to spend more...the owner is given 20-30 mil a year in rev sharing...that is supposed to help off set this "small market" claim

that is not for him to funnel to his other compaines.. its for the team, as for the forbs list.. look at that list back in 2006... you will see a sharp jump in value from when the ballpark got approved to what it was b4 and yes we can add more and more once it opens, the twins a reaping the fruit right now...

all that being said... i love this team, always have .. always will... dont mean as a consumer i cant bi#ch and moan a bit about it...i pay my taxes for TF and i pay for my tickets..

when are we gonna see some seats in there??? i need to head on down soon

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 3:15 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 148

Dan,

What's wrong with making a profit? Nothing - In fact, most of Carl's companies are making healthy profits. But let's be clear, that's not why you own a sports franchise. If you are going to buy a team to make money, you're missing the point - and you're gonna piss some people off (unless in MN). That excuse only reinforces that people's stomach is full of Kool-Aid.

FYI - the 24 million was ONLY REVENUE SHARING. not total profits. Dan, revenue sharing isn't supposed to be income for the team - it's designed to subsidize the small markets so they can spend more on their product.
-----
"Either way I'm not sure its a good idea to start spending that money two years before the park ever opens though"

How many tickets have been sold to gain "ballpark priority"? Season ticket sales are way up. And again - LOOK AT ATTENDANCE. Also, the team valuation increased by 19% last year. 19%!!!! And yet payroll was down 14 million.
-----
The Twins made the postseason in 2002, 2003,2004, and 2006. They just fell short in 2001 and 2008. Tell me again why it's a stretch to think this team could have won a couple AL titles or even a World Series with a little more firepower? Oh, it's because we short-sell ourselves.
-----

I'm done with this subject.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 4:04 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 149

I suppose you can make the argument that Carl has been getting disproportionate income from the team. If the numbers from Forbes are to be believed, he was with the upper third of teams in the league in terms of profit last year. But then the Twins were unpredictably successful on the field last year and the organization probably didn't expect to sell as many tickets, apparel,etc. as they did. Chicken or the egg thing i suppose.

But I mean, even if he were to spend all of that 24 million dollars the Twins would still only have a mediocre sized payroll. Revenue sharing certainly helps but i don't think it can completely make up the difference.

I do get agitated when people try to tell other people how to spend their money though, so I guess I can be blamed for going a bit overboard in my defense of Pohlad.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 4:05 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 150

Good response, Dan. I tend to go a little too nuts on the other side of the coin. I think you and I would agree on a lot of subjects (referring to telling people how to spend money), but now that I'm being taxed for this team, my interest in their profit levels have peaked.

Posted on December 10, 2008 at 4:21 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 151

Yeesh.

1. Carl Pohlad and the Twins are not synonymous. This is a business. You shouldn't expect the Twins to spend beyond their means anymore than I should expect my employer to come up to me and ask if they can cash out my 401k and forgo my salary since they're a little short on cash since they hired the bigwig that's going to win the company awards.

2. Older players are always high priced. That's the way baseball's salary structure is set up. Veterans get rewarded for sticking around.

3. Team valuation is just that - it is not cash flow, nor is it an operating budget, nor is it payroll. I'm not an accountant, but at least I have an understanding of the differences between these things. Come on.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 09:33 AM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 152

Come on start a new thread and maybe could someone post some new construction pictures of the current cnstruction.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 11:08 AM by NewGuy Highlight this comment 153

Alex -

Regarding your first point: I'm on-board with about 90% of this. I think the confusing problem for myself and most people is that while the Twins are a private organization (which pretty much does mean that Carl Pohlad = Twins) they receive hefty public assistance. Public aid for private companies happens all the time I suppose (how much do we pay to have a regional air-hub in the metro area?) but when it happens in professional sports its alot more visible and (as much as I love the Twins and baseball) for more frivolous reasons.

Regarding the third point: I understand that team valuation is just that but obviously that valuation is the result of something. As I understand it, the Twins aren't gaining any tangible asset in the new ballpark deal (The Ballpark Authority will own Target Field, the Twins will lease it). So all that the Twins gain is the opportunity for greater profit. So presumably the 50 million increase is due primarily to an increase in annual profit...

But are they valued as a franchise 50 mil more because they can make an extra 20 million a year or something? I don't have any idea and I've said as much. If you, Jeff, or anyone else has some way of "ballparking" (horrible pun) that, I think it could help give a guy an idea of what the Twins might be able to spend on payroll in the future.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 11:26 AM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 154

I will be stopping down there this afternoon for some new photos.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 11:35 AM by Rick 155

The value of the franchise is akin to the value of a house. If your house is valued at $500,000 one year, and the next year it's valued at $750,000, that doesn't mean you suddenly got a $250,000 raise in your salary.

