While I’ll circle back to my initial premise of what that says about the other 23 parks that meet the standard, and how Angel Stadium provides perspective to how much ballparks have improved in the last 30 years, lets take a closer look at claims (a) and (b) above. It’s the only park built or renovated after 1991 (which should always be used as the natural cutoff) that I’d label substandard. These two facts not only lead to Angel Stadium comparing unfavorably to the best ballparks of today, but being far below the “worst” post-1991 ballparks like Guaranteed Rate Field, Chase Field, and Miller Park (Brewers). The 1998 renovations obviously improved Angel Stadium compared to older versions, but it doesn’t compare as well to other post-1991 ballparks as we might hope. While the Angels claim they’ve spent millions since 2003, it’s mostly in operations and repairs, other than the left field scoreboard, the new greenery in the outfield, and some minor touches. Even Chase Field (Arizona), which I’ve criticized for not undergoing proper enhancements, has renovated its concourse appearance and some of its premium spaces. So really, parts of the ballpark look like they’re from the 1960s-1980s, while other parts are from 1998, which isn’t a good look. We see very little of that at Angel Stadium. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent beautifying the concourses and adding new bars, restaurants, and social spaces to 90s parks like Guaranteed Rate Field (Chicago), Camden Yards (Baltimore), Progressive Field (Cleveland), Globe Life Park (Texas), Coors Field (Colorado), and Safeco Field (Seattle). (b) In now rather stark contrast to other 1990s ballparks, Angel Stadium hasn’t been as properly maintained and enhanced, translating to poor amenities by today’s standards.The ballpark’s functionality was still littered with underlying design flaws as well. And other than one gimmick, the interior design lacked focus and a unifying aesthetic. Yes, the renovation was fantastic comparing the before and after shots, but you see too much of the old football design. (a) While initially hailed as a success, the full-scale 1997-1998 renovations, which “Disneyfied” the ballpark through an attention-grabbing water feature (the geyser rock pile) and a striking grand entrance, didn’t go far enough.To me, two things have become clear about Angel Stadium: At the dawn of the Disney era, team officials decided to renovate instead of building a new park, so Angel Stadium 3.0 was born in 1998. In 1980, Anaheim Stadium was expanded to better accommodate football, losing much of its original appeal. Often characterized by “The Big A” and sea of cars beyond the outfield, I can’t speak much to this original version, but the three-deck grandstand design was ahead of its time. Opening in 1966 as a facility primarily built for baseball (it was designed to secondarily host football), the original “Anaheim Stadium” was a rarity for its time. While I have often lamented the declining standards of ballpark architecture for baseball’s newer parks, Angel Stadium actually illustrates how high the bar is for ballparks overall, at least in a relative sense. *Classic parks Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and Dodger Stadium are not ranked or rated for reasons previously outlined in those reviews Written in 2017, ratings updated yearly when necessary A (Big) A for Effort While 1998 renovations didn’t put Angel Stadium on par with even the weakest retro ballparks looking at all aggregate metrics, ballpark is still a perfectly acceptable place to see a game
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |