Cookie Cutter Retro

Via kegz.net, I found an article by Sports Illustrated columnist John Donovan on the death of "cookie-cutter" stadiums, in other words sky-high, circular multi-purpose stadiums with artificial turf. The article definitely jibes with the rise in popularity of retro stadiums like Camden Yards in Baltimore, the first and possibly best of these. Donovan slams the cookie-cutter stadiums, taking a down-with-Modernist-architecture stance with help from Joe Spear of HOK Sport + Venue + Event, the hand behind many of the recent retro stadium designs.

Many reasons exist for the demolition of these cookie-cutter parks in the last few years, including the desire of fans to be closer to the field (difficult with stadiums designed to accommodate both baseball and football), a dislike for the insensitive Modernist aesthetics and a preference for parks that hark back to the old days of baseball. As much as I don't like many of the retro designs favored today (Camden Yards is definitely an exception with its intelligent reuse of an adjacent warehouse) or the idea of historical pastiche for this or any use, I don't have any fondness for Three Rivers (Pittsburgh), Riverfront (Cincinnati) or Veterans (Philadelphia) Stadiums, three stadiums demolished in the last four years, or even Busch Stadium in St. Louis that is slated for demolition. While the fans' experience and aesthetics are of concern, I propose that winning is another factor that weighs heavily on a ball club's decision to raze a stadium, at least in the case of the cities mentioned.


Three Rivers Stadium

Looking at this page, it appears that the most recent division championship by either the Pirates, the Reds or the Phillies is 1995, when the Reds won the division but were unable to move beyond that. The same team holds the most recent World Series win, in 1990, while the Pennsylvania teams have to reach back to 1979 and 1980 respectively for their titles. In other words, all the statistics on that page point to the fact that none of these teams is performing very well, or has performed well for nearly a decade. If this is the case, why not tear down the stadium and build anew (or a-old as the retro stadiums indicate)?

If a ball team is doing well, are they going to mess with something that works? Probably not. It could be argued that these cookie-cutter stadiums contribute to the home teams' bad performance, but I doubt the argument would be sound. Most likely the success of the team and the related revenue, or lack thereof, contributes the greatest to a decision that these teams have faced recently regarding their homes. There might be other examples that refute my argument but I'm simply looking at the three teams and their stadiums noted above.