BallparkMagic.com
Next game at Target Field: Royals at Twins
Playoff Challenge    Archive    Target Field History    Theme: Login    Cart (Empty)

Tailgaiting? Wind? Golf?

June 5, 2008 10:09 PM

The Downtown Journal reported today that MnDOT has been entertaining proposals for the air rights above the three parking ramps adjacent to the new ballpark. Here are the pertinent sections of the article:

MnDot rejects ideas for parking ramps rooftops
UPDATED June 5, 2008, 3:25pm

By Michelle Bruch

Patrons of the new ballpark could have had an unusual view of the parking ramps next door — the Minnesota Twins wanted to build bleacher seats, tailgating space or wind turbines on top of the ramp at North 5th Street & 2nd Avenue North, and another developer wanted to build a golf dome above the ramp at 9th Street and 1st Avenue North.

Staff at the Minnesota Department of Transportation turned down those ideas this week, saying they weren’t convinced the proposals provided the "highest and best use" for the airspace above the ramps. ...

The Minnesota Twins offered to lease the top level of Ramp "B" at 516 2nd Ave. N. for every home game and turn it into "Tailgate Plaza." The roof would have 125 tailgating locations, new lighting, sanitation facilities, and painted graphics. More than 400 bleacher seats would slope down the side of the parking ramp.

Another option the Minnesota Twins offered was a "city wind farm" above Ramp B. The vertical axial wind turbines would be placed on top of columns on the top level, with two small voltage management buildings on the roof for electrical control and monitoring equipment. The wind farm would provide year-round electricity generation to Downtown. ...

[Darryl Anderson, a staff member of the Minnesota Department of Transportation,] said the Twins’ proposal might be taken up in the future, however, and it could probably be done without a formal airspace leasing process.

Matt Hoy, the Twins’ director of operations, said he would be open to continued discussions about the ramp.

For reference, the A ramp is just to the south (where I take my status pictures from), and the B ramp is the one directly beyond the outfield wall. Nobody much seems to care about the C ramp, which is another block to the north.

I love the idea of incorporating the ramp by putting bleachers up there. I also love the idea of a wind farm. That would certainly be a unique and remarkable signature element for the ballpark (and the city).

It's early in these discussions. Part of me thinks that rejecting the Twins' ideas now is just part of the negotiation process. These ideas (setting the golf thing aside) seem simply too good to pass up on.

So, maybe tailgating up there isn't as unlikely as I originally thought...

Comments


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

I love the bleacher idea. I just wonder how much flack we'll get for copying Wrigley. They're so hell-bent on making this ballpark so wrigleyesque. I love Wrigley Field, but you really can't duplicate its charm. I like the bleacher idea a lot though. The wind farm is probably another step for trying to get LEED certification. I'm still skeptical of tailgating on the rooftops. There may be more lawyers up there waiting for a accident to pass out business cards than there will be tailgaters. I'm also worried that because of the liability issue, the price to park there for the tailgaters will be outrageous and the average fan won't be able to afford it..That would really suck for them.

Posted on June 5, 2008 at 11:12 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 1

not much to say. i am just surprised that mazaratirick hasn't chimed in on this post yet. thought he would be all over this.

bleachers up there sound like a pretty sweet idea to me.

Posted on June 5, 2008 at 11:29 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 2

I like the bleacher idea, and I think it would be super fun to have an area up there for tailgating. I hope Kevin is wrong about it potentially being outrageously priced.

I have to add that the wind farm idea is very intriguing. It definitely would be unique - nobody could say the Twins are copying Wrigley with a bank of giant windmills back there.

Posted on June 5, 2008 at 11:53 PM by Don T Highlight this comment 3

I hope I'm wrong as well Don, but with the cost of liability insurance, you know they'll be looking for the tailgaters to pick up the cost.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 12:00 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 4

Whichever bank is the major sponsor of the Twins come 2010, should erect a money tree in right field...Anything to block the view of the Target Center. And Don, I love the windmill thought, perhaps they can put one a top the shitstack mulitfoods bldg to give it some charm??

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 12:08 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 5

Wind turbines that power the park would be a great long term investment. There's also been some rumors that the Twins will add solar panels on the canopy to help power the park as well. This, combined with the vast public transportation options would be a step in the right direction for the Twins and Minneapolis.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 12:09 AM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 6

the windfarm would not be a good idea. how distracting for the batter?!

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 12:21 AM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 7

yeahkyle...yes it's tacky and they probably shouldn't be in view. Maybe they can put them behind the ballpark on top of the garbage burner? I don't know, it's my hope that the burner will be demolished within a few years of the ballpark opening. That piece of land is far too valuable to have a trashdump on it. The windmils could be sponsored by Old Dutch? I've heard the solar panels on the canopy idea. I think that one can fly, the wind turbines within view of the park's seating bowl, god I hope not.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 12:28 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 8

Instead of building towering wind farms that are often found in rural areas, companies like AeroVironment & Aerotecture make micro wind turbines that are designed to fit on top of commercial buildings like warehouses or retail buildings. Some of these turbines are as small as 10 feet long. The bigger distraction could be noise, but it would be pretty tough to hear during a game. These turbines would compliment the solar panels to create the first modern urban ballpark.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 12:55 AM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 9

I hate the wind turbine idea, but love the bleacher idea. I heard about the golf dome, classy restaurant above the A ramp and think it would kick so much ass to have a golf dome right outside the park, because I'm sure the players and the away team players would enjoy it and we could go there and meet them after the games...I also heard of a bowling alley included with the golf dome, and I wish it would happen.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 02:06 AM by Tom Highlight this comment 10

Great idea about the wind turbines Lafferty! Would the type of wind turbine that Jay Leno uses for his garage be suitable for the top of the parking ramps near the ballpark? I don't think the traditional propellor type of turbine would be as safe and effective like the Delta II turbine mentioned in the article I discovered(click on my name for the link).

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 03:17 AM by Andy T Highlight this comment 11

Andy,
Something like that would really be neat. When I first heard wind turbine I had visions of Palm Springs..YUCK!

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 03:35 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 12

I wonder how long it would take for an opposing manager to accuse the Twins of manipulating the windmills to prevent opponents from hitting the ball out of the park - ala the ventilation system in the dome.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 07:54 AM by luckylager Highlight this comment 13

it just goes to show you that even the twins think that tailgating is a part of baseball in the midwest.. this will be fun to see play out but i agree with keven it will be so over priced for those limited spots that the avg tailgater cant afford to do that... bleachers ??? also agree with kev.. this is not wriglyville and the fan base will not fill those up i do not think for the long term. I am glad you still think of me Beta, i missed you too!

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 08:04 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 14

Why are people always concerned about taking flak for "copying" another ballparks ideas? Bleachers on the parking ramp roof would be a logical idea given the tight urban location.
Its not like the Twins are growing ivy up the outfield walls or recreating the green monster. If taking cues from other ballparks leads to a better ballpark experience for Twins fans - who cares?

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 08:09 AM by luckylager Highlight this comment 15

I see your point, I guess my opinion is that after about the first 3-4 years i dont see those seats being sold to capacity after all the fair weather fans stop showing up when the "newness" of the ballpark wears off, eitherway it cant be bad since the park will be awsome no matter what they put up there.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 08:21 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 16

Micro wind turbines are a great idea. Lots of new architecture is integrating these things right into the design of the buildings. They're not the giant windmill turbines people think of, but much smaller objects that can actually create a very cool visual effect.

The tailgating and bleacher idea is an interesting one, but there are still a lot of details to be worked out, particularly in regards to liability.

At the same time, I understand MnDOT's rejection of their claims. MnDOT is looking at long term lease agreements (essentially a sale of the rights above the garage), and with that in mind, simply leasing that parking for more parking (but with grills) is not the highest and best use.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 08:37 AM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 17

Tom, why do you hate the wind turbine idea? Do you realize how much energy ballparks waste?

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 08:41 AM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 18

Probably wouldn't be my cup-o-tea, but I would think the parking ramp bleachers would always be an attractive option for those looking for more of a party atmosphere.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 10:30 AM by luckylager Highlight this comment 19

I agree that "copying" is not a big deal. It's done everywhere. Heck, anyone ever been to the Ballpark at Arlington (or whatever it's beeing called these days)? It's a complete copy of several classics (click on my name)... Plus, it doesn't mention the CF bleachers in that wiki page, but they are a bit of a copy of Wrigley.

Moose

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 10:36 AM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 20

On a day like today a "turbine garden" would generate some serious power. I also like the idea of a restaurant...on colder days it would probably get lots of traffic. If you don't have a ticket, you could go eat and watch the game.

Great link, Andy T. Those turbines are unique.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 11:09 AM by Jeff Highlight this comment 21

Windmills are a fabulous idea.

I doubt the garbage burner will be going anywhere soon. A couple of weeks ago I walked around the entire ballpark/burner site. The size of the burner is hard to believe until you walk next to it. It would not be like tearing down a warehouse and building something else. It is immense. I think everyone should get used to it. It is extremely benign, if I can use that phrase.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 11:30 AM by Badjuggler Highlight this comment 22

I too like the windmills and I don't think they will be that much of a distraction (they are constant motion usually instead of random) for the batters.

