I ended my review of Turner Field from two weeks ago saluting the innovative way it was designed and repurposed, plus its status as a permanent baseball-only home.
Turns out that today the Braves announced plans to move to suburban Cobb County, just on the outside of the Perimeter (I-285). Historically, the suburbs north of Atlanta are where most of the fan base is located, so the Braves are strategically making the move to be closer to them. Attendance at Turner Field started with four straight seasons with over 3 million fans. Since then attendance has hovered around 2.5 million. That’s good, but the Braves’ brass think they can do better.
According to the Braves’ new stadium website, Turner field has $150 million in infrastructure improvements that would be needed, yet aren’t enough to enhance the fan experience. Those additional improvements would make the project cost rise above $200 million.
On the other hand, the new stadium would cost $672 million to construct. The 60 acres of land on which the ballpark would sit has been “secured” according to the Braves. Cobb County would invest $450 million in the stadium, while the Braves would put in $200 million at the start and be responsible for cost overruns. The Braves would be the lead developer for the ancillary “ballpark village” adjacent to the stadium.
This announced move follows a string of other regional defections. Three performing arts organizations (Atlanta Ballet, Atlanta Opera, Atlanta Lyric Theatre) have already moved to or are in the process of moving to Cobb County, not far from the Braves’ planned stadium site.
White flight? Follow the money? Yes and yes. As outrageous as this announcement and the Falcons’ plans are to replace fairly new, modern stadia, if they can sucker partner with some municipality to foot the bill for a move, they’re going to do it every time.
Should the Braves be successful in their move, it would mark the first urban-to-suburban franchise move since 1973, when the Royals left temporary home Municipal Stadium for the Harry S. Truman Sports Complex, a similar distance away from Kansas City’s downtown core as the Braves’ site is from downtown Atlanta. The team plans to start play at the new ballpark in 2017. The current lease at Turner Field ends in 2016.
The Rays should apply for relocation to Turner Field.
You can see why the Braves would do this. If they really believe that Turner Field needs $200 million in renovations (which I question), and they’d only have to contribute $200 million toward a new Cobb Ballpark, and as a bonus they’d be moving to the affluent white suburbs where the bulk of their season ticket base is…
Still isn’t a justification for abandoning a 17 year old Camden style ballpark. But I can definitely see the appeal given they’ve found a group of suckers in Cobb County. That’s probably the only thing about this that doesn’t make me worry about a similar thing happening in other cities. Finding such patsy counties/cities who will put up 75% of a ballpark to replace a less than 20 year old ballpark isn’t going to happen in most places. Cobb County and Atlanta are just bizzare.
Also this is further justification for always requiring a team to have a financial stake in the ownership of any stadium. Part of the Braves justification for leaving is they have no ownership stake in Turner Field.
I am gobsmacked and yet not surprised. A perfectly nice, albeit imperfect stadium being replaced just like that. The thing is will municipalities ever learn that there is no winning fiscal stimulus from these type of publicly-funded developments? The ancillary benefits of a suburban stadium and “village” in Cobb? Thats why a deal like Cisco makes so much sense. What will Atlanta do with Turner? Implosion? Such a waste.
To think what we could do with that stadium… further proof that our situation is a joke when Atlanta can do this.
Who would have guessed that the braves and quite possibly the Rays would have a new yard before the A’s- total failure of bs
@GoA’s: Uhm….. everyone….
See my post in previous thread: I’ve been predicting for months now that one of the new modern ballparks would get replaced before the A’s ever get a new stadium. And here we are.
FWIW, I’ve been to Turner Field and Georgia Dome and thought the biggest problem was that the two facilities should have been built where the other stadium was – football should be on the outskirts of town and baseball right in the downtown. Atlanta did the reverse. But it looks like we’re talking about the Braves moving from Atlanta altogether, not to the downtown. Whatever.
Briggs, no one would have guessed that Turner would go down before the A’s. Anyone could have easily seen the Rays beating the A’s the punch, maybe even the Jays or Angels (assuming the Angels don’t just renovate Anaheim again). But this Turner Field replacement came out of left field quite literally given the direction the new ballpark is from Turner.
And I’ve seen it suggested on more than one site this morning that the Rays or A’s take over Turner Field and bring AL ball to the ATL metro area.
Apparently, there are problems at the current Turner Field site – the fans don’t like it, the Braves can’t get retail opportunities there. From what I read, Atlanta has turned down a number of requests by the Braves and now will lose the team.
I have never been to Turner Field but have heard that it is located in crime area. Is this true?
IMO, the fact that there are municipalities that are willing to pay $450 million is why MLB isn’t super interested in San Jose paying $0. The myth that cities have to pay for stadiums is important for all of the owners and they don’t want another team showing that a privately funded stadium will work.
Or Oakland paying $0 for that matter.
I can’t believe the Braves can sucker that County into $470 mil in debt. There are so many articles being posted on twitter about the school system furloughing teachers because of no money in the city and county. The Braves are going to get to go where they want and have someone else pay. Selig is loving this, and of course he supports this 100%.
Last, to the “Oakland only crowd” who say, “See, if only Lew would work with the city, they could have a new stadium”. There is no way in hell the city of oakland is putting money up for a stadium, much less $400mil. The Braves are moving because someone is going to pay for it, and they get to go where they want. Lew doesn’t want to be in Oakland, and Oakland isn’t paying.
re: IMO, the fact that there are municipalities that are willing to pay $450 million is why MLB isn’t super interested in San Jose paying $0.
…I agree. Selig would be more inclined to push San Jose over the goal line if the city was going to pay for the station, not provide an opportunity for another privately funded ballpark. MLB hates privately funded ballparks.
another typo: going to pay for the stadium (not station).
Well then they better be ready to surrender the entire state of California. The best they’re going to get is what they got down in San Diego with the 70-30 split the city and Padres came up with (and even that is deceiving as the Padres were required to spend an additional 300 million in ancillary investment around the ballpark too as part of the lease).
daniel, the area around Turner Field isn’t the best but it’s nowhere near as bad as the area around the Coliseum or Candlestick Park.
It’s sad to see all these public assets in the Atlanta area (the Opera, Ballet, baseball team, etc.) move to the suburbs, away from any form of public transit and away from the Downtown area. They’re doing the opposite of what every other American metro area is doing in terms of sustainable urban development.
Do I think that replacing either Turner Field or The Georgia Dome is a necessity? No I do not. Is it morally right? That can be debated as well. But business’s ( that includes The Braves & Falcons) must ( and do), think in the long-term and while the Tax Code, financing ( Low Interest Rate and Inflation environment), and political will are the ere, they will take advantage of it. What no Sports Team ( or University for that matter ( see Arizona State & Colorado State)) wants to see is an Oakland- Style Economic and Political situation happen. When conditions change ( and one day, they must), and they become the next A’s or Raiders.
If I am Wolff & Davis, I have to ask, if this deal will help to facilitate a change in the Tax Code in Washington? Keep in mind, because of the political anger over what happened with the Marlins Stadium, it ended up biting the Dolphins in the ASS, and they did not get what they wanted, so it becomes a real fear. Maybe the strategy becomes even more so to get out of town while I can ( if I am the A’s and ( in particular The Raiders). If you think it sounds like ” Musical Chairs” that is exactly what it is.
I lived in Atlanta for 15 years and I lived directly around the corner (Windy Hill Rd) from this site and I can tell you absolute certainty that this will be a traffic nightmare worse than the nightmare the have already!This project has no mass transit system EVEN CLOSE to it, and there is no freeway ramps directly next to stadium as they have to be accessed down side streets which along with the already congested HWY 41, this will be ugly, with that said, there is PLENTY of land to build a Braves metropolis and Cobb County has been looking to 1-up Atlanta for decades and this was a major get for Marietta!
And by the way, your comment on “white flight” is spot on, Atlanta is an african-american mecca unlike only Washington DC has seen, that area as well as the majority of areas in the eastern part of Atlanta are MORE THAN 85% african-american, now Georgia as a state is dominated by African Americans but the Cobb County, North Atlanta are more diverse than other parts as these are the affluent areas of the city (Alpharetta, Dunwoody, East Cobb).
This moves makes perfect sense for a few reasons.
1. Traffic in Atlanta is terrible in the Downtown area as it flows in both directions. The Atlanta Hawks and Thrashers suffered attendance wise because of this and the Hawks still do despite playing in a very nice arena. I expect the Braves attendance to hit 3M+ easily once the new park opens up as they will be far better located.
2. The Braves need to put in 200M anyways into Turner Field so why not put 200M into a brand new stadium and get more revenue from parking and ancillary development that they do not get now? Sounds like a plan to me.
3. Cobb County is forking up 450M for the project, a free handout is king in MLB as we all know and in the yes of Bud Selig.
I am sure they will be still called the “Atlanta Braves” and I cannot believe by 2017 they will be in a new park while MLB leaves the A’s holding their dicks in their hands for 5 years come January.
*eyes of Bud Selig
dig up turner field and fly it over to Howard terminal! problem solved 🙂
I made this argument on another site but it makes sense to me. This isn’t JUST about the money. No doubt the $450 million is a big driver of this, but for comparison lets say San Mateo offered the Giants $450 million to build a ballpark at the old Bay Meadows near the 92-101 interchange. Would the Giants take it? I highly doubt it. The Giants have a substantial ownership stake in their current park. Their current park is one of the more iconic parks in baseball with its waterfront location. Their current park is centrally located near numerous transit options in a great part of town. They custom designed their park to fit their then current and future needs and have continued to maintain and upgrade it since. And they control some ancillary revenues around the park with parking etc… And they’re not alone, teams like the Padres are similarly situated and also wouldn’t have an real reason to move.
The situation in Atlanta seems to be the perfect storm where they have no ownership stake in the park, the park has always been seen as deficient by the team to some extent due in part to its genesis as a 100,000 seat Olympic stadium, the park hasn’t been well maintained, they don’t control the ancillary revenues around the park, the park itself is not all that interesting nor is its location, it has limited transit access to MARTA via AirBART style buses, and it is not central to the bulk of their fan base.
That’s perfect storm situation is the one thing keeping me from thinking this will start a new stadium boom. That and the fact that a new ATL park isn’t going to be offering the world anything paradigm changing like Camden Yards did in 1992.
re: dig up turner field and fly it over to Howard terminal! problem solved
…Sure. After somebody fronts $200 million to deal with the Howard Terminal contamination and railroad obstructions. Howard Terminal = maximium investment for minimum return.
The new Braves/Falcon’s stadiums just shows the economic disparity between Oakland and Atlanta. Atlanta has the disposable income for new sports projects while Oakland does not. (We don’t need to crunch numbers like some ppl here like to do) The Braves alone contribute $100,000,000 a year to Georgia state taxes. Comparing Oakland’s problems to any other city vying for a new stadium or team is like apple and oranges; the other side will always look better than Oakland.
“No city is going to pay for a new park” – said a whole bunch of people who think Oakland has the A’s over a barrel.
Recent developments have me thinking that the bigger issue for MLB is not SJ v. Oakland… It’s “public v. private.”
It’s definitely possible, though I think MLB, like most of the country, has always treated California as an outlier itself. Public funding no more abhorrent than it is in California. And that is nothing new. The Giants had to get their own ballpark with private funds, Anaheim renovated Angel Stadium with private funds, Dodger Stadium was built and is being renovated with private funds. The NFL hasn’t been any more successful with the Niners stadium being 90% private, and both LA plans being almost entirely private. Only real public funding they got out of any city was the 70% of PETCO Park built with public funds. But the Padres still needed to contribute 30% of the stadium funds (and thus own 30% of the park today) and another $350 million in development funding around the ballpark.
So this is nothing new, I don’t think Selig expected large amounts of, if any, public funding for an A’s park any more than they did for the Giants. That said, you may be right to the extent that Selig is waiting to see if Oakland will pony up any public money. We already know San Jose won’t but Oakland hasn’t played completely out to MLB’s satisfaction on that account. And from that angle you might be correct that if Oakland came up with even a small amount, say 10-20% for publicly funding a ballpark that MLB would take that over the 0% in San Jose despite ownership’s questions about being able to pay for their portion privately in Oakland. That of course assumes Oakland could somehow come up with even 10-20% of a ballpark’s cost.
If you’re the only NFL or MLB team in the state, I imagine it’d be easier getting state funding in addition to local public funding.
Dan: Oakland has made it clear it expects the team owners to pay for the ballpark. Not sure where you’re coming from when you say MLB is waiting to see if Oakland will pony up public money. MLB has been waiting for that for 20 years – to no avail.
re: “No city is going to pay for a new park” – said a whole bunch of people who think Oakland has the A’s over a barrel.
…it’s only a matter of time before some city far away – Portland, Vegas, San Antonio, maybe even Sacramento – figures out the A’s are for the taking by merely offering to pay for half of a ballpark. San Jose and Oakland aren’t offering anything.
I just don’t get it! In the overwhelmingly Conservative/Republican suburbs of a major US Southern city there is a willingness to have the local/county govt. foot most of the bill for a new ballpark for use by a privately owned entity who will gainfully benefit from its operation. Go figure it out!
