  Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 555 Registered: 11-2006 |
Lynn's critique and possible solutions. His view are very consistent with those on this forum: Gradient for lower deck seats too shallow, upper deck seats should have their own area code  , left center field is too far, dugouts too big, etc. http://www.detnews.com/apps/pb cs.dll/article?AID=/20080118/O PINION03/801180397/1004/SPORTS BTW, I agree the location, amenities, etc. are very good but some of the mistakes are unbelievable. Did HOK (I assume it was they who did the stadium) employ their "B" team to design it. Most of the problems should have been obvious, very obvious, during the EARLY design phase. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 188 Registered: 06-2005 |
At virtually every game last year I'd spend more than a few minutes thinking about how they could fix the upper deck issue and bring those seats closer to the action. Short of knocking it down and starting over, I have no clue. The middle part of sections 330 to 326 aren't too bad, but pretty much anywhere else is like sitting on the moon. One thing's for sure, sitting up in the Skyline seats has to be the closest thing to what sitting at the top row of the Oakland Colosseum was like. I think you'd have a better view in Hamtramck. Cheaper beer, that's for damn sure. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 189 Registered: 06-2005 |
Back to the topic at hand though, you'll notice that this stadium is remarkably similar to all of the other stadiums HOK has produced lately. If memory serves, this was more or less the first or second prototype for the stadiums to follow. Yeah, there are some pretty nice features, but I think even more left to be desired. Is anyone out there involved in major contracting operations? What sort of time frame would be needed to totally blow up the lower deck, move everything forward, say, 10-15 feet, expand the concourses and drop the gradient down 10 degrees? Is it realistic to think it could be done in the off-season? | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 127 Registered: 12-2007 |
^^^ I doubt it. It would most likely take a year to a year and half...they could always move back to tiger stadium for a season or 2, and make the changes. | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 556 Registered: 11-2006 |
quote: "Is anyone out there involved in major contracting operations? What sort of time frame would be needed to totally blow up the lower deck, move everything forward, say, 10-15 feet, expand the concourses and drop the gradient down 10 degrees? Is it realistic to think it could be done in the off-season?" Excellent question. That would have the dual effects of decreasing the amount of foul territory area and shorten the distance to the HR alleys as well as increase the gradient (which everyone seems to hate). M. Cabrera probably would approve.  What is feasible? What could be done in 6 months of DET winter? How much??? (Message edited by emu_steve on January 18, 2008) | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 889 Registered: 01-2006 |
You guys are crazy if you think there will be any serious construction going on. There is a winning product on the field, so it doesnt really matter what the good sight lines are...the place will be packed anyway. If you want to use the argument that when we start to suck again, the poor seats will drive people away, think of this...before a single ticket is sold and a single hot dog is purchased, the tigers already make $43M from the MLB television contracts. My point is that even though we are stuck with an average stadium, the Detroit Tigers do not have to rely on the building to sell tickets. As a result, they have no incentive to do major construction. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 129 Registered: 12-2007 |
DS...I never said I thought they would do it, obviously sarcasm is hard to detect on a message board. The only reason any real modifications will be made, is because Mr. I wants them to be made, which he does... | ||
Emu_steve Member Username: Emu_steve Post Number: 557 Registered: 11-2006 |
Detroitstar: I understand your point. Maybe the bottom line is the bottom line: Can Ilitch add say one thousand PREMIUM seats especially a new front row (which could be 15 feet closer to the field). How much revenue could he generate from the remodeled stadium? | ||
Sciencefair Member Username: Sciencefair Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2007 |
What's with all this "average stadium" boohoo? Comerica Park is a beautiful stadium in a great city with a tremendously talented team. If you don't like it, stay home. Would leave more seats for those of us who enjoy being there. The reason the upper deck is farther away from the field is essentially an issue of physics. A major problem at Tiger Stadium was obstructed views from behind posts holding up the upper deck. Comerica has virtually no obstructed view seating because of the structural design. It becomes increasingly difficult to cantilever the upper deck closer to the field and the structural loads often dictate what one can and can't do in an architectural design. As for blowing out the lower deck and starting over, for such a new stadium, it wouldn't make sense financially or logistically. Additionally, if you moved the lower deck in 10'-15', the upper deck would seem even farther away by comparison. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 890 Registered: 01-2006 |
Yeah, I do see the point you guys are making. It just seems to me like it is too early to think of doing anything extreme to the ballpark. We already moved the LF fence in 20ft, moved the bullpens, added seats in RF, redesigned the suites in Left. In my opinion (free to be debated) I think we should wait a few more years before doing anything to the place. I think some of the anxiety to do modifications is the result of our memories of Tiger Stadium. I dont think we have allowed ourselves to create enough memories or truly try to love CoPa. I do remember Mario and Rod discussing some upcoming improvements at CoPa during a broadcast last september. They mentioned shortening the dugouts and replacing some of the Tiger Den seats with standard green seats. Does anyone remember other items that were mentioned? Articles when the park opened stated that the seating could be expanded by about 10K. I dont know where that would be though. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 131 Registered: 12-2007 |
The could probably extend the right field Upper Deck...but I don't know if it would be worth it? | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1645 Registered: 11-2003 |
The only thing I could see the Illich's doing anytime soon is finding a way to add more seats since they are going to be close to a sell-out for every game this year based on current season ticket sales. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 892 Registered: 01-2006 |