The bleachers on the parking ramp would be fun and they could possibly tie those into the cost of a tailgating spot.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 1:12 PM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 23

Why does everyone think that it would be that much greater of a liability to have tailgating on concrete lot in the air as opposed to a concrete lot on the ground? Have you seen the walls around the top of that lot? They are like 8 feet tall. The liability seems like non-issue to me.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 1:37 PM by Robert Highlight this comment 24

Plus I'm sure there will be a thing on the ticket you buy to get into the lot that has a waiver just like on the back of the Twins Tickets. "The MN Twins are not responsible for damages or injuries, the holder of the ticket understands this, blah blah etc etc."

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 1:39 PM by Robert Highlight this comment 25

Who is going to pay to tailgate? The whole idea of tailgating is that it's free partying before you go inside and pay $10 for a beer and $8 for a hot dog. Just my opinion, but it seems like the other surrounding surface lots though smaller will be free tailgating destinations.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 1:42 PM by mplsgreg Highlight this comment 26

I'm sure you pay for the spot to park and you can bring your own food and drink. I don't see anywhere that it said you had to buy the drinks and food from a vendor.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 1:46 PM by Robert Highlight this comment 27

That, Robert would be called "The plaza at the dome" if they tie it into the bleacher idea that could work and i would prob pay the step price maybe once a year but will also look to the other smaller "non sexy" lots around the ballpark to do my normal tailgating

all this talking of tailgating reminds me i leave for miller park in 6 days.. sweet!

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 2:08 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 28

badjuggler wrote: "I doubt the garbage burner will be going anywhere soon. A couple of weeks ago I walked around the entire ballpark/burner site. The size of the burner is hard to believe until you walk next to it. It would not be like tearing down a warehouse and building something else. It is immense. I think everyone should get used to it. It is extremely benign, if I can use that phrase."

i have to disagree on this one. like kevin in az already said i can almost guarantee that within a few years both the HERC (Hennepin County Energy Recovery Center) facility and sreamin’ mary jo copeland's facilities (no matter how much fake ass drama she tries to create against the Minneapolis city council) will be gone and moved elsewhere in the metro.

that land is too valuable now and will be even more so in the future to continue being used as it is. it might not happen year 1 or 2, but it will happen. i will put money on this. there are probably already preliminary discussions happening amongst interested parties.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 4:05 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 29

Wind turbines - Yes!
Bleachers on the B ramp - Yes!

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 4:10 PM by David Highlight this comment 30

LOVE both the windfarm and bleacher ideas!! Especially the windfarm: its unique and it's a great investment. I don't know much about urban windfarm design; but as long as it looks "cool" I hope it becomes reality.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 5:55 PM by Justin Highlight this comment 31

It's actually quite simple Robert. Try to imagine fire crews getting to the top of a parking garage when its crammed full of cars. Whereas a surface lot, there's no problem in extinguishing a fire.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 5:56 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 32

Here's something odd. The Star Tribune coverage of the same story significantly omits that one of the two plans was presented by the Twins themselves:

"Earlier this year, (MnDOT) had asked for ideas for the air space (over the parking ramps) and received only two: Thompson's year-round golf dome atop the A ramp, and a plan to add a tailgating plaza and wind turbines to the B ramp, Donna Lindberg, a MnDOT spokeswoman, said Thursday."

Why would the Strib choose to omit that one small but critical piece of the story? Is it just bad reporting?

I'm not suspicious, just confused. (Of course, the quality of that particular publication continues to decline at a precipitous rate...)

Click my name for the entire story.

Posted on June 6, 2008 at 10:26 PM by Rick 33

I hate the wind tubine idea because I think it just destracts from the beauty of the ballpark, and the skyline. The article said it would be used to power NOT the ballpark, but to downtown instead. So, the power that the ballpark wastes is a non issue to the windmills.

Posted on June 7, 2008 at 03:51 AM by Tom Highlight this comment 34

I wouldn't mind if they put wind turbines on top of the shitstack, but not out in right-center, so close to the outfield view of the ballpark...please NO...

Posted on June 7, 2008 at 04:01 AM by Tom Highlight this comment 35

They need to add bleacher seats up there, that would be sweet.

Posted on June 7, 2008 at 10:21 AM by Jason Highlight this comment 36

Lafferty, I'm not saying that the micro wind turbines is a bad idea, because if they must put them up there, I hope they are micro and not tacky...If bleachers went up there, MnDOT could always remove them to build the B ramp higher like they want to, once the "newness of the park wears off and those seats don't sell out anymore. Plus, more seats=cheaper seats!

Posted on June 7, 2008 at 2:53 PM by Tom Highlight this comment 37

man, what was up with big brown today in the belmont stakes?! i really thought it was going to happen.

Posted on June 7, 2008 at 6:11 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 38

If you read the article it says these would be vertical axial wind turbines, which I would imagine would be like the "Leno" generators described in the article Andy T linked to. These arent big windmills. They might be a pretty unique addition to the park.

Posted on June 7, 2008 at 8:58 PM by luckylager Highlight this comment 39

Updated construction photos from June 05 available here. Just follow the link.

Posted on June 8, 2008 at 08:35 AM by Mo Highlight this comment 40

awesome pictures mo. really top notch. thank you for sharing them!

after looking through them it is amazing how much easier it is to build complex concrete structures these days since the advent of concrete placing technology. those concrete placement booms just go amazing distances from the source of the concrete and allow architects to get alot more creative in their designs.

Posted on June 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 41

Interesting article on additional infrastructure funding.

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 1:48 PM by Mo Highlight this comment 42

What are they doing to the ped bridge on the B ramp side? Is that paint?? It's obviously not the plywood form base because the concrete was poured many days ago...

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 2:54 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 43

j2k - maybe is is water proofer for the concrete?

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 3:47 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 44

It is the plastic that covered the wet concrete, they just moved some of it away to the part closer to the field.

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 5:13 PM by Tom Highlight this comment 45

Here is a link to a time-lapse of the Twins ballpark construction progress over the last year or so posted on YouTube courtesty of xyr0t0pher.

Very interesting to see! Can't wait to see the progress over the two years as April 2010 approaches.

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 9:42 PM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 46

Here is another time-lapse version with "We're Gonna Win Twins" as audio courtesy of USADTOM...

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 9:45 PM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 47

Miller Ballpark? (click name)

Posted on June 9, 2008 at 10:31 PM by bmd Highlight this comment 48

"Metro Millers?" They're kidding, right?

And let's talk about the extremely unwise and irresponsible idea of putting a regional attraction so far away from the population and density we'll need in the next 30 years as oil prices continue to skyrocket.

Yes, I understand they claim 1 million people within eight miles of the site. But the fact is that they're counting on people from inside the beltway to go there.

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 10:50 AM by David Highlight this comment 49

The "Metro Sexuals"

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 11:13 AM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 50

I don't see any problem at all with putting a Northern League team in Burnsville. They'll be a couple of miles from Valley Fair and Mystic Lake Casino, two other regional atractions. Ziggy Wilf take note, that stadium will be built with private financing.

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 12:13 PM by Dave T Highlight this comment 51

I agree that it's not a bad deal. Take note of where most of the successful (and I'm not trying to compare the TC's to Chicago here, but) minor league teams there are in Schaumburg (NW suburbs), Joliet (SW suburbs) and Gary, IN (SE suburbs) - with another two or three teams I can think of off the top of my head.

Why compete directly with fans of the Twins and Saints (by putting the park inside the 494/696 loop)? You bring up gas prices - these teams will draw fans that don't want to drive "all the way" into the city to see either of those teams...

My only problem is that it is south of the metro, rather than north, since I'd be traveling from northern MN, and would rather see a team in the Coon Rapids area than Burnsville - but if they're gonna build it, I'll likely get to a game before long...

Moose

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 1:04 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 52

Im heading to Miller Park this weekend for the series and am wondering where I should set up camp for tailgating. I see there are General and Preferred parking lots. Anyone experienced both? Which is better for tailgating?

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 1:43 PM by MOJO Highlight this comment 53

Joliet and Gary were fairly good-sized cities even before the Chicago sprawl made them part of the greater Chicago region. Schaumburg is perhaps a bit closer to Burnsville in character, historically, but it's an inner-to-mid suburb and thus has density that's greater than what we have inside the beltway.

You really can't compare Chicago to the Twin Cities. For one thing, it takes nearly an hour to drive from the inner northern suburbs of Chicago to the interstate. Thus people generally don't do that unless they have to. We need to start weaning ourselves from the idea that quick access to free-flowing freeways is some kind of God-given right. We're going to pay dearly if that is our benchmark. The less we do to encourage that kind of thinking and behavior, the better.

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 1:52 PM by David Highlight this comment 54

There is one saving grace to the Burnsville site and it's not insignificant. It is very close to where the Dan Patch commuter rail line will run (click name for link).

And I do mean "will." If we can just the idiot anti-transit people out of the legislature and resurrect this important project, we can make some progress and have a pretty nice connection to this proposed ball1park.

But "Metro Millers" has got to go. If they're going to be "Millers," they should be in Minneapolis. What would be some appropriate names for this team? There's certainly a lot of history in Dakota County and along the river valley.

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 2:22 PM by David Highlight this comment 55

I propose the Twins name the windfarm after Bert Blyleven because of both his Dutchheritage and infatuation with "wind".
(click link)

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM by luckylager Highlight this comment 56

MOJO, There is plenty of tailgating in both preferred or general. The main difference being that "preferred" parking is closer and thus, more expensive whereas the the "general" parking is a longer walk. Either way, they are both great for tailgating from my experiences. Not many differences aside from the proximty/price. I will be in general parking this weekend just because it's an easy way to save money and I can walk the extra distance to save the $5 or so.

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 2:59 PM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 57

MoJo,
the best place to tailgate at miller park is as close as poss. to the park, so u want to get there early and do the preferred parking... other than that its a party of smoke and beer all over the lots no matter how far away they are... see u there! go twins

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 3:00 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 58

David - You'll note that I specifically said that I wasn't trying to compare Chicago to the TC's, but, here's the thing. If you were going to bring in a third baseball team (to the TC's as an owner), you'd be foolish to bring them directly within the "beltway," as you suggested, to compete for fans with the Twins and Saints.

I used the Schaumberg, Joliet and Gary examples since they do just that. Offer fans an alternative to traveling "into the city." I know it's a big difference between Chi and Mpls - I grew up in Chicago! But the point is still vaild.

Now, here's where I don't know how good a site Burnsville is... As noted, each of Joliet and Gary are quite the population centers (and have been for quite some time). Where is the population expolsion for the TC suburbs? I would have figured it to be the I94 corrador (Maple Grove/Elk River/Rogers, etc.), rather than south...

Moose

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 4:21 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 59

Moose,

I get your point about not competing with the majors. I just don't think there's enough population out there to do it, and the only way to draw enough is to have people driving 30 miles. Perhaps I'm wrong.

As for where the population is going, from various experts I've talked to, the growth centers are in the I-94 corridor and south of the river, so Burnsville is actually one of those spots. Lakeville is another one.

But I will also note that the populations of the cities and inner suburbs are rebounding. Even given the current housing slump and oversaturated condo market in Minneapolis, I predict that we'll continue to see the populations of the cities grow as gas prices continue to rise. Either that or we're going to get a few mid-size clusters around some of the more developed suburbs, particularly around rail stations.

It will be very interesting to see what happens over the next decade.

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 5:19 PM by David Highlight this comment 60

LMAO at luckylager!!!! That is soooooooooooooo true!

Posted on June 10, 2008 at 6:31 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 61

Dave T wrote: "I don't see any problem at all with putting a Northern League team in Burnsville. They'll be a couple of miles from Valley Fair and Mystic Lake Casino, two other regional atractions. Ziggy Wilf take note, that stadium will be built with private financing".

come on! please! you can get off your anti-zygi wilf soap box now. coming up with 100% private financing on your own for a $25-30 million minor league baseball stadium is worlds different than asking a single individual (no matter how rich you seem to think zygi is) to manage to come up with $900 million entirely on their own for a 21st century retractable roof football stadium nice enough to host future super bowls and surrouding site redevelopment.

nice try though. hater!

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 12:00 AM by Betaband Highlight this comment 62

Whoa!!!!!

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 07:48 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 63

minor league ball is a license to print money in some towns because you're paying the players so little. i think the allure of minor league ball in this market will diminish once our major league team is playing outdoors. but it'll be a cheap alternative if you want to just see a baseball game. on the other hand, there are lots of opportunities to watch a baseball game in this state with town ball, etc.

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 08:27 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 64

Anyone know what all of those white trucks are doing parked to the left of the ballpark site? I suppose I shouldn't get my hopes up in thinking they're moving vans for the T-Wolves.

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 12:12 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 65

Kanye West is "performing" at Target Center tonight. The white trucks are probably his gear.

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 12:16 PM by luckylager Highlight this comment 66

Kevin,
You know we could never get that lucky, The trucks i assume are for the Kanye West concert tonight at the Target center... I think it is the gear and lights and stuff... thats were they have always lined up the tour buses and gear trucks in years past for events at the target center.....

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 12:18 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 67

I was really hoping they were truck loads of bricks. Bricks for building a wall on the west side of Target Center so we don't have to look at it from the ballpark. Oh well.

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 6:17 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 68

tell me again how discussing the burnsville team has anything to do w/ the new ballpark?

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 7:56 PM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 69

Because yeahkyle, at the rate the Twins are going, they will be a bonafide minor league team and could play their home games in the burnsville ballpark. So, now can they start retro-fitting the rapid park stadium for football and give it to the vikings? NO ROOF PLEASE!

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 8:21 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 70

There are a lot of discussions non ballpark related and to continue on that I am going to have to agree with betaband on his last post.

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 9:50 PM by Jason Highlight this comment 71

Good update courtesy of the ballpark authority. Soon those trucks will be flat beds and with ballpark related loads.
Ballpark Area
Construction Update
6/06/08

This Update is the 52nd in a series of informational alerts to let you know about the construction going on related to the Twins Ballpark.

Closures:

7th Street Bridge: On June 12th, from 1 am to noon, Mortenson will close two lanes on the 7th Street Bridge as well as the sidewalk to do another in the series of concrete pours. If it’s raining, the concrete pour will happen in June 13th. Pedestrians can go to the 10th Street sidewalk or way over to the 3rd Street sidewalk. Remember, the 5th Street Bridge sidewalk will remain closed for the next four weeks.

7th Street Bridge Again: beginning Tuesday -17Jun08 until possibly Friday - 20Jun08. The affected area is the North trunk of the intersection of 7th Street & 3rd Ave. The closure request allows for the set up of the structural steel for the Ballpark "Team Store."
- A crane will be mobilized at the intersection of 3rd Ave & 7th street on the North Side of 7th Street. During the closure/impact times, the crane will be lifting material/equipment onto the decks. Trucks will be coming & going and the crane will unload the trucks.

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 9:55 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 72

I agree Jason, so let me ask this of my fellow Vikings brethren...

Would you rather have the team play indoors and host another superbowl or would you rather have our team play outside and finally watch our team play in a superbowl again???

Those of us avg Joe's don't profit at a bit from hosting the super bowl. Hell, it was just hosted 5 mins from my house this winter and I didn't profit from it.

I would much rather see the Vikings in the superbowl again than watching Minneapolis host 2 other teams. Get the Vikes back outside dammit!!!!!

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 10:21 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 73

Good win by the Twins over the Indians tonight. Thank God!

kev in az – to answer your question:

1.) i will take a super bowl whatever way i can get one! outdoors or indoors. i just want to see them back in the big game. i was around, but unfortunately am not quite old enough to really remember their last trip against the oakland raiders.
2.) my personal preference is that the new vikes stadium be outdoors with no roof at all. historically that is when the vikings were at their best, were the most competitive on a consistent basis, and had real advantages over some other teams (environmentally and psychologically)
3.) so you and i are on the same page when it comes to the vikings and that we would both prefer to see them playing outdoors again.
4.) that being said. my response to dave t. was more of a measured (call it politically measured) response taking into consideration the obvious political teamwork it is likely going to take across party lines and varying state regions to get it through the legislature next year. something tells me with the whining we heard from some out state people about the twins stadium not having an ugly retractable roof (that they were not willing to help pay for of course) for baseball that some of the out state legislators are going to be annoyingly insistent that it have a retractable roof just to prove a stupid point. couple that with some of the urban legislators & civic leaders who will want it to have a retractable roof so that additional activities important to the minneapolis (and therefore regional) economy like the super bowl, final fours/regionals, motocross, monster trucks, etc. can still be hosted by the city of minneapolis.
5.) however, if we can get an outdoor football stadium through the legislature i am obviously cool with that.

and i am outta here. peace....

Posted on June 11, 2008 at 10:55 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 74

Roofs on ballparks suck, for football too, let them play outside they will have no problem selling out every vikings game for 20 years even in the snow and cold with a new stadium and a decent team...

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 07:42 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 75

Kev in az yeah I definitely hope the vikes have an outdoor stadium. It would be a shame if they move and didn't even propose a less expensive stadium with no roof plus I think Zigi deserves it with the money he's putting into the team, hes turning out to be the best owner in the state...by far.

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 3:04 PM by Jason Highlight this comment 76

Sorry to stay off topic here, but didn't Zygi alrady offer (soon after puirchasing the team) to build a new outdoor stadium on his own?

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 4:29 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 77

j2k - i think you might be mistaken. i don't recall zygi ever saying that he could pull off building a new stadium entirely on his own without some level of public participation.

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 6:03 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 78

From what I've heard, the reason for the roof is so the vikings can get public funding. but Zygi has said every home viknigs game would be played outdoors. I could be wrong though.

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 6:58 PM by fanofsite Highlight this comment 79

If the MSFC reasoning for a retractable roof is to attract final fours and superbowls. Keep in mind, it will be ONE superbowl...That's it. They won't return to the same venue again in a northern clime. They promise a superbowl to get the things built and that's it. As far as final fours go, didn't Denver host it a few years ago at Pepsi Center? And regionals, hell, those are easily held in 18,000 seat arenas. There are 2 of those in the Twin Cities. The u of m could easily host regionals at Target Center or Xcel. Truck and tractor pulls can be done at a Vikings outdoor stadium during the summer, they do it everywhere else outside in the summer.

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 8:05 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 80

kevin in az - yes, regionals are typically held in 18,000 seat arenas, but remember that last year, the Detroit and Houston regionals were at Ford Field and Reliant Stadium (click my name), which are NFL stadiums - and they drew huge crouds. This is the future, as NCAA basketball gets more popular. Not only will the Final Four be in NFL buildings, but so will the regionals as well. Heck, the NCAA Frozen Four (hockey, if you're not familiar), will be at Ford Field in 2010... There are plenty of reasons for a retractable roof facility besides football.

