Next game at Target Field: Royals at Twins
Playoff Challenge    Archive    Target Field History    Theme:

Sizing It Up

October 31, 2007 2:27 AM

There was a moment today when I realized that something special is happening here. I think that it's becoming common knowledge within the working groups -- even the political ones -- and all of the principals. The media doesn't quite get it yet, nor do those who persistently and annoyingly protest a cause that has already been lost. But all of you who come to this site probably do.

This ballpark is going to be amazing.

Model overview

After I had this realization, I thought I better just cool down a bit and make sure it's not just the Twins fan in me talking.

So I looked back at the new Yankee Stadium renderings. Cold. Hollow. It is not what it wants to be, mostly because there is no history there. There's just no there there. It lacks all of its predecessor's dirty charms.

Two train stations

Two train stations

Next I looked again at Citi Field. It improves on the park it replaces, but it simply tries too hard to echo something that it has no business quoting. Ebbets Field doesn't belong to the Mets. Even in its attempted reverence, the new park is distant and rather plain. It evokes absence rather than resuscitating a bygone era.

On to Washington. I don't have to tell you that the design for the new Nationals park is a disgrace. A real mess. A painful missed opportunity. From its orientation to its facade to its systematic architectural disregard for all but the wealthiest patrons, the best you can say about it is that it's new and it's not RFK.

Out in Oakland they have the right idea. But they're taking the team out into the middle of nowhere and building a faux mini-city around it. One can't help but think of EPCOT (which I've been to many times, but which no one would mistake for the real world it imitates).

Back to Minneapolis, where we have the distinct pleasure of watching the most prolific ballpark architects in American sports history being forced to do something they've never done before. They must build a modern ballpark on a 19th-century-sized parcel of land. They are certainly rising to the challenge.

The typical HOK style has really become somewhat tiresome and predictable. There will come a day when fans of the game lament the second round of "cookie cutter" ballparks. But that won't happen here.

Despite the fact that the seating bowl does resemble all the others just a little too much, and the upper decks are a very long way from the action, the overall feel of this design is distinct and unusual. It is warm and attractive and coherent and really looks quite comfortable.

I don't much buy into the marketing hyperbole spewed out at events like today's. I know they have to use words like "iconic" (thankfully, they've dropped all the Wrigley references), but I wish they could simply let the work stand on its own. This design is good. It's damn good. And it's good in large measure because it does not try to evoke something else. It has its own brand new voice.

Features Detailed

Seventh Street facade

The Seventh Street facade

The whole idea of knotholes seemed like a gimmick to me. I'd seen the equivalent in Detroit and was deeply unimpressed. But the new animation shown today changes all that. Though I cannot imagine groups of kids gathering around these openings during a game (security would probably be on them in five seconds), their mere presence (and surprisingly large size) draws the outside in and extends the game beyond the walls of the park. This is a feature hailed from the early days of ballparks: wide connections with what was beyond their walls.

The stone facade is so much more than just an attractive material. There is a distinct language at work, and it extends all the way around the park (except for a weird area facing the entrance to the parking ramp that looks like a scary back alley). The building has something to say as a whole, rather than as a series of small, independent statements so often found in facilities like this. This is an important sign that there is actual "architecture" at work here, and not just "engineering" (valuable as that is, it tends to lack the artistic component).

Outfield seating

The model still shows the Batters Eye Club, which is no longer part of the design.

The reconfiguration of the outfield seating solves a few important problems. Though I generally don't like upper deck seating in the outfield, there's something about this new look that I find appealing. The word "cozy" has been thrown about in the marketing, but I genuinely think it applies now. In the best of all possible worlds, you'd like people sitting behind the plate to see beyond the outfield walls to whatever is there (a feature that New Comiskey gets wrong in a big way, and Comerica gets right in a big way).

With this park, the orientation (a minor misfire which may have been unavoidable) has the bulk of the main grandstand looking out into not much of anything but a municipal parking ramp with a few square warehouses nearly visible beyond (attractive in their own way, sure, but hardly the best the skyline has to offer). The new outfield seating nicely solves that by clearly stating that the fans are really what we need to see beyond the outfield fence.

Final outfield configuration

Here is the most recent outfield configuration, captured from the animation video. We probably shouldn't make too much of the logos seen on the scoreboard: Best Buy, Dairy Queen, Target, Pepsi, Dodge and Qwest...

We must give credit to HOK for being willing to wander outside of their box, but they might not have done it without the prodding of such a tiny site and such ambitious collaborators. The lesson of Washington (and Cincinnati and Arlington) is that the architect is only as good as the client. The process here has been a messy one, but the result, as seen today in this new batch of renderings and the scale model, has matured and improved to the point where we ballpark fans no longer need worry about the basics being covered. We're going to love this place even as we discover all the things we might wish were done differently.

There are many other elements to discuss: Advertising has appeared, bench seating can be seen in some areas, the scoreboard visibility is worth looking at, the planting/gardening bill will be huge, etc. I'll try to return in the next couple of days and discuss these.

I tend to expect the worst from "group think." Great ideas often get smothered or compromised into deep blandness. That hasn't happened here. This ballpark could set a new standard. Even if it doesn't, it's gonna be a fun place to hang out.

Plaza view


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

Well stated Rick and thanks for the great pictures! I am a huge ballpark fan but have just recently discovered your site and have been reading your postings. This is the first truly "new" ballpark built in a long time. I can't help falling in love with the variety of seating areas and the modern look of the ballpark. Which is what those unfamiliar with baseball and ballparks will criticize. Congratulations Minnesota on one of the best ballparks in baseball. Enjoy.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 07:03 AM by Matt C. Highlight this comment 1

Has their been any talk as to what the name of the ballpark will be?

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 07:44 AM by Chris Highlight this comment 2

I am very excited about the new design. I've been kind of upset that it is taking so long to build, especially compared to the Nats and Yankees, but I think the wait will be worth it. There is a Discovery HD show about the rushed design-build process in Washington--I'm sure glad they aren't doing that here.

My first child will be born in the next couple of weeks and I can't wait to bring him to his first game in the new park!

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 07:46 AM by E Highlight this comment 3

Nice write-up Rick. One question on the model - it looks like the batter's eye is still in centerfield. Did HOK address this at the meeting?

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 09:16 AM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 4

Nice job Rick !!! After seeing the "flyover" video of this park, I looked at similar ones for the new Yankees, Nationals, Mets, A's. The first impression of I had of each was the mammoth size of the structure surrounding the playing fields. I for one, have always liked the idea that the designers of this park were forced to work with a "19th century" parcel of land. It's still hard to believe that this is going to become a reality very soon.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 11:15 AM by John Highlight this comment 5

i wish they could reveal an exact seat count. it appears they are over the 40 thousand number with the added outfield sections. the outfield overhangs are a nice touch because there could've been criticism once the park opens that the seats are so far away out there and no different than what we have at the dome. you're right about the standard hok infield seating bowl. it'll be cool to enter right into the park from the street and you'll be able to look in from the sidewalk as you approach by car also. the main outfield entrances are unique and the approaches look urban and open. it's better than turner field, another park where the main entrances are in the outfield. we won't be entereing from a vast parking lot. (although for football, i'd like a vast lot for the tailgating experience) the site had a lot of constraints but the designers appeared to have turned those qualities into positives. and as has been mentioned, it's very cool to see how rail transit will be so integral to the gameday experience. time to count down the days 'til we get real baseball under the sky back! it's nice the designers incorporated some of the fan's (and this site's)suggestions.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 11:49 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 6

Great job Rick, as always! This definitely is going to be one jewel of a ballpark, and as you stated, it's our "own" ballpark with our own identity. That is the way it should be. I will admit, I still see a little bit of Fenway and Jacobs Field when looking at the model, but overall, it will be Minnesota's unique identity and you will know you are in Minnesota when you see different shots on TV, just like in Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Wrigley, and Fenway.

I still hope for bleacher seating in left field, but we will have to wait and see what that brings.

As for the upper deck, I wish there would have been a way to make that a little closer to the field, but maybe it won't be so bad afterall.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 12:24 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 7

Could someone explain to me the gripe about the "standard HOK infield bowl", why that is bad and what would be an alternative? I'm neutral toward it but just curious to get more details on that comment.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 12:36 PM by Shean Highlight this comment 8

The standard HoK seating bowl doesn't use cantilevered upper decks to their full potential. With their typical design, the HoK bowl heavily favors the lower level seating and luxury boxes, thus pushing the upper decks farther back and higher up. The Twins ballpark appears to be much better than most of the HoK main grandstands, still, many fans would like to see more agressive cantilevers like the ones in left field, throughout the main grandstand. It gives it more of an intimate feel and reminds people of the classic ballparks without the support beams. RFK Stadium in Washington D.C. has one of the coolest cantilevered upper decks.

Has anyone else noticed the trapezoid theme going on with the new Twins park? I really like it!

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 12:49 PM by Lafferty Highlight this comment 9

it's trade-off between being higher up or set back but lower. i'd rather be high and seemingly looming over the field than lower and back. higher seating is a detriment to certain segments of the fan base from enjoying the game, though. my father stopped going to games because his legs couldn't take the steep stair climbing at the dome. at the new park, more levels of seating means less of a hike for fans to trudge up and down to their seats.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 1:20 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 10


The batter's eye is supposed to be in centerfield. A batter's eye is the backdrop behind the pitcher, and is what the batters see while hitting. Batter's eyes are always in centerfield as that is directly behind the pitcher. I'm guessing by your comment that maybe you are referring to the restaurant, which in previous images was above the batter's eye in centerfield. The restaurant has been moved to the building in left field, and a family picnic area has been put in centerfield above the batter's eye. These changes are reflected in the new model. Other than that, I don't know what you mean by "One question on the model - it looks like the batter's eye is still in centerfield. Did HOK address this at the meeting?"

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 1:45 PM by The Rational Actor Highlight this comment 11

For clarity, the model still shows something called the "Batters Eye Club" above the pine trees in straight-away center.

This club has since been removed (actually moved to somewhere else in the park), but they have not had time to update the model. The new renderings and the animation show the most recent configuration.

It is a vast improvement because it allows the upper concourse to connect all the way back to the plaza -- with the field visible all the way.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 2:03 PM by Rick 12

Rick, Thanks for the clarification. I guess I was mistaken on the model having it correct. However, I believe the 3D animation has it correct. I guess I just have sensory overload finally having all these new images to digest.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 3:58 PM by The Rational Actor Highlight this comment 13

Where can the model be viewed by the public?

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 4:20 PM by Link Highlight this comment 14

All soccer,football, and baseball fields are green. Red and blue are documented to provide a beautiful blend with green fields. Too much green takes away some charm. I am disappointed at
the possibility of most seats being green. This format would be a mistake in any stadium that hosts any of those sports. Thanks.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 5:07 PM by Chris Highlight this comment 15

Really nice piece, Rick. But, where is "our" flagpole? I really want to see that idea become one of the realities, and I think you do as well. ---Ben

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 5:33 PM by B.W. McEvers Highlight this comment 16

Great question, Ben. The only place it could be is on the plaza right inside the gates. The model shows four flag poles there, and the old Met flag pole really should be one of those.

Let's keep our fingers crossed on that!

(For everyone else's benefit, Ben is the one who originally told me the story about how the Richfield Legion got the old Met Stadium flag pole. We're determined to see it become a part of the new park!)

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 6:08 PM by Rick 17

Does anyone else think the scoreboard should be moved a little bit more to the left field line? This way it would be aligned with the LF Grandstand a little bit better, unless the Twins intentionally want the scoreboard in Left-Center. I know all of the original designs called for a centerfield scoreboard, so this Left-Center could be what the final design is. I just think it could be moved a little bit more towards the left field line and centered above the left field grandstand. That is just my opinion though. Otherwise this park is definitely going to be one-of-a-kind! Thanks for the great work Rick and keep it up! I am sure this site is progressing into a very popular site as well!

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 7:48 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 18

Rational - yeah, I meant the "club" and not the actual batter's eye where the pine trees are at.

Thanks for the explanation Rick.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 8:00 PM by IowaWigman Highlight this comment 19

Has anyone else noticed the change made to the canopy since the model was on display in the summer. Back then the canopy was positioned on its supports so it extended over all of the top upper deck seats. Now it has been changed; the canopy has been moved back on its supports so that only half of the canopy now extends over the top upper deck seats. Why the change? Tom

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 8:56 PM by tom D. Highlight this comment 20

Overall I really love the design. I agree with everyone else's comments about this being a step forward from other new ballparks in terms of design.

A few comments (not to be too critical, I just think some things can be even better):

The short limestone wall between the seats and the field seems to be contained mostly behind home plate, I'd love to see this used more along this wall, possibly all the way to where the wall meets the left and right foul lines.

I do think the right field upper deck section is a bit gimmicky. I'd probably rather see this section have the same height (it's current lowest height) and the advertising board behind it be a rectangle. We'd lose some seats, but since it appears that there are more seats added in the upper deck in left field this might be OK.

