Today, for the 16th time in the last 22 seasons, at least one Major League Baseball team had a home opener in a brand new yard. This time it was the Twins turn. In the few shots I saw on TV I saw enough to see that the place is an absolute palace. (Here are a few local reviews, Finance and Commerce, Star Tribune, Pioneer Press)
The first pitch was thrown under partly cloudy skies and, luckily, the temperature was a downright balmy 65 degrees. The nice temperature and lack of a roof clearly aided my perception of the place as a palace. That is not to say that Target Field doesn’t have quirks, they just don’t include losing a can of corn fly ball in Teflon coated glass.
The most obvious quirk: Right Field has a very unique set of seats that hang out over the top of the fence. It is kind of reminiscent of old Tiger Stadium, where the upper deck in Right Field hung 10 Feet over the playing field. I imagine a fly ball hit at the right trajectory could make it to these seats even if it wouldn’t normally travel the 331 feet to the wall just like balls that may have been caught on the warning track in Tiger Stadium would land in the upper deck.
For the record, Target Field has the following, slightly asymmetrical dimensions: 328 to Left, 371 in the gaps, 402 to Center and 331 to the wall in Right.
Some notables first time occurrences:
- Marco Scutaro had the first hit (Hooray for Marco!)
- Marco Scutaro promptly became the first player Caught Stealing (Booo Marco!)
- Adding insult to injury, Dustin Pedroia followed the first Caught Stealing with the first Extra Base hit (a double)
- Denard Span scored the first run and Michael Cuddyer drove him in.
- David Ortiz was the first Strikeout victim and Carl Pavano struck him out.
- Nick Punto was the first guy to not get thrown out trying to steal.
- Jason Kubel hit the first bomb.
Fittingly, the Twins won. Making for a few more notable firsts: Carl Pavano was the first to win a game, Jon Rauch the first to earn a save and Jon Lester was the first to get the ‘ol “L.”
I am envious Twin fans.
newballpark.org 
Dammit Buddy! Give the OK already so we can go watch the San Jose Athletics at Cisco Field!
Agreed. It’s gotten so bad going to the Coliseum compared to everyone else at this point I’d rather go see the A’s when they’re in San Diego or Anaheim. Or if I cross paths with them elsewhere out of town like spring training in Phoenix.
I’m eagerly looking towards the day when the A’s play ball in a new park too, but I’ll miss the Coliseum. It’s one of the few of its kind left. I’m still reminded of Dodger Stadium when I walk along the lower concourse. There’s also a charm in being 1 of the 9k in attendance. I miss that about the ‘Stick as well. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see the A’s play in front of a packed house for every game, but I like the spontaneity of deciding last-minute you want to go to the game.
I’ll miss the Coliseum, too. Been going there since 1971 when I was 9. I’ve sat in every section many times over and have enjoyed every game. Mt. Davis doesn’t bother me as much as it does you guy on here–at least it’s not an ugly dome. Look forward to super high ticket price at the new yard, no bargain days, and people crawling all over you (for the first few years), but it’s time to move on and get a new park like everyone else.
An Oakland waterfront ballpark at Clorox Field, Safeway Park or Kaiser Yards sounds good to me.
Okay, pro-San Jose guys, start bashing me, I can take it!
Ah. Mount Davis. During a decade when MLB teams were moving away from dual-purpose stadia, Oakland took a huge step backwards. Considering the Raiders’ average attendance over couple seasons, those extra seats are useless. I used to admire the Coliseum as being the best dual-purpose stadium.
I am a “Pro Bay Area ” guy and I think that Kaiser Yard or Safeway Park aren’t happening. Because one is a non profit and the other is in tight with the Giants (and not an Oakland Company anyway).
Aesthetically speaking, the JLS North/West site seems like the best shot. It isn’t really waterfront in the sense that AT&T Park is.
As I have said before, though, I think Oakland should be looking for something that is different than what the Giants have. They are aren’t going to make a waterfront stadium that is better than the one across the Bay with all the casual fan season ticket holders. So how do they draw season ticket holders to the East when the stadium is just a facsimile of the place they already have tickets to?