Moose

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 10:25 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 81

I understand Moose, but what's more important to Minnesotans? Seeing these events in their backyard, even though most can't afford to go? Or seeing their Vikings play again on Super Sunday? There's a reason why only 2 indoor teams have ever won a superbowl.

Yes the Metrodome has hosted some marvelous events, but you know, to me, my pride is with my team, not my facility and the events it has hosted. The dome has been an absolute disaster for the Vikings. They're not prepared for cold weather road games and southern road teams have no problem in the Metrodome. The noise factor has always been way overrated. Give me the bone-chilling cold factor any day.

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 11:24 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 82

i have to go with kevin on this one. for me it is vikings first. events a facility could host second.

skol vikes!

Posted on June 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 83

Up until today I wasn't aware that the sole reason the Vikings haven't been to a Superbowl was because they are playing indoors. And to think I thought it had something to do with coaching, not having a decent quarterback, players getting in trouble, etc.

Thanks for enlightening me guys.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 08:11 AM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 84

I have to agree with Kevin in AZ. The dome has only casturated the Vikings (that's the nicest way I can put it), It's time to follow the twins footsteps and ditch a roof all together! Time for Zygi to throw the Metropolitan Sports Commission under the bus, get the outdoor stadium he wanted! C'mon Mr. Wilf, ditch those MSC wimps!

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 4:13 PM by CTM Highlight this comment 85

Fanofsite, the NFL would probably stick their noses in like MLB does with their teams and give tempratures and precipitation guidlines as to ehen they HAVE to close the roof. Will see what happens in Indy, since they have the first retractable roof stadium in a cold-climate city, I'm guessing MR. Goodell and the nosy owners will be voting stupid roof opening/closing rules. It has to be an Open-Air stadium all the way.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 4:18 PM by CTM Highlight this comment 86

Darn, when I'm in a rant I make lots of typos.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 4:20 PM by CTM Highlight this comment 87

Yeah the vikes need to get back outdoors and the ballpark is really starting to take shape!

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 4:30 PM by 1 Highlight this comment 88

I actually think that it is an advantage for a football team to play indoors! The echo raises the noise, which causes more penalties... Then again there are those Seattle psychos that go NUTS and do the same thing OUTDOORS!!! I think they should just remodel the dome and make it the Vikings' home... Though I do think it would be cool if some of those pics I have seen of the new Vikes stadium possibly going in where the HERC plant is! That would just be cool, T-Wolves, Twins, and Vikes all by eachother, connected by a huge patio (RF of the new stadium)

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 4:37 PM by Brandon Highlight this comment 89

If the Vikes stadium did go where the herc plant is, what would they do with the metrodome and land?

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 5:27 PM by Jason Highlight this comment 90

click my name for an interesting interview with Bruce Miller, the principal architect of the park - from City Pages

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 5:51 PM by Don T Highlight this comment 91

Brandon,
The Vikings had a much more psychological advantage with the weather in December than they've ever had wit noise at the dome. I was at the 1998 NFC Championship Game and the noise was ear-splitting...We lost.

However when the Rams, Redskins, Stl Cardinals, etc had to come to the Met, they lost. Players hated coming to MN in december much like they hate going to Green Bay and Chicago today in December. You could have added the Dallas Cowboys to that list of playoff teams to lose at the Met had Drew Pearson not pushed off.

IowaWegian...I'm not saying that only weather plays a factor in the success of a football team. Yes, the Vikes had great teams in the 70's. But they also had great teams in the late 80's and late 90's. The advantage of a cold-weather football team is huge. Take the 06-07 Chicago Bears. They had a decent season due to an easy schedule. Because of their great record, they had homefield adv in the divisional playoff and championship game. The homefield adv at Soldier Field in December/January far out-weighs what a mediocre Vikings team has at the Metrodome. That Bears team went to the Superbowl in great part to their homefield adv of cold weather vs a dome team, New Orleans.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 5:58 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 92

The noise factor can be a huge advantage for a home team, but it is also overrated. There is a thing called the silent snap count which the Atlanta Falcons executed perfectly in that January 1999 NFC Championship game we all remember so well. The game is also decided by the 22 players on the field, its up to them to execute their game plan and limit mental mistakes.

Yes, noise is an advantage and will cause some pre-snap penalties, but with good coaching and a good strategy, opposing teams can limit the mistakes caused by crowd noise.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 6:25 PM by Mike Highlight this comment 93

You're right Mike. Dan Reeves showed how you can win in the Metrodome vs the crowd. The other thing a dome does is give their team a disadvantage when they have to play outdoors. When the Vikes were at the Met, they won playoff games in LA ('77) and Dallas ('73 NFC Championship Game). I think the Vikings were a better prepared team for the road because they played in such hellish conditions at home. Once the Vikes moved indoors, the road playoff wins have been scarce. Recently they won at GB. In '87 they won at the superdome and in 50 degree rain in SF. They then went to RFK where it was quite cold for the '87 Championship game and lost. Yes the Skins were great, yes Darrin Nelson sucked in that game. But psychology plays into the game of football so much. If Bill boom boom Brown were on this forum, he would say the same.

Let's say a bill is passed to build a roofed stadium on the site of the dome. OK, for at least 2 seasons the Vikes will have to play outdoors at the U of M. What if the Vikes have great fortune being an outdoor team for those 2 years, then have to move back indoors? Then people will be scratching their heads and asking, why are we building a stadium with a roof when we packed TCF Bank Stadium for 2 years and the Vikings won? I can see it now...Call me Karnack!

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 7:39 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 94

It looks like the general concensus on this page is for an outdoor football stadium. I'm sure I'll be called soft for saying this, but if the Vikings move into an outdoor only facility, I most likely won't renew my season tickets past the firt year in the building. I spent too many cold afternoons freezing my tail off at the Met back in the day to ever want to return to that situation. Even in October, sitting in one place for three and a half hours can get awfully cold. And while a new Vikigs stadium would be more enclosed that the old Met, the wind could still make things pretty nasty for both fans and players.
If a new stadium's going to be built, it will have to be capable of hosting events year round in order to make a $600-$700 Million dollar expenditure palatable to the public. I'm afraid that's the cold, hard reality, folks.
As far as the cold weather advantage is concerned, The Colts (indoor team) beat the Bears (outdoor team) quite handily in January 2007 in some rather inclement conditions in Miami. Of course, it wasn't cold weather, but a driving rainstorm can certainly take a team out of its game. I don't see overwhelming evidence to conclude that outdoor teams in northern climes have any advantages. besides that, given that Minneapolis, while a very nice town, isn't exactly the wildest place on earth, how are the Vikings going to fare in the free-agent market promising sub-freezing temps for the last month of the season?

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 8:18 PM by WinonaMike Highlight this comment 95

Winona Mike,
You don't see overwhelming evidence to conclude that outdoor teams have any advantages? Ok, how longs have domes been around? The Astrodome was built when? late 60s? Only 2, count em, TWO dome teams have won superbowls and they were both in the last 10 years. That's evidence enough for me. And you said that you spent years freezing at the Met. So did I man and you still don't seen evidence? Do you remember Roman Gabriel? James Harris? Pat Hayden? Jim Hart? George Allen? Merlin Olsen? All of the whined and whined about coming to Bloomington in December. If you don't remember, I have betamax tapes to remind you!!!

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 8:35 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 96

It's cold in December/January in Denver, Chicago, Green Bay, Cleveland, New England, and Buffalo. Do any of them wish they had a dome? No!

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 8:39 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 97

We can debate indoor vs outdoor as much as we want, but one important thing we must remember is that the NFL has changed quite drastically since the Vikings left the Met in 1982.

With the modern-era free agency and salary cap in the NFL, teams only have 3-5 years to make a good run at winning titles and than its time to dump the "expensive" veterans or underachieving younger players.

There is much more turnover and competition now year in and year out than there was back in the 60's, 70's and 80's.

Back in those early days of the NFL, teams could build an identity such as the Purple People Eaters, Steel Curtain, Monsters of the Midway, and so on.

Kevin in Winona is correct, it makes no sense for the public to invest that much money into a project that will only play host to 10 or so Vikings games each year. Yes, it can host many other events in the spring, summer, and fall, but its the Vikings games' that will bring in the big revenues and it makes no sense for the public to put up that much money for a venue that would host only 10-12 NFL games each year.

It makes perfect sense to build the retractable roof to allow much more use of the facility and thus, bring in more revenues to help offset the public cost of the project.

Go after big events such as NCAA Final Fours, Super Bowl, NCAA Regionals, NCAA Frozen Four, Monster Truck Races, Motocross Racing, Concerts, Rodeos, Circus, Conventions, and so on.

I would much rather have a new outdoor stadium than a renovated Metrodome if it is determined that a rectractable roof stadium is not going to happen. I am sure they would have heated concourses and lounges throughout the stadium if it were an outdoor stadium. Design it similar to Seattle where 70% of the seats are covered.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 8:45 PM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 98

How about leave the current dome for all of that other crap and Zygi build an outdoor football only stadium outside the central city. I would rather see a football stadium on a parcel of land with lots of parking for tailgating anyway.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 8:49 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 99

And as far as free-agency goes. The only thing a free agent cares about is MONEY. That cold New England team has no problem attracting free agents. Green Bay is always cash-strapped because of their ownership situation, Chicago hasn't had an owner willing to spend in decades.