The promenade facing the HERC looks really nice, but I hope they put enough food or merchandise vendors out there or there really won't be much reason to walk along it since there isn't an entrance between 5th and 7th, just at each end. There are a few small kiosks shown in the animation, but I think we need more. Maybe even permanent ones. (I am glad this side of the building has limestone)

I'm a bit concerned about the street level of the building in terms of the pedestrian. The knot holes are great, but there are significant stretches of building with blank limestone walls, particularly the HERC and 7th St sides. They could possibly be animated with advertising boards, video screens, etc. Some are shown, but not enough! It's the downside to the limestone- it creates such a monumental building that it may feel imposing at street level.

I'd really love the seats to be a dark navy blue like the Twins color rather than green. We'll already have green grass, and not to be too blasphemous, but watching Fenway in the World Series, I think there's just too much green there. The upside to blue seats is that if no one's sitting there, it still appears to be someone wearing Twins colors when looking at shots of the crowd. We could do some TC logos in red and white seats (think Williams Arena) which would look awesome as we peep into the park on non-game days. If people are concerned about blue seats looking like the Metrodome seats (royal blue) I don't think there's much to worry about. A dark blue is just as timeless as green.

In the end I’m just really excited for outdoor baseball!

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 10:08 PM by Andy Highlight this comment 21

Maybe I am just missing it in the video, renderings, etc., but does anyone know if we will we see the iconic "TC" logo anywhere inside/outside the ballpark? I would really like to see it displayed prominently somewhere as I think it is only right to pay some degree of homage to Minneapolis & St. Paul specifically versus only seeing the "Twins" logo and/or "Minnesota" all over the building & scoreboard.

Posted on October 31, 2007 at 10:16 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 22

Upper deck looks US Cellular steep. Not a fun experience for anyone with a reasonable apprehension about heights. Not much else they could do in that footprint, but yikes!

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 06:35 AM by J. Lichty Highlight this comment 23

In the interest of having a distinctive feature, how about a limestone wall behind homeplate? The uneven nature of the limestone would reward control pitchers and punish the wild ones. I would love to see a ball bounce off the back wall away from a hustling catcher.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 08:31 AM by yeahklye Highlight this comment 24

definetly in agreement with that betaband.
the underlined "twins" logo sucks in comparison to the tc. I was and am still hoping for atleast a big TC over the bigscreen.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 08:57 AM by Dan Highlight this comment 25

good points andy. and it's hard to tell how much the canopy will actually cover. it has to be functional as well as decorative. i know the seat color debate has been hashed out a lot on the site, but i have yet to hear from anyone involved with the design the rationale for green seats, or maybe i missed something. i was thinking an homage to the old met could've been best expressed with the seating color. and you're right, that old flag pole has to be put someplace near the park.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 09:49 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 26

Mark me down as another person who prefers a dark blue for the seats instead of green. I also agree that they should work a logo into the seats. However, I would be fine with just dark blue seats. I just think green looks too plain and rehashed.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 10:57 AM by The Rational Actor Highlight this comment 27

a big traditional blue and white "TC" logo would look great above the scoreboard facing the field, another good point! the modern twins script logo that first appeared when the team redesigned it's uniforms prior to the '87 season is better where it's shown on the model decorating the side of the scoreboard that will face the street.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 11:21 AM by Tim Highlight this comment 28

Hey Rick...what is your feeling/analysis of the green seats? I know a few other people have voiced their displeasure of them...but yours is the opinion I look for, hahah.

I guess the green is not "terrible" in my mind, but I do agree that blue is more in line with the Twins team colors, and I think one thing I like so much about the drawings we've had all along was the blue-ish color scheme to go with the blue dugouts, green grass, limestone, glass, etc.

I assume with the model and stuff that the green is probably a done deal.

What do you think?!?

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 12:24 PM by Excited Highlight this comment 29

In the new renderings the scoreboard has the TC logo on it rather than the Twins script as seen on the model. Also in the renderings the right field seeting in pic one is single level angled but in pic 4 it is double deck straight topped with rectangular advertising above it.

Which of all of these things are correct? I thought I had read that the illustrations were correct but that the model isn't quite up to date.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 12:27 PM by moda253 Highlight this comment 30

I prefer the green seats.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 3:20 PM by John Highlight this comment 31

I doubt the decisions about exactly what's going to be on the scoreboard (in terms of logos) have been made just yet.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 32

I doubt the decisions about exactly what's going to be on the scoreboard (in terms of logos) have been made just yet.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 4:23 PM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 33

I prefer any seat that isn't located inside the Metrodome, regardless of its color.

And yes, TC logo is by far the best!!