Yeah, Kaiser’s non-profit status may make it not possible for naming rights. Safeway’s hdqtrs were in Oakland for like 60 years and are now in Pleasanton, where a big A’s fan base lives. I don’t know of what Safeway ties with the Giants still exist. Peter McGowan was CEO of Safeway from 1979-1992 and did a horrible job, losing stores like crazy. They’re in much better shape now with a much better CEO in Steven Burd.
Clorox, located right in downtown Oakland, may be the one to do it.
Clorox Field, Clorox Yards or Clorox Park? It’s all good.
I live in Pleasanton. I can tell you, it is a fairly evenly split community when it comes to Giants and A’s.
My review is not so glowing. The place seems to have the charm of a suburban office park. The RF overhang may be kinda cool, but is it cool enough to have the RF seats located so incredibly higher then the home run wall? Way too much exposed concrete for a new park, even if its is green.
What exactly is your review based on? Seeing some pictures? Watching a game televised from the ballpark? The right field overhang is interesting but it is in no way the signature feature of the ballpark. Also, how can you say the ballpark seems suburban? I defy you to find a more urban park in the major leagues.
The glass thing in LF certainly does give off that office park vibe. And I’m not sure why having most of the outfield seats so high up was such a bad thing at RFK Stadium but such a good thing here.
Anyway, not nearly as bad as many of the other stadia built since PNC in 2001 (the designers have been on a losing streak lately).
Target Field is my favorite since PETCO Park opened. The more recent cluster of ballparks (the two NYC ballparks, Nationals, Busch, Citizens Bank) haven’t done much for me. Though, even with the ballparks mentioned above, I am glad that HOK and others are moving away from the neo-retro motif. I’m hoping (though not counting on it) the final design of Cisco Field will make a radical departure from this recent generation of ballparks. MLB has enough brick facades and dark green seats.
I was lucky enough to be at Target Field yesterday for Opening Day. It’s a nice ballpark, although I’d rate it about in the middle of the 22 currently operating venues I’ve been to.
Architecturally, it is less charming than many recent ballparks. It has a phenomenal location (and I love Minneapolis as a city). It is very well served by transit.
The Twins seem to have made a decision to get fans as close to the field as possible, but there were tradeoffs (low ceilings in the concourses; obstructed views from many of the standing room areas; lots of seats under overhang; a higher than average percentage of seating out in the outfield). I was disappointed I couldn’t see the ritual jet flyover. I was on the lower concourse at the time, and there are few areas you can get a clear view of the sky if you don’t have a ticket to get into the lower seating. (Many who had lower deck seating would also have been blocked by overhang).
There isn’t much in the way of ancillary entertainments like you find at other ballparks (no slides, ferris wheels, sandboxes, swimming pools, speed pitch, etc.). Some will see this as a positive, of course.
Of course, it is so far ahead of the Metrodome, I doubt many Minnesotans will be bothered much by whatever shortcomings it might have.
The Fremont Citizens Network says a ball park brings more “crime and chaos.” Didn’t those tens of thyousands of people at yesterday’s game in Minneapolis get the memo on that?
It would probably make Fremont a more likely target for a terrorist attack. They should add that to their talking points.
A ballpark in Fremont may increase the number of Milton Bradley visits, so they might have a point.
You should ask the question to the residents living close to the stadium. Oh wait, is Target Field in the downtown area? I guess not many people living near there.
.
You can not deny the fact extra 10,000+ cars and regular 30,000+ visitors will bring more traffic problems and chaos to that area. Wondering was there any stadium built near existing large suburban residential neighborhood?
It’s all about downtown vs. suburban: urban dwellers, condo/townhome and loft residents, who expect big city amenities vs. single family homes with a front and back yard. I’m sure there would be an uproar in SJ if the A’s ballpark was proposed at the Silver Creek Country Club.
Tony D, you sum it up pretty well: “urban dwellers, condo/townhome and loft residents, who expect big city amenities vs. single family homes with a front and back yard”.
.
pjk, if a stadium is good to the suburban neighborhood, why did the local communities stage several strong protests last year to oppose the Warm Springs stadium?
NoAsWS,
Far be ti from me to tell you what is good for you. But people protesting something doesn’t mean they are right. Have you ever seen footage from old desegregation protests? The white dudes in sheets protesting were passionate and entirely wrong.