Zygi is willing to spend, he's proven that. I'm not concerned about the Vikings not attracting free agents due to cold weather.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 8:52 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 100

I don't want to sound discriminating, but the Vikings better find a white quarterback if they want to compete in an outdoor stadium. Black quarterbacks don't lead teams in cold-weather cities for some odd reason. Aside from the warm weather QB's in Dan Marino, Steve Young, Troy Aikman, and Joe Montana...You need to look at John Elway, Jim Kelly, Joe Namath, Fran Tarkenton, Terry Bradshaw, Brett Favre, Tom Brady (and should I say Eli Manning? or not) I think Jay Cutler is going to be good in Denver, same with Ben Roethlisberger in Pittsburgh.

I guess we could add Donovan McNabb as a black QB who has been somewhate successeful in a colder city.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 9:21 PM by Jason Highlight this comment 101

As much as I think it would be awesome to return to the days of outdoor football, WinonaMike and Luke H. are absolutely correct. Not only would it hurt the Vikings free-agent recruiting, but any sort of public financing would be a near impossible sell for a stadium that only gets used a 12 days a year (maximum). It makes no sense. You'd have to have a stadium that can be used for other events to justify the taxpayer expense.

In an ideal world, Zygi would just buy his own outdoor stadium, but that ain't gonna happen, as much as I'd like it.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 9:22 PM by Dan Highlight this comment 102

people like winonamike are what i personally like to call the "vocal minority" when it comes to things like this. just like politics in america they are usually not the voice of the majority.

ROOF?! WE DON'T WANT NO STINKIN' ROOF! ROOF?! WE DON'T WANT NO STINKIN' ROOF!

let me hear it vikings fans!

get those old flame throwers warmed up to thaw out the field!

:-)

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 9:23 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 103

Jason: you "don't want to sound discrimining"?

????

you fail

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 9:24 PM by ridiculous Highlight this comment 104

um, I meant "discriminating"

but I made my point

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 9:26 PM by ridiculous Highlight this comment 105

jason - what the hell was that crap about black quarterbacks?! if i know rick there is one thing that probably won't fly on this site and that is veiled attempts at racism & bigotry.

come on man. let's try to keep it classy and out of the gutter.

Posted on June 13, 2008 at 11:35 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 106

Betaband has it exactly right. If you think that race matters for things like that, you're living in the wrong century.

Racism -- like a lot of other "-isms" -- is unwelcome here.

Posted on June 14, 2008 at 12:29 AM by Rick 107

gosh damn I dunno why he puts straight up jason, Im from before him

Posted on June 14, 2008 at 02:55 AM by Jason(from b4 not last post) Highlight this comment 108

Click the link to check out a website that gives you a virtual view of stadiums, including Citi Field, Busch Stadium, and Padres Park. The Twins virtual view will be completed soon.

Posted on June 14, 2008 at 1:59 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 109

Rick and/or those who might be in the know when it comes to North Loop/Warehouse District neighborhood redevelopment around the new Twins Stadium:

I saw an article the other day in the Star Tribune that Minneapolis is completing rebuilding 2nd Ave North (the elevated pedestrian plaza goes over this street) curb-to-curb from Royalston Ave North all the way northeast up to the Mississippi River.

So, does anyone know if there are plans to also reconstruct 5th Ave North, 6th Ave North and 7th Ave North between Washington Ave and North 5th Street? I know some of those are great old brick paved streets in the Warehouse District so obviously wouldn’t want to lose that character they bring, but several could use significant re-grading and a repaving of the bricks.

Thoughts?

Posted on June 14, 2008 at 2:22 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 110

sorry - meant to say "is going to be completely rebuilding 2nd Ave North". didn't mean to imply that is was almost finished.

Posted on June 14, 2008 at 2:24 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 111

With all of the activity taking place in LF, it sure would be nice to see that 2nd webcam up and running!!! C'mon Twins! It can't be that hard to setup a webcam. My 12 year old nephew could have it set up in 15 minutes!

Posted on June 15, 2008 at 09:12 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 112

Betaband,

I live off of 3rd in the area you're talking about. What I've been told is that the city has a 3 to 4 year plan to repave the roads in our neighborhood, and re-use the brick in all the intersections. The brick is really cool, but it's becoming more and more difficult to maintain with all the traffic more residential has brought.

It would be cool to see the roads redone by the time the ballpark opens...and some of the brick could be used around the park as well.

Posted on June 15, 2008 at 12:03 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 113

jeff - glad to hear there is a plan at least and it is on the radar. although let's make that a 1-2 year rather than a 3-4 year plan! i agree they really do need some work and it would be a good idea on the part of the city to redo the roads over there in time for the opening of the ballpark.

there are some great buildings in the area, but all of those roads are also going to be a main entry point into the ball park neighborhood (whether on foot or by car/transit) so it would be prudent for the city to put its “best foot forward” there and making sure they are up to standard structurally & aesthetically for both the neighborhood residents and the weekly visitors (both local and from other parts of the country) to the area for games, entertainment.

Posted on June 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 114

holy racism Jason, u suck azz.. Twins lost today... comin gto live and direct from milwakee... im drink.........

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 12:25 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 115

Some new construction shots available here.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 07:48 AM by Mo Highlight this comment 116

Another great panorama shot of the interior can be found here.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 07:52 AM by Mo Highlight this comment 117

More links, virtual tours, web cams, pics...that's what I'm talking about. Thanks to all that have posted more opportunities to check this "mother" out. C'mon Twins...where's my virtual tour, interior shots, and 2nd web-cam. I want it now!!

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 08:57 AM by Locker Highlight this comment 118

I'm just a frustrated as you Locker. The Twins started out engaging us so well in this process, but they've taken a year off. No artist renderings since April 2007 and we know things have changed. Never have we seen concourse pictures, night pictures. We're lucky if DSP updates his blog more than once a month - we're even more lucky if it's anything of substance. My goodness, TCF Bank stadium has a virtual tour of their facility for a long time now. WAKE UP TWINS!!!!

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 10:39 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 119

And I believe TCF Bank Stadium started off with 2 web cam views...Real time no less, not these still photos every 15 minutes.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 10:42 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 120

I know the Twins are going to have pipes beneath the field to heat the field and are going to have the grass for the field grown in another state soon but has anyone heard if the Twins are going to use the Belgium company that has a technology called DD Grassmaster -it works quite well to keep the grass in great shape. The Cincinnati Reds and many other pro teams have it. Tom D.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 11:05 AM by Tom D. Highlight this comment 121

Not to sound flip, but why would they create more renderings, kevin? You create renderings to show what it looks like, you create them to sell the idea of the space. They've sold it already. The changes that have been happening are minor ones to the design, and not every one is worthy of a fancy rendering, especially when those renderings are expensive and time consuming to produce.

I'm sure the architects are far busier creating construction documents to, you know, build the thing than they are in pleasing us internet nutcases. patience, grasshopper.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 122

I'd be happy to speak on behalf of the Pohlads as to why we haven't seen more renderings:

MONEY.

We've approved the stadium, it's underway, so why would they go out of their way to spend a dime on it? They don't like to spend money on proven free agents - why would they spend it on a stadium they already know they're getting?

That being said, I agree. I think a 2nd webcam is needed. You only build it once!

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 2:04 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 123

Wait you guys didn't see the release of the night time ballpark renderings? Click link to see!

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 2:38 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 124

nice work moda. Didn't expect the rider over the moon though -- I hope she doesn't run into the sh%&stack!

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 3:29 PM by mplsgreg Highlight this comment 125

Yeah no kidding mplsgreg!

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 3:35 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 126

I realize it's more $$ to produce more renderings, with that said I don't really care. I'm just so stinking excited and I'd love to see more pics of anything related to the ballpark. Thanks Moda for the night time shot...awesome. The virtual tour will be incredible when and if it comes out too.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM by Locker Highlight this comment 127

Jeff - correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Twins fork out some additional money within the past 6 months for some upgrades to the stadium? You might want to check on that before you start railing into the Pohlads.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 128

Thanks for the artwork Moda....

Alex, go play in traffic or something.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 6:40 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 129

Believe me, whoever thinks that the design phase of this place is done with and set in stone doesn't (not condescendingly, mind you) have a clue.

They call it a design/build project for a reason.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 7:39 PM by Inside Man Highlight this comment 130

Granted, what you see now in the renderings is what you're mostly gonna get come opening day.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 7:41 PM by Inside Man Highlight this comment 131

Inside Man brings up a good point. The actual structure isn't going to change (they're not going to spend more money cantilevering the upper decks.) The facade however, could be different than the renderings/model since they are currently deciding what style and pattern the limestone will look like.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 8:06 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 132

Renderings are more than just for internet geeks. They help sell tickets/suites/club tickets/sponsorships. For one, I realize that they have the model, and the suite mock-up, but not everyone is buying suites. There will be a lot of people buying club tickets too. And the Twins can't build a mock-up of the club area, now can they? Or a mock-up of the concourses, or upper-deck, for those that are thinking about season-tickets, now can they?