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 5:36 PM by kevin in az Highlight this comment 34


I'm not saying that it means anything, but considering that naming rights have not yet been sold, one has to take note (although not too much) when specific corporate logos turn up in official renderings and such. Both Best Buy and Dairy Queen must be considered serious candidates to buy those naming rights...

Of course, they're also current advertisers. So, like I say, we should note it, but not put too much thought into it.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 5:40 PM by Rick 35

I just looked closer, and the other advertisers on the scoreboard in the animation are Target, Qwest, Dodge and Pepsi.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 6:01 PM by Rick 36

I'm all for coloring the seats like the Met. Since that's not going to happen, I don't particularly care what color they are.

I like the right-field stands in the model. It fits with the trapezoid theme.

I'm still concerned about how this will connect with the rest of downtown. At one time there was talk of decking over 394 and making a nice plaza. Then that got reduced to a bridge. I hope they make that bridge as wide as they can and built it in a way that allows full decking later on. Pedestrian connections are going to be very important for downtown businesses and and residential neighborhoods around the stadium.

Can't wait 'til we get Southwest and Bottineau LRT lines running to this!

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 6:17 PM by David Highlight this comment 37

I also prefer the green seats. I think any green added to an urban stadium is a plus (especially next to a garbage burning plant). Really it doesn't matter that much to me though. I just love the stadium.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 7:45 PM by Matt C. Highlight this comment 38

I think it looks great.

I like the green seats as well.

Posted on November 1, 2007 at 9:11 PM by mlb2131 Highlight this comment 39

Rick ---

I'm probably a bit rusty on flag protocol - but if I remember right the US flag always flies the highest and no other flies as high. Isn't that where "our" pole would come in? Is it possible that US and Canada share equal billing in a ballpark?

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 01:16 AM by B.W. McEvers Highlight this comment 40


That's a great question, and I believe you are correct.

The Canadian flag has to be there because we will be playing Toronto at some point, but I believe that flag etiquette still requires the US flag to be the tallest.

The model and animations show four flags: US, Canada, Minnesota, and POW-MIA. They are all at the same height.

I have to assume that someone in the Twins organization will check the flag etiquette before those poles are installed (probably the flagpole installation company will chime in).

Somewhere I have a flag etiquette pamphlet stashed away from my days as a Boy's Stater. I'll see if I can dig it out and verify this.

Anyone else?

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 04:39 AM by Rick 41

IIRC, the renderings had 4 flagpoles, all at equal heights (POW, US, Canada, and Minnesota), but the model shows the US and Canadian flags in the middle and higher than the other two. Rick, the past picture in this blog post seems to show that they're not equal. I believe this is the correct etiquette: National flags fly higher than state or other lesser flags. The US flag does not fly higher than that of other nations when displayed simultaneously, but it does fly 'first,' meaning that it would be at the center of a large display, or to the left (as if you were 'reading' the flags from L to R) in a sequence. I believe the model has this correct, as the two national flags are taller than the others, and the US flag is to the left of the Canadian flag from the main vantage point of the infield.

I'm sure HOK deals with plenty of flags and will do just fine.

As an aside about flags, I've now moved to Washington, DC, a city that really uses the city flag all over the place. It's great. Chicago is another city that really publicizes the city's flag. I wish Minneapolis would do this more, even though the flag isn't the greatest (it's OK, I guess).


Perhaps they could play on the "TC" logo and fly St. Paul's flag, too. It's kinda a cool one:


Even though we're the Minnesota Twins (And I'm sure the Minnesota flag will be flying somewhere), the state flag is just so boring:


A state seal centered on a blue field. How exciting.

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 08:31 AM by Alex B. Highlight this comment 42

Thanks for the clarification, Alex.

On a separate flag-related note, the animation shows 18 flags flying above the upper deck in left. They appear to be just red and blue .

It would be great if there were a place in the park to display flags for either the other teams in the American League, or all of MLB, or even in the Twins' minor league system.

That row of flags up there has some great potential.

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 10:13 AM by Rick 43


Based on earlier renderings, I believe the Twins intend to have the flags of other teams flags flying above the upper deck. Also, I'm sure the Twins a long way from deciding exactly which logos will go where and specifically what they will be. Who knows, we might have a new uniform and a new look altogether. (San Diego, SF, Milwaukee, Houston - many teams have done this when building a new park)

Something else that's intriguing is that the Twins will have a "flagship" proshop, according to the animation and model. I've spoken with several apparel reps in the past few days - New Era's rep told me that team headwear and apparel sales doubled for over a year in cities with new parks. Interesting...