Political parties are rarely about principle. Just look at any election year argument “tit for tat” bullshit and it’s obvious. Domestic spying is my current favorite. I love listening to all my conservative friends attack Obama with the exact arguments they used to defend Bush from. My liberal friends defend Obama from the attacks they used to make on Bush. I just laugh and attack them all. No matter which end of the political spectrum you fall on, it’s hard to see anyone justifying the spending of $100’s of Millions to build a stadium for a private entity with the economic impact of MLB, but it has happened in communities of every political stripe. It continues to happen and it was agreed to in Sacramento just last year… If the NBA can get a few hundred million dollars out of a California city, why wouldn’t MLB and the NFL expect the same?
I am definitely left of center politically. I am definitely in favor of “Let the rich guy build his own palace.” And I am in favor of “Let the rich guy build his own palace in a place that lets him maximize his profit.”
Doesn’t surprise me in the slightest actually. Those kind of people are often all for corporate welfare, it’s personal welfare they can’t stand. Things like welfare, public medical insurance, food stamps, etc… drive their ire. Which may be why they have $450 million to blow on a ballpark when places in California don’t. We’re too busy taking care of our poor and sick citizens and not saving up for baseball parks and Olympic bids. Or at least that would probably be their argument.
The Private versus Public Debate is really not as big as one might think in the Oakland case. If the Coliseum Commission wanted to make sure they kept a team, they could offer Davis (or) Wolff for that matter, the land and Title for the Coliseum and parking lot in exchange for building a Stadium, the Mount Davis debt and staying for 50 years (that is similar to what they did in LA with the Coliseum and USC). I would be willing to bet that either Davis or Wolff would accept that, plus there would be plenty of investors who would jump at that chance. The problem is very few people feel like dealing with the likes of Quan, and Kaplan, because of the belief (real or perceived)that they are not serious about coming up with solutions to problems like the Coliseum (less than two months before the leases end for the A’s & Raiders, and Quan is nowhere to be found, and the City comes up with “solutions” like Howard’s Terminal that no one believes will work (Not even Bud Selig ). If and until they stop playing games, they cannot be taken seriously.
@Dan, You’re pointing to the hypocrisy of it all. Well stated!
re: solutions” like Howard’s Terminal that no one believes will work
Howard Terminal is a good thing to bring up for low-information voters, newscasters and sports columnists. Talk it up as a city-controlled site that keeps the A’s in Oakland and is a waterfront site. Don’t talk about the contamination and railroad obstruction problems and associated costs, the lack of available public and private funds and the fact that the site already has been looked at and rejected. It’s the proverbial drawing-lines-on-a-map approach to siting a ballpark, which Lew Wolff has panned.
What’s really stark to me is the response in the two regions (Atlanta vs the Bay Area). In Atlanta the city and it’s partners provided 100% of the funding for Turner Field less than 2 decades ago and now the team is fleeing for the suburbs for yet another majority publicly funded ballpark and Atlanta’s response is essentially, “more power to you, adios!” And said suburb’s residents don’t seem overly bent out of shape about it, both having a ballpark in their area or the costs.
Meanwhile in the Bay, the city of Oakland hasn’t done jack for the A’s in half a century and yet the team still tried to build a privately funded park in the city, arguably twice at Uptown and later Coliseum North, and ran into nothing but obstructions from both the city and landowners. So the A’s took their privately funded ballpark down the highway a similar distance to what the Braves are doing, and rather than finding a willing partner they ran into nothing but NIMBYs despite the fact the stadium had little public cost. And on top of that the city of Oakland did all it could to obstruct said move and started the “stealing our team” refrain (and continue to do so with SJ as well).
Just really strange to me how people react so differently in different places to similar situations (though the Bay Area move was FAR more favorable to taxpayers yet it ran into far more opposition).
deadspin posted about this
Some of yall are trying to steal my thunder 😉
I stated long ago that MLB may be leery of approving SJ because Wolff would have to pay for EVERYTHING: land and ballpark. This also doesn’t include possible indemnification towards the Giants. My town in theory would be getting the best deal EVER in stadium construction history. Yet here we are with a municipality ready to fork out $450 million for a new MLB ballpark. Wolff stated that a lot of owners were looking out for their own “interests” in possibly not approving a SJ move, and that doesn’t appear to apply to territorial rights. Other city’s with modern retro ballparks might not seek spanking new yards like the Braves, but they may need $100-200 million in renovations soon that will require “sucker” public funding.