The Twins have to pay players every year. The relevant metric for that is operating revenue, as that's what factors into their annual budget. Revenue is like your salary at your job, value is the net worth of your house. You can only realize the value of your house if you sell it (or borrow against it).

For the Twins, the entire reason for the stadium is to generate revenue, thus the franchise will increase in value even if they don't own the actual asset.

The Twins won't begin to actual reap the benefits of the new stadium until it's generating revenue for them.

Pohlad's a smart guy. He's willing to spend extra money on ballpark amenities because those will increase the long term value of the stadium and thus of the franchise. Investing that money in a player is a much riskier proposition, especially if you'd have to go all in to sign one guy and the Yankees can still easily outbid you.

Even if they did spend it and the end up winning a World Series, the financial benefits of that are a slim.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 156

Right, I understand and agree with all of this.

But I guess what I'm getting at is there should be some correlation between the increase in the franchise's value and the potential increase in annual income - especially since the only asset the Twins have gained in the ballpark deal is that opportunity to gain more money (in other words the lease). What's that correlation?

Put another way:
"The Twins are worth 50 million more as a franchise because, as a result of their new lease with the Ballpark Authority, they are now more likely to make X more dollars per year."

I want to find X.

The Twins aren't gaining any value because of the appreciation of existing assets in the new ballpark deal so the house example doesn't really work (although I understand your point).

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 11:58 AM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 157

Dan, do you own a house? If so, has the value of that house correlated with the amount of your salary?

I suspect that the correlation is not as clean as you'd like to think. If you house appreciates in value, that doesn't raise your salary.

It's also worth noting that the valuation of the Twins today is based on the expectation of a new ballpark being completed in the future. They do not yet have control of that ballpark and are not yet seeing the revenues. The value has increased on the expectation of future revenue, much in the same way as lenders will loan money to students for tuition knowing that a degree makes them far more likely to pay that money back.

In short, it's a mistake to think that X is a percentage of the franchise's value. Assuming the Twins will take in the same revenue this year in the Dome as they did last year, the value of X in your question would be zero. But in 2010, it will be something big.

In short, these are two related but very different concepts. It goes to the differences between wealth and income. Revenue is income. Wealth is the value of the franchise, or the value of one's home and other assets.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 12:41 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 158

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 12:57 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 159

Again, I don't think you house analogy works - The Twins are not projected have an increase in valuation because of an appreciation of an existing asset. Also they have not gained any tangible asset.. only the right to use property.

Per the Forbes article:
"The stadium is expected to have 60 luxury suites and 4,000 club seats, which could increase the value of the franchise by $30 million to $50 million."

Use of those luxury suites and and club seats obviously will generate more income than current metrodome seating and that is what is increasing the value of the franchise (not the actual seats themselves because the Twins don't own the seats).

I imagine the only things that can raise the value of a company are new assets or increased profitability? Since the Twins aren't gaining any asset shouldn't the only thing that increases their value be projected income from those club seats? How does someone at Forbes project an increase of 50 million in value?

Now maybe no one here knows. Which is fine. I'm just curious especially since some mentioned they may know more since they are a Business Major and because several seemingly glib remarks ("Do you own a house Dan?") by yourself and others has motivated me to either get an answer to the question or expose the fact that no one here knows the answer.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 1:02 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 160

rick, time to start a chat room for dan and alex b...

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 1:04 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 161

I can't take Nick Punto for another 2 years....especially at 4.25 million/year....are you kidding me

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 1:20 PM by Erik Highlight this comment 162

maybe a message board would be good for this site...

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 1:27 PM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 163

Dan, the house analogy holds, trust me. It holds because the value of the franchise/house is the price you'd expect to get if you sold the team/house.

If Pohlad were to sell the team now, he would get 20-50 million more than if he would have sold the team prior to the stadium deal. The expectation and certainty of those luxury suites have increased the value of the franchise. They have not yet increased the revenue of the franchise.

You note that they've gained the right to use the property in the future. That has value now. Hence the increase in the value of the franchise (because anyone buying the team would also buy those rights to use the property, thus they would reap the benefit). Those rights, however, are not returning any income or revenue right now.

What you seem to want is an answer as to how much the payroll can increase. What I'm telling you is that you can't tell that from Forbes' estimation (which are really just wild ass guesses) of the value of the franchise.

What I am telling you, for certain, is that the Twins need to make money in order to spend it. The paper value of the franchise (as estimated by Forbes) is not real money - it is what you would expect to get if you sold everything. The 'real money' is revenue, and so long as the Twins are in the Dome, they'll be taking in Dome revenue, and thus will continue to have a Dome-like payroll.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 1:35 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 164

Dan - I've heard expected revenues at the new park are jumping 40 million. Right now, the Twins are tentatively going to "increase" payroll 20-25 million out of that, which is fair. However, if you strategically knock your payroll down 14-17 million a couple years beforehand...well, you can see where I'm going with this.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 1:45 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 165

Right but in order to make the estimate about valuation that Forbes did they had to have an estimate of how much revenue would grow.

Revenue growth is pretty much the only factor driving an increase in value here right? We're not talking about the appreciation of an existing asset resulting from market supply and demand - which is the part of your house example that does not hold water. (The part of the example in which you describe what value is I obviously agree with.)

If Jeff is right that revenues are projected to jump 40 million per year that would mean the correlation between value and anticipated revenue growth is pretty much 1 to 1 right?

Anyway,assuming Jeff's numbers to be true, the whole point would be that if you don't see something like 20-25 million out of the 40 million spent on payroll then that's where I think I personally would start being upset with Pohlad as a taxpayer funding this whole enterprise. But I don't think I could judge the whole thing until their atleast moved into the new ballpark.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 166

I'm no business major but my 12th grade economics answer would be: supply and demand. Or should it be demand and supply. We demand that Pohlad spends more to bring in a big bat; then he supplies us with one.

Works for me.
(i'm actually a math major)

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 2:36 PM by chuck in ak Highlight this comment 167

uggh! i never thought i'd miss the days of arguing about tailgating...

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 3:19 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 168

Haha - I like it Kyle. We need a new thread...

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM by OG Jeff Highlight this comment 169

this is a ballpark site, right? jeez.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 3:40 PM by robert Highlight this comment 170

The house analogy holds. The Franchise is the house. The Franchise has appreciated in value because the 'house' is getting a new kitchen and a master bath. The team most certainly is an existing asset.

There are other factors in the valuation, too - players under contract, etc. They all have value.

And no, you wouldn't expect a 1-1 ratio of revenue growth to payroll growth. Revenue is income, not net income. To generate that revenue, you have costs. The luxuries in the luxury suites are not free. The team will take on more costs in order to make more money, but it's certainly not a 1-1 relationship.

For those complaining about the discussion of finance - you do all realize that this is the entire reason the ballpark is being built, right? If playing indoors at the dome made money hand over fist, this stadium would not be under construction.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 3:49 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 171

Exchange phone numbers and go to a bar.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 3:58 PM by JohnF Highlight this comment 172

Most everyone says kyle but its klye
Also it is spelled a lot, not alot

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 4:56 PM by detail Highlight this comment 173

*cue the crickets*

Nick Punto? Boy am I ever glad we didn't sign Blake!

*chirp chirp chirp*

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 6:52 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 174

okay,

dan you seem like a real smart guy, smarter than me i would imagine, but the bs about the twins only renting TF and it give them no cash gain .. well im kind of shocked you would think that...

put it like the twins own this ballpark, they just dont have to pay for it all..which im ok with..

if mary jo wanted to slang soup in the dugouts in the winter to homeless people do you think the number one person in charge would be anyone other than jerry bell or dave st peter? they would have the say on anything even b4 the commission....

like alex b said, even though my house is worth 250k, just cuz its next to 3 brand new mansions dont mean im not selling my(dump) house for less than 255k

yes this a ballpark website, this is all ballpark related... if i did not bleed twins then i would be on the citi field or nys websites...

as for tailgating i will start a fight on that one to change the subject... kevin in az is a tailgating hater and urban ballparks suck(lol) now... discuss amoungst yourselves.. and where is Betaband?? he LOVES tailgating right on the plaza.....

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 7:50 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 175

tailgating is for FOOTBALL games. Enough said.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 7:53 PM by luke Highlight this comment 176

luke,

this dates back a year.... that was sarcasem

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 8:08 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 177

1.) The Twins' projected increase in value is the result of a projected increase in revenue.