Clearly, this isn’t the same thing. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that passion means correct.
My kid stages strong protests against going ot school. Does that mean I should let him stay home?
We could ask all the people moving into the neighborhood – yes, moving into the neighborhood – of AT&T Park in Frisco. A new Safeway, Starbucks, restaurants, offices also have moved right near a supposed den of “crime and chaos.”
FWIW, the Warm Spring site was on the other side of the highway from where the homes are. The Pacific Commons site looks like a desert. Some day, homes, offices. malls etc will be built on the Warm Springs site, generating traffic, etc 365 days a year, 24 hours a day , not 81 days a year, 4 hours a day, like a ballpark.
Also, I’m pretty sure Wrigley Field is right near or in a residential area, as are Fenway Park, Dodger Stadium, etc. All these are viewed as crown jewels and tourist destinations in those cities.
I went to a New Year;s Eve party a few doors away from Fenway Park once. Looked to me like people really wanted to live in that neighorhood, not get away from it.
San Jose’s arena is right near lots of homes as well.
so, people in Warm Springs no longer have to worry about hosting a state-of-the-art, high-tech environmentally friendly major league ballpark that might have driven up the values of their homes and would sit empty about 80% of the time. Eventually, they will get some drab office buildings, condos and maybe another shopping mall instead.
I don’t think most of the SJ Arena neighbors are there because they have a whole lot of options.
Going to catch the A’s at Target Field in mid-August.
Nothing more to add. Just gloating a bit. Carry on.
Don’t feel too bad about gloating. I caught the A’s at PETCO last year and just caught the A’s at Angel Stadium over the weekend and I feel like gloating too. Angel Stadium while being slightly older than the Coliseum feels nearly as modern and nice as newer parks like Pac Bell and SAFECO (and this being nearly 13 years after it’s remodel). Frankly with the demise of the Metrodome there is no one except maybe the Rays whose parks we can’t visit and then gloat about getting the chance. The Coliseum has usually been rated last or second to last in ballpark rankings before the Metrodome’s demise, and is now without a doubt the worst stadium in baseball. No amount of $2 Weds, free hotdogs, or throwback hat giveaways can make up for the fact the Coliseum is the last decaying 60’s multipurpose relic.
And I say this as a guy who honestly loved the Coliseum growing up and even to an extent after Mt. Davis ruined it. But with everyone else passing the old Mausoleum by, it’s starting to stand out for just how bad a ballpark it is these days. There’s no one left to point to and say, “their stadium is worse than ours…”
We can still point at Tampa. Indoor baseball is a travesty. So, we can proudly say we’re number 29!!!
At this point I’d say that’s debatable considering the alternative is to be like Miami and being hot, muggy or wet while watching games. The Trop for all it’s indoor deficiencies has always had the best fake grass field (due to the full sized infield and various fieldturf) and has the advantage of being a baseball stadium first and foremost. It’s capacity and design are geared toward the game which the Coliseum cannot claim anymore. At best today the Coliseum is a piss poor baseball stadium and a lousy football stadium…
Oh yeah? Well I’m going to St. Louis to watch the A’s.
I understand what you are saying Dan. The Athletics want to be on the same page, this is the 21st Century for crying out loud! I understand keeping the historical aspect, but that cannot happen in the industry of sports. Sports is a evolving industry, things always change. Albeit the Athletics need to change their home stadium, whether that be Oakland, San Jose, or Fremont. Unfortunately it is very time consuming, and this is California, particularly, Bay Area. Stadiums, Arenas, or any proposed sports venue have a really small chance of coming to fruition here in the Bay Area.
While I agree it’s hard and unlikely to get public funding, and thus far the A’s have shown little interest in going the public route, it’s also not impossible in the Bay Area despite the prevailing wisdom. Otherwise how do we explain the San Jose Arena, the complete gutting and rebuild of the Oakland Arena, and the expansion of the Coliseum. All of which were 100% public funded.
The Sharks kicked in $35 mill to the SJ Arena, out of $165 mill. So it was not all publicly funded. The original plan called for a 15,000-seat arena, which the Sharks knew wouldn’t work. The plans were expanded to include a 20,000-seat arena (max capacity for something like an in-the-round concert) which works just fine.