SJ, do the right thing! Drop the stupid lawsuit and make an honest effort to get the A’s to town! Levis Stadium/SC-style public assistance, dip into CC Mello-Roos funding or get the damn land NOW and lease it to Wolff for dirt cheap!
Should have stated “other teams,” not “other city’s” in my previous comment.
Dan, the NIMBY issue pops up all over (New York is famous for them). The bigger problem, is the “So-Called Leaders” have their own agendas, thus have limited or no interest in solving problems (such as the Coliseum), because it is easier to say NO. A big problem the Oakland A’s have is Governor “Moonbeams” Jerry Brown who screwed the A’s as Mayor (remember “Affordable Housing” over a Stadium?) and is doing it again as Governor (with his Anti-Redevelopment policies). Throw in the Giants puppy dog Gavin Newsome as Lieutenant Governor, the media, people in Oakland working with the Giants (talk about Stalin’s quote about “Useful Idiots” that should be Exhibit A), and of course, Kaplan and Quan. Guess why two months from lease end with TWO teams we are at this point?
Ha. If only they could pick up Turner Field and ship it over to Oakland. I’m sure Oakland and the A’s would be grateful for a stadium that’s 30 years younger than the Coliseum.
But seriously, the Braves should be ashamed of themselves. There’s really no real reason for this.
BayMetro, why should the Braves be ashamed of themselves? They made a business decision. Is it wrong? Maybe, maybe not. But if you are the Braves or Falcons for that matter, you do not want to risk being in the A’s or Rays position 10-20 years from now. If you think Cobb County should be ashamed (spending taxpayers money), you would be on stronger ground.
I have to admit, at first I was irked by the very idea that the Braves would get not one, but two new ballparks in the time we’re still in our 60’s vintage multipurpose stadium (which oddly as the Coliseum is built today is most comparable to old Atlanta Fulton County Stadium). But then I came across a discussion that involved both an older Red Sox and Cubs fan and they pointed out something interesting. They know how we feel in a way.
Their teams have been playing in their same old “jewel box” ballparks for a century now. They watched as all the other teams got trendy new multipurpose stadia (or modern era baseball parks in LA and KC). And then they’ve had to watch as those same teams all got even newer venues with retractable domes like Skydome, or simply Camden-style parks. And while Fenway is revered today and got a very extensive experience improving renovation over the last decade (and Wrigley seems poised to do the same), both Fenway and Wrigley were not always as beloved as they are today. Indeed both were in a state that made the Coliseum seem envy worthy not too long ago (and Wrigley still has a ton of room for improvement). At one point both team’s fans would gladly have traded either park for one of the spacious 60’s multipurposoids (and lets face it even some Sox fans would still trade Fenway or Wrigley for a newer park even if they’re in the minority).
Not saying that means we should sit idle and accept that we’re stuck in the Coliseum for now, god knows we won’t and neither will Wolff. But at the same time we shouldn’t feel too slighted by the fact Atlanta has now doubled up where we’ve had nothing. We’re in good company with the likes of the Cubs and Sox fans who are now watching the Braves get their 5th new stadium since Fenway or Wrigley opened.
The most impressive thing about Fenway is how Bostonians have tolerated those tiny seats over the past century.
I wonder what a similar map of A’s ticket buyers would look like? Always wondered why they haven’t considered the 680 corridor.
“And said suburb’s residents don’t seem overly bent out of shape about it, both having a ballpark in their area or the costs.”
You don’t know that. This was just announced yesterday with no public discussion I’m aware of. There’s plenty of time for Tea Party-types and general anti-corporate welfare/Taxpayers for Common Sense-types to raise hell about this and scuttle the $450 million in public funds.
People can complain all they want, but one thing we do right in California is not spend hundreds of millions of taxpayers dollars on private professional sports palaces (compared to other states). If San Antonio wants to offer the A’s $450 million, that’s totally fair and the A’s should take it. There are plenty of other, better, things we could spend that money on.
@baycommuter: ML’s gotcha covered: https://newballpark.org/2010/01/07/dissect-this/
for people that complain about taxpayers money and stuff, please stop. The politicians are spending it on other things besides ballparks and stadiums. The corrupt pols on both sides are spending the money like crazy. So stop with the non-sense.