How can you possibly disagree with that statement? The Twins own no new assets as a result of the new ballpark other than a new lease. Perhaps you can argue they've gained some goodwill and interest from the fanbase but the Forbes article clearly mentioned the suites and club seats that the Twins would be able to sell tickets for when they mentioned the increased value.

2.) If the projected increase in club value is the result of a projected increase in annual revenue then in order for anyone to estimate the club's future value they have to have some idea of future revenue.

This seems obvious too. I don't know what else to say.

So, I don't understand your position Alex.

What asset have the Twins gained that has caused Forbes to project a 50 million dollar increase in value? (keeping in mind that they will not own the ballpark)

Are you really suggesting that the projected increase in value is completely independent of projected increases in revenue?

The 40 million per year increase was Jeff's number but if it's true that would suggest about a one to one correlation between projected franchise value growth and annual revenue growth (40 million to 50 million). Now I don't know if that's actually accurate or not. Without actually seeing how someone crunched the numbers 40 million could be as likely as 4 million.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 8:45 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 178

oh maz...you still don't understand...i do love tailgating...just not at urban ballparks. I so wish I could take you into a time machine back to the 70's and show you how the Vikings fans made an art out of tailgating....Of course the Kicks fans brought it to a totally different level, probably never to be experienced again - I'm not sure there's enough heroin/lsd in the world to be able to tailgate like Kicks fans.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 9:18 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 179

The Twins do not own the stadium but the get all the revenue from it. Which is different than what they get at the dome. So they get more revenue in when the stadium opens until then I would not expect any more spending on players until then but you never know. I was there back in the 70s if I would have liked soccer I would have been there too but was just A baseball fan so the level of insanity never reached as high as there was at kicks games eheheh. But since one mentioned it what do people like to see at urban ballparks like what we are going to get here just curious.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 11:57 PM by Leroy Highlight this comment 180

"put it like the twins own this ballpark, they just dont have to pay for it all..which im ok with.."

Rick if this we're true then the value of the franchise would increase almost 350 million dollars because they would own a $500 million ballpark after paying just about $150 million dollars of their own money for it.

"but the bs about the twins only renting TF and it give them no cash gain .. well im kind of shocked you would think that..."

Definitely didn't mean to give the impression that the Twins would get no cash gain from leasing the new Ballpark. In fact the total cash gain per year the Twins will receive from operating the new ballpark under the new lease is exactly what's got me (and I'm sure alot of us) curious.

http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/166694/new-twins-stadium-adds-1-2-million-in-revenues

The title of this short article seems to suggest a 1.2 million dollar gain per year but that article, confusingly, also claims that the Twins will make 8 million a year just off of the suites. Knowing that the Twins make 0 dollars off of suites in the Dome shouldn't that be atleast an 8 million per year gain for the Twinkies?

I just wish someone had a good estimate of how much money this is supposed to bring in for Carl so I could have an idea of what I, as a taxpayer, should be able to expect for a payroll for this team.

Posted on December 11, 2008 at 9:07 PM by Dan Larson Highlight this comment 181

1.) The Twins' projected increase in value is the result of a projected increase in revenue.

How can you possibly disagree with that statement?

I don't disagree with it at all. What I'm saying is that the asset need not be physical, nor is it temporal. This whole discussion stemmed from the Twins not opening the checkbook THIS YEAR. What I'm saying is that the value of the franchise has increased on the expectation of new revenue from the stadium, but simply because the value has increased now does not mean that the revenue has increased yet, thus the Twins have not increased their payroll.

This is not that hard of a concept to understand.

Now, for future years, things are different. Of course someone's made an estimate of what the new revenues will be. I don't know what it is that your asking, really. All of the numbers thrown around are just estimates. The owners are worried about revenue being down this year with the recession. These things fluctuate. There are no hard and fast ratios.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 08:20 AM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 182

Two years ago Nick Punto was statistically ONE OF THE WORST HITTERS IN MLB HISTORY. Now we are giving him $4MM a year and letting him start at shortstop?! This pisses me off. Unreal. Zoilo is rolling in his grave...

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 09:35 AM by Badjuggler Highlight this comment 183

he had one of the worst SEASONS in history, not the worst career stats. with his .252 career average he is far above a minnesota favorite of tim laudner and his .225 career average.

i'm not the biggest fan of punto but i feel that people are overly harsh on him. i'd rather have tolbert in there without a doubt.

the twins could pull a "bronson arroyo" on him: sign a cheaper hometown deal and then trade him...