Dmcc, they could always just do what U-M does at The OutHouse and make the seats smaller. Wouldnt work to well with the green seats, but the benches maybe. (Message edited by detroitstar on January 18, 2008) | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 132 Registered: 12-2007 |
Then metro-Detroiters need to go on a Diet | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1646 Registered: 11-2003 |
PS....Camden Yards in Baltimore is the prototype for current stadium design being done. Then Jacob's Field (or whatever its new name is thanks to someone buying the rights). Comerica Park kinds came within the rush of new stadiums after that. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 893 Registered: 01-2006 |
Sciencefair, I agree with you. I have been to 19 current MLB ballparks and I think Comerica Park ranks right up there with the other new-gen parks. Visitors from other cities seem to love our park. I'm not sure why we are so picky about it. Wait, it's Michigan...people will always be complaining. | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 190 Registered: 06-2005 |
Hostile, Sciencefair. Not that I dislike going to Tigers games- far from it. Those are 27 guaranteed sweet days during my summer. You're deluding yourself if you don't think there's room for improvement. Architects get paid boatloads of money to draft renovation plans in difficult spaces. I'm saying Mr. Big will at least start the process before the '09 season. | ||
Bob Member Username: Bob Post Number: 1648 Registered: 11-2003 |
I personally love the view of downtown from Comerica Park. As downtown continues to come back, and more of the skyline gets lit up, it will be even better. I would have to imagine Quicken will light up whichever site they choose. | ||
Rax Member Username: Rax Post Number: 102 Registered: 11-2007 |
quote: Nice response. What's wrong with the fans voicing their opinion? Comerica Park is an average stadium, but with some changes it could be a great ball park. The location, concourses, etc are already a huge advantage over Tiger Stadium. People call it like they see it. No one is bashing a "great city" because they have an opinion about Comerica Park. Go to Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Baltimore and tell us how Comerica Park compares. Or just stay home. | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 894 Registered: 01-2006 |
my 5 favorite new-gen ballparks that I have seen in person, in order: 1. Philadelphia (by far #1) 2. Pittsburgh 3. Cleveland 4. Detroit 5. Baltimore/San Francisco | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 134 Registered: 12-2007 |
I think the new Yankee and Mets Stadiums are going to trump all... | ||
Detroitstar Member Username: Detroitstar Post Number: 895 Registered: 01-2006 |
In terms of sight lines and all that, the current Yankee Stadium is way up there! The upper deck seating is great! The new park is expected to be almost identical with all the extra amenities. | ||
Sciencefair Member Username: Sciencefair Post Number: 48 Registered: 10-2007 |
Rugbyman, I'm not saying there isn't room for improvement, I was just explaining why the previous suggestions are not the most feasible options. I think there will continue to be new advancements in design that will enhance the stadium in the coming decades. Rax, if there are several ballparks that are better than Comerica, that hardly relegates it to "average." There is nothing wrong with fans voicing their opinions, but why waste your time complaining about a perfectly good stadium. | ||
Rax Member Username: Rax Post Number: 104 Registered: 11-2007 |
quote: I know, that's why I voiced my opinion. Who's complaining? Why not try and make it better if they can? And there are more than a few stadiums better than Comerica. I was just listing some recent examples. | ||
Irish_mafia Member Username: Irish_mafia Post Number: 1188 Registered: 10-2003 |
Comerica suffers from two issues: 1) Unlike many fields replacing big ugly dual sport facilities, Comerica replaced a legend 2) It appears that a significant amount of bad-taste was incorporated into the design from the million-tigers on the side of the building to the Ferris-wheel to the plethora of ads throughout the park. Given the recent comments on Motor-City Casino, I would attribute this to Mr. Illitch. The same architect did PNC Park in Pittsburgh and it is beautiful, with none of the above stated "Carnival crap" look. Much of that superficial ugliness can be addressed if someone with a good eye is on the job. | ||
401don Member Username: 401don Post Number: 215 Registered: 11-2007 |
I've been to Baltimore, Cleveland and Pittsburgh. I think Pittsburgh is the best also but I think Baltimore and Cleveland are much steeper in the upper deck and that's the trade-off from being further back. I don't like either particularly well. I'm just disappointed that living so far away, by the time single game seats go on sale it looks like I'll be stuck in the upper deck every game, which means by the 5th inning I'll be standing in the lower deck. | ||
Waz Member Username: Waz Post Number: 244 Registered: 11-2006 |
The grading of the seats has been my biggest gripe. The field dimensions don’t bother me much because I think the modern game favors the hitter too much anyway. As far as the “carnival stuff”, at least the ferris wheel and carousel are out of view of the field. I’m glad we’re not like San Francisco (same architects) with that stupid humungo glove and “Pepsi Slide” disgracing left field. | ||
Novine Member Username: Novine Post Number: 372 Registered: 07-2007 |
"I think we should wait a few more years before doing anything to the place. I think some of the anxiety to do modifications is the result of our memories of Tiger Stadium. I dont think we have allowed ourselves to create enough memories or truly try to love CoPa." No amount of time can fix the mess that is the upper deck. I don't have big problems with other parts of the stadium but I'm also not a season ticket holder. | ||
Drankin21 Member Username: Drankin21 Post Number: 150 Registered: 12-2003 |
Some of the upper deck seats down the first base line are phenomenal seats. I don't know why the overhang wasn't carried over to the third base side. How about deleting the stupid fountain/dead ivy in straight away center and adding true bleachers. Make the seats cheap enough, and their distance from home plate should not matter. Remember how far away the bleachers were in center at Tiger Stadium? You needed binoculars to see who was on second. I don't complain about the cost of the beer too much. Of course it is more than was at TS but if you do the math, it's cheaper per ounce than getting it at Cheli's Chili or the Elwood. | ||
D_mcc Member Username: D_mcc Post Number: 139 Registered: 12-2007 |
Drankin, You can't build in centerfield, look all around the majors, NO ONE has seats there because the balls were getting lost in the crowd when they were in the air. |