I think I already explained why they should be; they don’t NEED a new stadium. Of course, Turner Field won’t be the only major sports facility to be replaced not long after its open. In the NBA, Miami Arena was replaced by the Miami Heat just 11 years after opening, and there have been other cases similar to that. The BIG difference there is Miami Arena had almost no luxury suites, and seated less than 17,000. It that sense, the Miami Heat actually NEEDED a new arena to remain competitive. I’ve been to Turner Field, and despite it being a little outside of Downtown Atlanta (and perhaps not in the best neighborhood), there is really nothing major wrong with Turner Field. The neighborhood it’s in is a FAR cry from the neighborhoods the Coliseum and Candlestick Park are in, and unlike those two stadiums, is not in the center of an industrial, crime infested wasteland.
And I don’t think it’s fair to say the Braves and Falcons are comparable to the A’s and Raiders. For one, they are really the only two teams other than the Hawks in the state, and in the case of the Braves, they are well known as the “Team of the South”. Being the only MLB team in an entire region is much different than being 1 of 5 teams in a state like California (in the case of the A’s) Plus, Turner Field and the Georgia Dome are not as old as the Coliseum and are specifically FOR the teams that they host. It would take about 40 more years for the Braves to be in a situation like the A’s at Turner Field. That argument is BS.
You know the F35 program will cost 1 Trillion right ? Yes, that is a T.
so the complaint about spending tax money on ballparks is just silly. BTW, all pols from CA signed off on that F35 program.
“for people that complain about taxpayers money and stuff, please stop. The politicians are spending it on other things besides ballparks and stadiums. The corrupt pols on both sides are spending the money like crazy. So stop with the non-sense.”
They’re not all equally bad and not all spending is equally bad. This is a perfectly appropriate forum for debating the wisdom of professional sports subsidies.
Tim, actually if they want to object to the county spending that money they need to move fast. The vote to approve it takes place in less than two weeks.
All this talk about ballparks got me thinking since I thought this would make the Braves the most prolific movers in MLB. And it turns out I was right.
This will be the Braves 9th ballpark overall and their 7th in the modern era (ie: since 1900). Only the Cubs have had more parks overall with 11. But of course all but two of the Cubs parks were used prior to the modern era. The next closest team is the Reds with 5 ballpark moves in the modern era (just barely as the Reds moved stadiums in 1902). The Braves since 1900 have called the South End Grounds, Fenway Park, Braves Field, Milwaukee County Stadium, Atlanta-Fulton County Stadium, Turner Field and now the Cobb Ballpark home since 1900.
By comparison the A’s and Orioles, who are the only other MLB teams besides the Braves that have called 3 cities home have only played in 4 ballparks each since 1900.
So historically speaking what the Braves are doing fits with the character of their franchise. The Braves are never at home very long in any ballpark, averaging 19.16 years in a ballpark in the modern era (which they will beat with their 20 year tenure at Turner Field). They were the last team to build a then modern “jewel box” ballpark yet they were the first franchise to abandon their jewel box park when they left Braves Field for Milwaukee.
They were the first team to move into an “on speculation” stadium (like the Coliseum) when they moved into Milwaukee. They were the first team to move into a second on speculation stadium when they moved to Atlanta. And they’re the first team that has moved into 3 ballparks all paid for 100% with public funding at Milwaukee Co. Stadium, Fulton Co. Stadium and Turner Field.
That last fact no doubt is a large part of what has fueled the Braves seemingly endless wanderlust and is a big part of what is fueling the move to Cobb as well. Historically the Braves suckle at the public teat far more than any other MLB franchise and are continuing to do so.
The Braves’ move to Milwaukee stadium, with its miles of parking, had the Brooklyn Dodgers salivating for the same thing. But the Dodgers could not get it done in Brooklyn and we know the rest of the story…Was unaware the Orioles have been hosted in 3 cities. Looks like they spent a year in Milwaukee before ending up as the Saint Louis Browns.
Speaking of the Brooklyn Dodgers and parking, O’Malley wanted to have drive-in car suites where the right field suites currently are at Dodger Stadium. Suite ticket holders would drive their cars into the perch over the lower deck and watch the game as if it were a drive-in movie. It’s sad that a team which derived its name from public transit is now synonymous with automotive gridlock.
Yes, Dodger Stadium is on a hard-to-get-to hill surrounded by thousands of parking spaces…
I liked Fulton County Stadium. It wasn’t half-bad for a cookie cutter. The top deck was fairly low and gave a pretty good view of the action. It could be the charitable deception of nostalgia, but it’s not that different from the plaza level at the Coliseum, which are some of the best seats in all the MLB. I’ve only been to Turner Field once, many years ago and I wasn’t that Fonda it.
Thanks, Briggs. Seems like the 580 corridor is worth exploring.
I meant 680…but really, could be either, as long as it’s not too far from BART.