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 10:24 AM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 184

I would REALLY like to see a lot of bars and restaraunts around the ballpark with full open fronts. Meaning that the front of the place is open to the streets and not jsut a door to go into. There's something about that type of place that makes it interact with the streetscape. We have a lot of thse places on 1st avenue. The problem for me is where are these places goign to be. 7th really doesn't have an option for it. 5th has the ford building but that's about it. And they want to put the transportation hub there so that takes out new development.

I suppose this all ties into the north loop neighborhood development. I don't want to see any businesses have to move but there are a couple of buildings down there that could be really cool if retro fittd. Washington avenue has some really cool things that can be done.

Just wondering if any of you have any ideas on specific locations that could be turned into this sort of thing. I mean I guess it doesn't have to be immediately adjacent but it shouldn't be more that 1 or 2 blocks away.

Thoughts?

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 10:29 AM by Moda253 Highlight this comment 185

I had been thinking the same thing, Moda. Yes, this is an urban ballpark, but it's not really in a neighborhood. It's on a peninsula jutting from downtown into an industrial park. I'm not sure how they'll pull off immediate development... What can we do to make the garbage burner go away?

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 1:04 PM by haasertime Highlight this comment 186

Dan Larson, if your so smart then why cant you spell a lot correctly?

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 1:15 PM by detail Highlight this comment 187

Detail,

If you're so smart, why can't you spell you're correctly?

Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 1:21 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 188

Or "can't"?

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 1:40 PM by Badjuggler Highlight this comment 189

Alex and Dan,

Do you guys think that adding a roof would be a depreciable asset? Does anyone know if it is too late for the Twins to add a roof to this stadium?

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 1:57 PM by mplsgreg Highlight this comment 190

hey lets stop the talk about forbes lists, revenues, salaries, etc. lets get back to discussing the stadium itself and how awesome it's going to be watching the twins outside.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 2:13 PM by adam Highlight this comment 191

mplsgreg, This is actually a subject I have spent countless hours of research on. As noted in a previous post, I think the Twins are planning on having Mortenson pour a gigantic footing in the middle of CF next summer just in case funding is made available for a roof in the future. Pretty good idea uh! That future pole which will support a roof will be quite the obstacle for centerfieders to contend with however. I'm just curious if MLB would have a problem with that in a MLB park. The Twins might want to check that out with MLB before they spend all the money Alex and Dan are talking about to pour the footing. I WAS EXPECTING A NEW POST TODAY! C'MON!

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 2:18 PM by Locker Highlight this comment 192

New post coming. Lots of new pix.

Life intervened last night. But the calendars also finally arrived! They look great.

Haven't sold them all yet, but I expect to...

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 2:28 PM by Rick 193

mplsgreg and Locker, i wonder if the ballpark could be moved closer to the river. and can't they change the angle so it's got a better view of the cityscape?

-O- -O-
^
\--------/

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 2:42 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 194

Yes, I am glad you are all so detailish.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 2:57 PM by detail Highlight this comment 195

Rick, take your time, the site is great.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 3:18 PM by Steeks Highlight this comment 196

Wow, who sucked all the fun out of this site?

Oh, and will someone please proofread my comments and let me know if I mispelled anything? Thanks!

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 3:27 PM by luckylager Highlight this comment 197

Mispelled is misspelled. You're welcome.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 3:51 PM by JohnF Highlight this comment 198

i figured this conversation would eventuall lead to the roof bullshit all over again. NEW THREAD PLEASE!!!!!

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 5:13 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 199

I can't wait to see the Twins outside in 2010 when it's 30*.
I'd rather sit outside than sit in the "toilet with the lid down" for 3 hours.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 6:10 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 200

TF is going to be great for people like yours truly who don't even remember Met Stadium and what it was like to watch baseball outdoors. Who knows, especially in the early part of the season and the late part of the season, the cold might even work to our advantage, much like it works for the Pack at Lambeau. it's gonna be great.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 9:38 PM by luke Highlight this comment 201

New Images up on the Twins sight. Show's scoreboard structure and stadia up close.

Posted on December 12, 2008 at 10:20 PM by Camden P Highlight this comment 202

I'm not trying to take anything away from this site, but if everyone is looking for a message board to talk about target field they can click my name.

Posted on December 13, 2008 at 09:44 AM by basebal-fever.com Highlight this comment 203

sorry misspelled the website, link should still work though

Posted on December 13, 2008 at 09:48 AM by baseball-fever.com Highlight this comment 204

what the hell do you think this website is for? lol. we talk about Target Field here too! well, most of the time.