Remember, this in not a ballclub with a huge season-ticket base (20,000+) that they will count on moving from the Metrodome. They need to sell season-ticket packages, and to do that, they need to show people what the views/seats/spaces they are spending money on are gonna look like.

From that standpoint, renderings/3D models and the like are AS IMPORTIANT as actual design work, because they can actually GENERATE MONEY for the Twins...

Moose

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 8:29 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 133

IowaWigman - Sorry to come across the wrong way, but I'm not trying to "rail" as much as I wanted to state facts. We now have the #1 richest owner in baseball (check Forbes). Adding $20 million in upgrades is fantastic, and I applaud the Twins for doing it.

The fact is, adding $20 million in upgrades adds value to the Pohlads asset, thus adding value to their bottom line. Paying out more cash for renderings adds no revenue to their pocketbook, so I see the reasoning behind it. Hell, Mr. Steinbrenner is coughing up 1.2 billion Yankee dollars to build their park for similar reasons - because it will add value to their franchise. If the Twins could sell more tickets because of a new video or pics, then maybe we'd get more renderings.

I don't think it's unfair to be a little critical of the Pohlads now and then. They're great owners, but that doesn't mean they can't afford to spend on players, and yes, webcams now and then.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 10:32 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 134

You're right Moose. I guess my question is do you really need anything more than the renderings and computer model you have now? You can pretty much any view you could want if you pause that movie and certain spots.

On the other hand, I can see your dismay. Other parks like Citizen's Bank, Busch III, and more recently Citi, National's Park, and the new Yankee Stadium have been doing a better job releasing new schematics. But remember, they're opening a year earlier than the stadium that'll become one of the greatest damn venues in the country.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 10:35 PM by Inside Man Highlight this comment 135

I hope so Inside Man but I would want to hear what a non Twins fan thinks of the new ballpark.

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM by bmd Highlight this comment 136

Yep, you can see all the stuff in my link (click my name) in the Twins (or, for that matter, since it would be more relevant, the Yankee's) model... You can't really tell me that these renderings aren't helping sell tickets, suites and club tickets for the Yanks, can you?

Bottom line, internet geek or potential ticket buyer, these images get people excited about the ballpark; and that translates to buts in the seats; and that translates to more money in the Twins (Pohlad's) pockets.

These renderings may be slow comming (for your liking), but they will come (note that the yankees I linked are dated March 2008 for a ballpark opening in April 2009)...

Moose

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 11:42 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 137

And, for the record, I'm not really a Twins fan. I live in northern Minnesota, and will certainly attend games at this park, but am 100% a Cubs fan. I've also been to 20 of the current 30 MLB parks, and am excited about this one, if for no other reason than because it will be 3.5 hours from my house.

I have also learned to not judge ballparks before they are done. I have seen parks that look great on paper, and are dogs in person, and have conversely seen ballparks that are meh on paper, and have been quite impressive in person.

To that end, I can tell you that there are things that I think are meh about the Twins park (the seating bowl looks quite average - but that may be a good thing - and I'm not sold on the split upper deck concept. I plan to see both new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field next summer, so that may change my mind), and thangs that I like (I really like the entire RF area/plaza, and the whole "transportation hub" concept), just looking at the renderings, and plans, but again, I'll reserve final judgement until 2010...

Moose

Posted on June 16, 2008 at 11:51 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 138

Looks like they're assembling the pro-shop on the plaza today -- steel sure goes up faster than concrete.

my 2 cents on the renderings-- there is a valid point to the distraction of rendering when they're job is to be doing actual building design -- but certainly no reason for the delay of putting a $30 webcam on top of the Ford Center. GET IT DONE.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 09:34 AM by mplsgreg Highlight this comment 139

... and my job is not spelling or grammar. I meant "their".

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 09:36 AM by mplsgreg Highlight this comment 140

I enjoy visiting this page and occaisionally contributing additional pictures of the stadium construction when I can find them. I think the ultimate roadtrip for a Twins / Gophers / Vikings fna who has lived out of state for the last 30 years would happen in Fall of 2010 if the schedule gods could make it happen. Twins game on Friday night at the new ballpark. Gophers game on Saturday night at TCF and finally a Vikings game on Sunday afternoon at the Metrodome. One can only dream of a new stadium for the Vikings.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 10:40 AM by Mo Highlight this comment 141

Jeff - no worries. Hopefully I didn't come across as harsh. I like to criticize the Pohlads as much as the next guy at times, but at this point (in regards to the new stadium), I think they are doing a decent job.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 10:51 AM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 142

This design build is nothing like the Nationals park. They started building that before the blueprints were done where as the only changes we seem to have are changing around a few seats and adding aesthetics.

I just drove by TCF stadium on Friday night and it looks massive. Even though I didn't grow up here and have no connection to the U, I would still love to see a game in that venue.

(If you want an easy spell check in your web browser, get firefox which will underline spelling errors. if you then right-click (PC) or ctr-click (Mac) it will give you spelling options. It's quite nice.)

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM by annoying customer Highlight this comment 143

Thanks annoying cust. that will really help me out as some of you know!!!!!ha

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 11:57 AM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 144

IowaWigman - I agree with you. I believe the owners have done a great job taking their time to put together a great park. It's going to be a fun year watching it come together.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 2:22 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 145

Here's my theory on the split upper deck: the "warming shelters" are in the concourse, overlooking the field. Without splitting the upper deck seating, people who get cold, have kids with, etc, wouldn't be able to spend some time getting warm without missing part of the game upstairs

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 2:24 PM by Dodgeboy Highlight this comment 146

I've been to many of the new parks. One I have not been to is St. Louis. The reviews of that ballpark have been subpar, especially when the topic is the split upper deck. One writer said the view from the terrace level is almost as close to the action as those watching from the top of the arch.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 3:16 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 147

Thanks for the traffic recommendation, kevin. Thanks a lot.

There's nothing to sell now. They've got another whole season in the Dome to go. I'll bet you'll see more renderings next season when they're actually trying to sell tickets in the new stadium, not the old one.

Somehow, placating the internet masses probably isn't worth too much cash, especially when they're busy finalizing the design.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 148

Hey does anyone one know if the new stadium will have the video boards (not sure what they are called) on the facing of the upper deck like they do at the dome? Check link if you are not sure what I'm talking about...

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM by Brandon Highlight this comment 149

Exactly Kevin...

HoK sells the split-upper deck concept by telling owners that fans will be able to view the 'field' from the concourse, but that's only true if you're standing by the last row of seats. (click link)

To me, this "view" isn't worth it since the split-upper deck pushes the top portion of the upper deck about 15-20 feet higher, and also adds a few degrees to the rake of the upper deck.

The lowest level of the split-upper deck also gives owners another reason to increase ticket prices. It's essentially the 'club level' of the upper deck.

Our ballpark would be perfect if our main grandstand emulated Kaufmann Stadium. It would have looked great with that canopy.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 3:49 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 150

No hard feelings Alex, I was just playing, as I know you were. I really respect your postings on here. But dammit, I want more pictures. I don't live there full-time and can't see the project in person.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 4:07 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 151

Yes Brandon, they will have "ribbon" scoreboards/video boards throughout the new ballpark along the facing of the different levels.

As far as renderings are concerned, I am sure we will see some new stuff come August when the Twins plan to unveil their new season ticket plans/prices for the new ballpark. I am sure we will get our first look at the "seating chart" as well as far as ticket prices go, in particular, season ticket prices. This would make a good Twins exhibit at the State Fair as well.

We should also know by this fall whether or not the Twins will have new uniforms next season. The deadline for the 2009 MLB Style Guide is in August or September I believe. That means if the Twins plan to introduce new uniforms or logo changes next season (2009) we should know by this fall.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 4:09 PM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 152

I agree Lafferty. I've never been sold on the split upper deck. Perhaps if they would have cantilevered the upper level, they wouldn't have to split the upper deck and more seating could be installed. The gap in the terrace level is just wasted space where seats could be.

Royals stadium to this day is still one of my favorites and with their remodeling project, the exterior should finally resemble the beauty of the interior.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 4:11 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 153

Is this the gap you're talking about Kevin? (link)

Are there any engineers around that could explain why they stopped adding seats here?

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 154

Lafferty-
I'm not an engineer, but I've got a degree in architecture...
The "gap" is the split upper deck- obviously :) I don't know why they're doing this exactly, but I can make a few guesses.
1. Open Concourse / View of the field: It might not be much of a view, but it's something. It helps re-enforce to the "common fan" that they're still part of the action - even if it's only a token amount. It also allows for wandering about while watching the game for those who can't sit in a seat for 3 hours.
2. Warming Shelters: On the picture you linked to, notice the glass wall on the right end? That's a warming shelter. On those cold-ish April evenings (and hopefully Oct), you can huddle in there for a few minutes and not miss anything - at least if you're standing right on the glass.
3. Handicap (ADA): You MUST provide wheelchair seating on ALL levels. This generally requires a large, flat area for access as well as viewing. In the pic, notice 4 of the 5 "lower" sections shown end a couple rows short and have a wall behind them? the building codes would require very wide access anyways, so why not make the whole thing open?
Bottom line: You're not losing that many seats once you remove those required for the warming huts and people in wheelchairs. The only other solution would be to put the concourse at the very top - think Xcel Center - and that would cost more money and take up more room.
Also, the Twins already charge more in the Dome for the first eight rows of the upper level (between the walkways), so the ticket finances aren't really driving this.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 5:26 PM by Dodgeboy Highlight this comment 155

The Twins already have some interior renderings....I ordered a club level info package a while back and it included a seating chart, restaurant locations and a few pictures of what the club level will look like...it would be nice to see them release these pictures on their website.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 6:56 PM by MOJO Highlight this comment 156

that's good commentary dodgeboy.