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 10:41 AM by Jeff B Highlight this comment 44

Yes, lots of cool things can be done with flags. If they have flags for other teams, they can order them according to the standings.

It's hard to tell from the pictures what's on the right-center field scoreboard. Anyone get a good look? What information will be displayed there?

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 10:51 AM by David Highlight this comment 45

yep, like at wrigley, order the flags based on the standings. also, are we going to have an old-time manual scoreboard anywhere?

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 12:05 PM by Tim Highlight this comment 46

It would be cool to have flags from both Minneapolis and St. Paul along side the US, Canada and Minnesota flags. Unfortunatly the Minnesota flag is not that great. ItRanked in the bottom 10 of State and Canadian Provincial flags in a survey of Flag entusiasts. St. Paul is not that great either in my personal opinion. I like playing around with ideas for new flags and have some for both St. Paul and MN if anyone is interested (click on my link below.. I think thats how this works... 1st time posting)

I saw a game at AT&T a few years back and they had flags for all the teams flying above the infield upper deck. Something like that out in the outfield would be nice at the MN park. "they can order them according to the standings." Great idea David!

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 1:35 PM by Roger Highlight this comment 47

Here's another idea with flags and the standings. If the Twins win and move up a slot in the standings, have a little post-game ceremony to swap the Twins' flag with the team they overtook. It would be a great Minnesota tradition.

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 2:06 PM by David Highlight this comment 48

I really, really hope the Twins don't change uniforms, unless they go "retro" to something they wore in the past. Most modern uniform "upgrades" are hideous - see Minnesota Vikings.

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 8:30 PM by Jeff T. Highlight this comment 49

Actually, I would say the current Vikings uniforms are not too bad and an improvement over their uni's of the early 1990's that had the viking on the sleeve. But, I do agree that their uni's from the 60's-80's with black shoes and the white/gray face bars were the best & most traditional looking.

and finally just to get some of you on this board going i hope the twins pull out a new alternate "minneapolis" script jersey they wear every once in a while come 2010 when the new ballpark opens. it would only be right considering where the majority of the ballpark funding is coming from :-)

Posted on November 2, 2007 at 11:16 PM by Betaband Highlight this comment 50

Someone commented in here about the "bleacher" seats over in right field. According to St. Peter's blog on the Twins site "The “terrace” type seating on the Overlook (found in right field) has been replaced with standard ballpark seats."

Posted on November 4, 2007 at 9:03 PM by Luke Highlight this comment 51

This page was last modified on January 21, 2010.

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

– Bernie Williams

Explore the Site

Here are 50 images chosen randomly from the 3046 found on this site. Click the image to be taken to the original post. A new list is created every 10 minutes.

Click to see the whole, beautiful image. (Photo by Tyler Wycoff)

World Series trophies on display at left

Discovered on the upper concourse!

That's Noah and my brother, Chris, checking out the Loge Box amenities

Killebrew's mammoth shot on June 3, 1967 is currently memorialized on a wall at the Mall of America

Inspecting the delivery

Having fun. Installing limestone. Good gig.

Dome, what have you taken from us?

I realized I've never shown how the walkway over Seventh Street meets the A ramp

Original Concept - With a Retractable Roof

Integrating the administration building was really a great idea. Actually, there will be more things inside than just offices, but that will probably be some sweet space.

Earl Santee, principle architect for HOK Sport, presents some concepts while Mike Opat listens

Larry DiVito and staff member (you write the caption)

Not from Moose's tour, but it's an image you need to see. (Click to enlarge greatly.)

Great sign

That group was working on something very carefully, but I couldn't tell just what it was.

Dan Kenney, my tour guide

Also warming things up are these planters.

This would be easy to miss, but I found it on a cart located directly behind the Batter's Eye seating on the upper concourse in center field.

Detail at Gate 6

Saints between innings

Showing more of the context for the louvers.

The Pohlads were loose. A-Rod looked, um, you decide.

Section 101, Row 27

Circulation building with construction team on top

A walkway begins to form (this is as close as you can get right now)

(Click to enlarge.)

Imagine this!

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

Lonely vendor...

Though there's nothing there now, you have to believe they'll find a way to add a party deck up there at some point.

Serious home dugout work in progress.


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


First Edition (1992)

Second Edition (2006)


Selected Bibliography - Surveys


Second Edition (1987)

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

(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


Book and six ballpark miniatures

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