Posted on December 13, 2008 at 4:02 PM by luke Highlight this comment 205

sorry luke, didn't try to piss you off. this site is great for getting information, but i think everyone will agree its easier to talk on a message board.

Posted on December 13, 2008 at 10:06 PM by baseball-fever.com Highlight this comment 206

i checked out the site you put on. in-between all the rants about Miller Park and Citi Field, there was one post about TF. this one is purely TF.

Posted on December 13, 2008 at 11:03 PM by luke Highlight this comment 207

I have been on that site b4... the only good stuf on TF i see there is often from posters that are on this site anyway.... its a cool site though..
yea they are full of them selves with citi field right now

Posted on December 14, 2008 at 09:31 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 208

This site is definitely great for exclusive Target Field information, but I completely agree with the fact that it's much easier to talk on a message board.

Posted on December 14, 2008 at 2:17 PM by Jason Ziebell Highlight this comment 209

you know, it's too bad that after the Twins vacate the InflataBowl next September...that the Dome won't just be done away with. The Mets have this huge online auction thing going on right now for pairs of seats and signs from Shea. i checked it out yesterday. that stuff is way beyond my price range. no crowbars in the Dome for the last Twins game...
i had a friend whose neighbors had bought a box of four seats from the Old Met and had them mounted in their backyard. they were really neat to look at and in very good condition after all that time.

Posted on December 14, 2008 at 2:30 PM by luke Highlight this comment 210

luke, as much as you like to post, you should create your own blog/web page/forum. It would definitely make the discussions flow much more smoothly.

Posted on December 14, 2008 at 4:08 PM by Rudolph Highlight this comment 211

Rudolph - bite me...lol. i DO have my own blog...lol. this isn't the first time these posts get off the track from talking about TF.

i had a crazy thought. does the exterior of the new Yankee Stadium remind anyone of the exterior of the old Comiskey Park? i dont know why, but I saw a pic of the NYS, and I just thought, Old Comiskey.

Posted on December 14, 2008 at 4:22 PM by luke Highlight this comment 212

lol......he he he.....lol......he he he.... If you're a guy and you're "giggling" on this site you need to go somewhere else.

I had a crazy thought. does the exterior of Target Field remind anyone of the exterior of Target Field? i dont know why, but I saw a pic of TF, and I just thought, Target Field.
**(corrected for luke)

Posted on December 15, 2008 at 03:39 AM by chuck in ak Highlight this comment 213

hey Chucky. believe me, there's been talk around here about NYS too. check other posts.

Posted on December 16, 2008 at 4:32 PM by luke Highlight this comment 214

Hide Facebook box
118 recent recognized visitors, including: antifire, ben, Chad, CSG Mike, DeePee, Expectorate, F_T_K, FD, gogotwins, grizzly adams, jared, jctwins, Joe117, Jorge, LC, luke, Mike, NotMendoza, Rick, terry, TheTruthHurts, Thrillhouse, Tom D., trebor651, Twinkfan, 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.





This looks up Fifth Street (LRT train visible in the distance). This bridge is also being partially rebuilt (see next photo).



Here we are waiting for the first train to arrive at the station (Nov 14).



Legends Club seats in context (above the main concourse, below the suite level)






Looking through it, you can see the outfield pavilion (upper deck at least).



I set up my late inning "office" at the drink rail behind section 206



Emergency access as viewed from outside the ballpark






This is from inside the B ramp, where an entrance to the plaza will one day be



This is a great spot for casually watching the game.









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.



With the engine behind us, we got a real sense of how fast we were going by looking out the front (back) window









Write your own caption. (Photo by Jeff Ewer)



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".



Looking up Seventh Street to the west















Uh oh. Schizophrenia.









They help create a psychological safe area along the plaza edge, and help you forget that cars are zipping by directly beneath you.



Memorabilia on display in the Metropolitan Club






Anna keeps the riff raff under control.



The big glove will go on that circle. Note the gap between the plaza and the ramp. That's 394 you can see through there.



One of the many supports being built over the tracks.






The plate marker is just to the left.



Look closely and you'll see limestone on the front of the press boxxt-align: left; font-size: .6em;">






Stairs down to the sidewalk from the skywalk over Seventh






I never think of Ron Jackson at all.









"Hey look! There we are!"



Time to paint those supports Vikings-purple.



Flag poles, fencing, main entrance gates



Ketchup, mustard, relish, mustard, ketchup



Pawlenty makes it official!






Workers against green






Then you turn around to this!


="text-align: left; font-size: .6em;">


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