But if the anyone tries to tell you that you'll have great views of the field from the open upper deck concourse, they're lying. Luckily there is no way that the split upper deck will make our stadium as cavernous and huge as BuschIII

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 8:02 PM by haasertime Highlight this comment 157

I know the views from up there aren't any good, but I think the logic is that it "feels good" for the "casual fan." It's more the thought / possibility of a view than the actual quality of the view.
At least the upper concourse won't be a hallway.
And, while waiting in line, the crowd really starts cheering, you can run over and see what just happened (IN THEORY at least)

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 8:18 PM by Dodgeboy Highlight this comment 158

You're right Lafferty, that's what I was referring to. And to respond to Dodgeboy, this is MN, add the additional seats and put on an extra layer of clothing if its chilly.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 8:59 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 159

If I'm standing in line for a Beer and I hear the crowd roar, I'm not going to lose my place in line, instead I'll watch on the TV monitor while buying concessions. But hey, at least it's not the Metrodome.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 9:01 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 160

The best part of the split upper deck...crisp, clean, air flowing throughout!

p.s. If anyone makes a crack about the garbage burner causing smelly air...it's old.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 9:09 PM by Andrew Highlight this comment 161

This might sound dumb, but I am curious if it was possible to not have the split upper deck behind home plate, but yet have the split upper deck down the lines. Just curious because they could have obviously increased capacity slightly, especially in the higher priced sections behind home plate. Also, they could have moved the press box up to the upper level (similar to Wrigley Field, PNC Park, and Nationals Park) and added more club seats in the club level behind the home plate area. Thats just my opinion, but its a way they could have increased capacity and increased revenues.

I guess that is just my opinion, but it is a simple way to increase capacity and revenues from the current design.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 9:20 PM by David M Highlight this comment 162

Again, the view of the field from the upper deck concourse will only be seen if you’re standing right behind the seats. This notion that a split-upper deck concourse will allow “common fans” to feel part of the ‘action’ is bogus. If HoK/Twins/Mortenson/HGA really want to make the common fans feel like they’re part of the action, they’d put the upper deck closer to the field by using aggressive cantilevers. It’s more important to provide fans with great seats that are right on top of the action, rather than providing an insulting lower concourse atmosphere in the upper deck. It’s also insulting how much space they wasted for warming shelters. What a stupid idea.

New Comiskey, Dodger Stadium, and many other ballparks that don’t have split-upper decks provide wheelchair access and seating on their regular upper decks. Just saying…

The other solution would be to put the luxury suites above the top upper deck level like they do at the Tokyo Dome, but we know HoK will never go there.

Click the link to see what our main grandstand should look like. Imagine all those fans in the upper deck being so close to homeplate. It’s almost intimidating.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 10:36 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 163

An obvious advantage to a split upper deck is that it provides two facades, instead of ony one. Translatation; more advertising space.

Posted on June 17, 2008 at 11:05 PM by The Crippler Highlight this comment 164

HEY- I never said I really liked 'em either - I was TRYING to explain it from their side, play devil's advocate, etc. The 3 issues I noted (plus others) - COMBINED - helped the decision I'm sure.
Kaufmann, and Arrowhead, are beautiful.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 07:03 AM by Dodgeboy Highlight this comment 165

Does anyone know where to go to see recent pics? I remember clicking on someones name here, and it was to a website that had pics from inside the construction site, almost like a worker took them? I just can't find that link again?

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 1:14 PM by Brandon Highlight this comment 166

Any engineers or architects:
What are the benefits of building with concrete rather than steel? It is so much more time consuming with all the forms and such. I just don't get it as steel goes up so much faster and "easier." Anyone...?

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 1:54 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 167

Cost

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 2:33 PM by Builder/Designer Highlight this comment 168

Cost? New Yankee stadium is concrete and costs 1.3B.
I knmow steel is more expensive, but...

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 3:01 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 169

Brandon. Click on my name for the site I think you are looking for.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 3:12 PM by luckylager Highlight this comment 170

J2K - I've got two main answers to why Yankee Stadium is $1.2 billion. First off, you can take $320 million off the top of that figure, as that is the cost of parking garages for the area (they are building new, and fixing up some existing). So, that drops the ballpark down to *just* $800 mil. The other answer is, it's New York - everything is more expensive in NYC.

Also, if you look at some of those renderings, they are sparing no expense. That thing is gonna be plush, so I can see adding several extra million for *extras*

Moose

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 3:37 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 171

+300 million that the city of New York is spending to revamp roadways and subway stops around the stadium. To get anything built in New York, you have to take into account the cost of greasing the mobs. I had a friend involved with the Fenway addition and he always jokes about how much money was handed out to people not associated with the project. Cost of building out east, I guess.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 4:06 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 172

When your dealing with such a unique design, the cost of all the different specialty steel items would be much higher than just building (pouring) onsite.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 5:07 PM by Builder/Designer Highlight this comment 173

Time is another reason for concrete - honest. Yes, forms, pouring,etc take time, but custom steel orders take nearly a year. So the Pro Shop steel was likely ordered last fall.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 5:50 PM by Dodgeboy Highlight this comment 174

Rick,

Since we still have 21 months of topics to discuss until the opening of the ballpark, one interesting topic we could/should talk about is stadium financing. Yes, its a boring topic, but it would be very interesting to see where some of these teams who built ballparks during the 90's and early 2000's are at financially and how much of the stadiums are paid for. We all know the revenues they generate, but it would be interesting to see some numbers and where some of these cities are at as far as paying off stadium debts thru their tax revenues.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 6:32 PM by Jason Thompson Highlight this comment 175

Luckylager,

Thanks for answering Brandon's question. The link you provided is correct. Another forum that has pictures is the "Photos" thread at minnescraper.com. Baseball-fever.com also has a thread on the Twins ballpark construction, along with threads on "New Yankee Stadium" and CitiField.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 9:08 PM by Mo Highlight this comment 176

brandon - those pics you were looking for were posted by "Mo". think they are back up this thread a little ways.

Posted on June 18, 2008 at 10:59 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 177

I am a fan of the open concourses. Sorry standing in a hallway where food is being cooked with temps in the 90's.... I want some airflow. Hving them open will be nice. Unless you like the cavernous hallway thing where bodies are sweating and you can't tell is what you are smelling are the onions from the hot dog stand or the guy standing next to you.

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 10:08 AM by moda253 Highlight this comment 178

builder/designer & dodgeboy:
Very good points. Thank you!

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 12:05 PM by J2K Highlight this comment 179

Hey, thanks for the sites! Do you guys know how often they get updated photos up? I am ancious to see the Pro Shop and plaza updates! I see today they are putting a roof on the pro shop! Really can't tell what it is, but It looks like sheet metal? It also looks like they have put up some cross steel beams right above and to the right of the Pro Shop! Maybe we will see some limestone going up before we know it?!

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 1:47 PM by Brandon Highlight this comment 180

Brandon, according to the construction video on the Twins webstie, some limestone will start getting installed next week. Last I heard, the Twins were still deciding the specific pattern of limestone they were going to use, so who knows?

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 2:46 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 181

From the construction the video, the first section that shows limestone being installed is that top box thing on the 7th St. facade above the pro shop. It looks like the rest of the 7th St. facade will start having limestone in early July.

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 3:00 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 182

Lafferty - Where can we find this video on the Twins website? I didn't know they had a construction video posted.

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 3:33 PM by Jason Thompson Highlight this comment 183

Here ya go Jason. If you make it full screen you can sort of see the dates on the upper left corner.

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 3:57 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 184

Did you notice though that when they started putting the limestone on (which I guess is being installed next week?) that the outfield concourses heve been poured and constructed, and I think they had cement poured for a section of seats right down the right field corner? I can't tell from the webcam, have they started constructing the outfield yet?

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 4:21 PM by Bran Highlight this comment 185

Thank`s great info. afftar piwi ischo!,

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 7:14 PM by name Highlight this comment 186

Thank`s great info. afftar piwi ischo!,

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 7:14 PM by name Highlight this comment 187

@Betaband:

If by "posted by Mo," you mean "copied and pasted without attribution by Mo," then yes, those photos came from Mo.

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 7:56 PM by Midwest Product Highlight this comment 188

I really dig the new iron red/blue-green color scheme and even the font that they are using on the twins' new ballpark site (click link). Do you think this will be a sign of things to come as far as logos/jerseys are concerned?

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 8:28 PM by Evan A. Highlight this comment 189

I agree Brian - First off, that construction video says the dates are for "general referance only." Second, I don't think any of that concrete in CF has been poured yet. Not to say the limestone won't get put up next week, but, I'm not relying on that video to tell me when stuff's happening...

Moose

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 9:45 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 190

I am REALLY excited about seeing some limestone go up! So hopefully it does go up next week!

Posted on June 19, 2008 at 11:11 PM by Brandon Highlight this comment 191

I can't get excited until I see concrete stands and seats being installed...Then I'll feel the anticipation.

Posted on June 20, 2008 at 12:20 AM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 192

Updated construction photos from the Ballpark Authority can be found at this link.

Posted on June 20, 2008 at 3:36 PM by Mo Highlight this comment 193

Anybody else notice they poured the Twins dugout this morning?

Posted on June 20, 2008 at 5:31 PM by MOJO Highlight this comment 194

Some nice updated construction shots by Midwest Product can be found at Minnescraper.com

Posted on June 22, 2008 at 07:48 AM by Mo Highlight this comment 195

This thread is way too long. Time for an update rick.

Posted on June 22, 2008 at 10:13 AM by 11 Highlight this comment 196

I am not sure if anyone has posted this yet, but here is a link to a very interesting interview with HOK Architect Bruce Miller in city pages regarding the new Twins ballpark.

Very exciting to know that of all ballparks HOK has designed over the last 15 years, he think this will be his favorite due to the uniqueness of the site and the intimacy of the ballpark.

All I can say is this will definitely be a top 5 ballpark in the major leagues come 2010! All of us Twins fans and baseball fans should be happy and excited for this new outdoor ballpark.

Posted on June 22, 2008 at 12:25 PM by Luke H. Highlight this comment 197

Of course hes going to say that this is favorite, he knows hes talking to a minnesota writer.

Posted on June 22, 2008 at 6:12 PM by 22 Highlight this comment 198

Yes, he's going to say its his favorite, but its crazy to imagine even being mentioned as a top 5 ballpark with the likes of Camden Yards, PNC Park, AT&T Park, Fenway, or Wrigley after being in the Metrodome for over two decades(one of the worst in baseball, if not, the worst)

It's going to be a completely different world for Twins fans and baseball fans in Minnesota when this new park opens in 2010.

Posted on June 22, 2008 at 8:59 PM by Matt Richards - Faribault Highlight this comment 199

^^agreed

Posted on June 22, 2008 at 9:37 PM by 22 Highlight this comment 200

I was at Target Commercial Interiors the other day and they mentioned that they'd be involved with providing interior products for the park. That's a good move - TCI carries a lot of high end interiors...they're showroom is amazing.

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 10:18 AM by Jeff Highlight this comment 201

Hey does anyone know if it is for sure going to be big, ugly number statue things one the plaza for the retired numbers? I would MUCH rather see some statues of the players! That would be sweet! And I think I read on here that each number with be outside of the gate, making it like "gate 3" or "gate 34", well what will the do when / if they ever retire another player's number? I just hope that is one thing that they still don't know for sure what they are going to do, so they through that in there...

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 11:55 AM by Brandon Highlight this comment 202

Brandon,
I was wondering the same thing.. those are ugly as hell, i would hope they do not go with those, much rather see player statues.. or nothing at all for that matter!

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 12:46 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 203

I am pretty sure that they are going to have those numbers at the gates. Oriole Park at Camden Yards has those number statues behind the center field scoreboard for their retired numbers, but it is not at all the gates, it is just like a shitload of fiberglass numbers about 3-4 feet tall and all randomly sitting next to each other. Brandon, I also think that they should have the bronze statues of the player, but with a smaller version of the numbers (like a foot tall) at the base of their respective statues. The statues should be not just the person standing, but action shots like after kirby hit the home rum in 1991 while pupumping his right arm, or Hrbeck when he is rounding first with his arm in the air, etc...

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 12:50 PM by Tom Highlight this comment 204

*(home run, Hrbek)sorry for the misspellings

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 12:54 PM by Tom Highlight this comment 205

I like the numbers that represent the retired players. It's different, modern, and less boring than the statues that are now found at almost every MLB ballpark. That said, I'm sure they'll have a few statues somewhere at the park.

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 1:10 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 206

My original hope (Though I knew it wouldn't happen) was to have something similar to Yankee Stadium... Have the trees and other plants out in CF and have like a hiking trail through it with player statues along the trail with short bios and career highlights. I thought that would give it a Minnesota feel, like out in the wild with like pine trees and what not... IDK finda dumb I guess but I think it would be cool! I like the idea of naming the gates after their number, but I hope they have something other than those ugly as hell number things!!!

Posted on June 23, 2008 at 11:19 PM by Brandon Highlight this comment 207

Lafferty - you really think static block numbers are "less boring" than a well done action statue? I can think of anything more boring than a granite block number sitting in the middle of a plaza. There's a reason that statues have endured for centuries. I've been to several MLB ballparks, and have seen people having their pictures taken at statues outside every one. Can you really see people having their pic's taken next to block numbers?

Moose

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 11:26 AM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 208

I echo Moose. On another note, what happens when/if they retire another number in the future? Maybe they'll have to create a gate to nowhere ;-)

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 11:43 AM by J2K Highlight this comment 209

It looks like they moved one of the tower cranes onto the plaza.

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 11:53 AM by J2K Highlight this comment 210

From an aesthetic standpoint, I think the numbers are more interesting in front of the gates. They remind me of address numbers in front of a house. Very inviting.

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 12:43 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 211

I think they are intersting to look at but at the foot of a statue not just sitting there ... the concept is cool though naming the gates after the players... better than gate "a"

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 2:06 PM by mazaratirick Highlight this comment 212

This site needs some updates! This thread is getting a little long.

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 4:32 PM by Barack Obama Highlight this comment 213

I propose a $300M prize for starting a new thread.

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 4:39 PM by John McCain Highlight this comment 214

I'm not sure if the numbers would even be granite or different...the ones at Camden yards are made out of fiberglass, but I didn't hear of the granite numbers anywhere...

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 5:12 PM by Tom Highlight this comment 215

Sorry - that was just speculation on my part on the granite comment. I think it would be real tacky if they were fiberglass. If there's no statues, at least the numbers should be some sort of nice stone...

Moose

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 9:13 PM by Moose97 Highlight this comment 216

Another link regarding the rooftop Golf Dome developer...he's not ready to give up... The rendering makes me think this would be odd looking next to the new park.

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 9:43 PM by Jeff Highlight this comment 217

regarding this stupid gold dome idea by this developer. so not only would we have to look at the multifoods tower - which sucks imo, but we would also have to look at a "dome" for golf that would no doubt remind many of the metrodump back across town - albeit smaller - which the twins have been trying to leave all these years.

absolutely not! no thanks! no way! no how!

not after all these years. never want to see another inflatable dome in my life if i can help it.

Posted on June 24, 2008 at 10:54 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 218

Getting back to the main idea of the thread, I think if they were to put tailgaiting and bleachers up on the roof, it would / should be you are paying for your parking and your ticket all in 1 price ($20?)...

And I hope the HERC plant gets torn down and that is where the Vikes new stadium goes! Though I still am not sure they really need one because the Metrodome is NOT that old and I think a dome is to the teams benefit for football! Anyways, I have seen a couple pics (purposal?) of the Vikes stadium there and I think that would just be awesome having like one big plaza like the one connecting the Target Center to the Twins' stadium connecting all three stadiums! Does anyone knoe where I can find that pic? I think I seen it somewhere on here but I would like to see a bigger one...

Posted on June 25, 2008 at 12:32 AM by Brandon Highlight this comment 219

new thread please!

Posted on June 25, 2008 at 12:53 AM by dave Highlight this comment 220

Short of having to start a new thread, is there a way to condense the comments section?

Posted on June 25, 2008 at 11:01 AM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 221


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 3045 found on this site. Click the image to be taken to the original post. A new list is created every 10 minutes.


Concept drawing for the fan/player appreciation wall. (Click to enlarge.)



I would put on this face.



Intersection overview



Click to see the full-size image.



At TF, you never know when you may bump into a Pohlad



Construction of the stands is moving from left to right in this image.



An overview of the model display.



The main ticketing area beneath the restaurant.






The plaza as viewed from across the park. The right field overhang section will be built just in from where the plaza supports are.



Ballpark elevation viewed from Seventh Street. (Click to enlarge.)



I'm too short to see over that wall. How about a little platform or something?






This area will supposedly show the Twins chronology. Will it stretch back to 1901?






Detail of Entry Plaza #4 (north entry from Fifth Street)






This view clearly shows the curve in the left field stands and the relationship of the first row with the playing field (no overhang to speak of in left).









I noticed this detail while taking the previous picture. I figure that it must be the VIP entrance from the surface parking lot. I don't think there is any parking inside the ballpark, so this entrance will likely be for suite-dwellers and other VIPs, though I can't say for sure whether players will enter here.






A beautiful, glowing sunset after the rain.



Plaza overview









July 7, 1966 (Click to see the entire scorecard with ads)



Pawlenty makes it official!






The main concourse is a very busy place at all times.



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









Seventh inning sing-along.



Supports viewed from beneath. These seats will be just a few feet from the outside edge of the building!



Party deck



The admin building (note TF logo on banner)



Here's an idea of what these Loge Boxes are all about. That guy is a waiter with no fans to serve. They seemed to have one server for about every four boxes.



Looking through the Oliva gate, you can see the outfield stands.



The images on that wall appear to be of great Twins moments in history.









I never think of Ron Jackson at all.



The Seventh Street facade



The Pantheon (with inset of the magic eye)



The media had some beautiful foliage to use as a background.



Also viewed from the B ramp, that's the upper deck in left field.



A scene repeated about a million times each game



The Lincoln Saltdogs (and a promotional Nerd)



The dish!


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