PDA

View Full Version : GABP Changes



Ltlabner
08-31-2006, 06:11 PM
Should the Reds explore changing the nature or construction of GABP to cut down on home runs?

Is it neccesarlly a bad thing to be a "home run park" if fans love to see the long ball?

Will being a "bandbox" require us to have a pitching staff of all aces to ever be successfull?

Would any good pitcher in their right mind want to pitch in GABP?

Is it the stadium or poor pitching that is causing all of these home runs?

I guess that's a lot of questions but it's a complex subject beyond the knee-jerk responce of "raise the walls!" anytime a homer flys out. I'm not advocating that we change anything, just thought it was an interesting topic for discussion.

flyer85
08-31-2006, 06:28 PM
leave GABP alone

smith288
08-31-2006, 06:41 PM
The only thing they should change is that horrible looking CF restraunt.

Joseph
08-31-2006, 06:42 PM
The only thing they should change is that horrible looking CF restraunt.

I'll second that.

Falls City Beer
08-31-2006, 06:44 PM
I'll second that.

What does it look like? I can't say I noticed.

Does it look like a Frisch's?

Ltlabner
08-31-2006, 06:47 PM
The only thing they should change is that horrible looking CF restraunt.

Is that what's in the batters eye, a resturant? I did not know that.

But yes, I agree the batters eye building is horrible. I think the rest of the stadium looks fantastic but then you get to that thing. Looks like they ran out of money in the design budget and just stole a building from highschool ballfield and stuck it in there.

Cyclone792
08-31-2006, 07:14 PM
If people want the Reds to consider altering GABP, the first question that should come to mind is: how much would it cost?

The answer to that question is probably far too much than it's worth. You can't move the plate back without serious structural changes because the foul lines in the corners run very close to the walls. Additionally, the premium Diamond Seating is already close enough to the plate as it is, and you know those won't be torn out.

If you want to move the fences back, think of how serious the structural changes would have to be given that the seating areas run right up behind the wall in many areas. In center field there are no seating areas, but the Batter's Eye Pavillion runs very close to the center field wall itself.

It's just next to impossible without some major structural changes that would be far more expensive than they'd be worth. I think GABP is going to be staying as it is for quite awhile.

BTW, I thought the Batter's Eye Pavillion was a sort of banquet hall for large groups, but I've never been inside so I could be mistaken.

redsfanmia
08-31-2006, 07:49 PM
I wish that the new ownership was on hand when the stadium was being designed and built. I think it would have been a much better designed and thought out stadium. I like the stadium but was VERY disappointed in it, nothing special about it IMO.

It8ifyifitsgrif
08-31-2006, 07:49 PM
fyi... There are aready plans to paint and improve gabp and the batter eye

Shaknb8k
08-31-2006, 08:09 PM
fyi... There are aready plans to paint and improve gabp and the batter eye

care to elaborate if you can?

TOBTTReds
08-31-2006, 09:08 PM
They should put up netting about 40 feet above all the walls so there are no HR's, we'd have double machines.


In reality, I think some wall heightening in RF wouldn't cost too much, or they could put up a chain link fence above the RF wall ala Baker Bowl (i think it was there). Although that would be hurendous to look through. So I guess there aren't many options.

How about this one...close "The Gap." They already put in the Frontgate Party deck. Put in another one on top to kill the major jet stream out of there.

captainmorgan07
08-31-2006, 09:10 PM
i got one word for the reds sneak in alil humidor

Hooligan
08-31-2006, 09:17 PM
Get a humidor.

CTA513
08-31-2006, 09:36 PM
i got one word for the reds sneak in alil humidor

I dont know if they will let the Reds have one, but its worth trying.

wheels
08-31-2006, 09:57 PM
They should put up netting about 40 feet above all the walls so there are no HR's, we'd have double machines.


In reality, I think some wall heightening in RF wouldn't cost too much, or they could put up a chain link fence above the RF wall ala Baker Bowl (i think it was there). Although that would be hurendous to look through. So I guess there aren't many options.

How about this one...close "The Gap." They already put in the Frontgate Party deck. Put in another one on top to kill the major jet stream out of there.


I think Baker Bowl had a huge wall made out of aluminum or tin.

Where's WoY?

REDREAD
08-31-2006, 10:05 PM
It's too late now, but I wish they had built the park to be at least a slight pitchers' park. With all the bandboxes in the league, it possibly would've given the Reds a homefield advantage to have a pitcher's park. Most of Dunn's HRs are no doubters anyhow.

Bowden and Allen were thinking short term. They wanted to build a park to help Casey and Jr hit Hr. I always thought that plan of "loading up on LH pitchers and batters" was flawed.

Anyhow, you build a pitcher's park and then possibly you don't have to spend as much money on premium starting pitchers. Make the OF large, get great gloves in the OF, and you have a nice advantage. I know Colorado tried that and failed, but the ball moves so fast up there when hit hard, I'm not sure that's a fair comparison.

The other advantage of having a pitching park is that it can make mediocre pitchers look a lot better for trade. (Kind of like Washington). If the park aided pitching numbers make the pitchers too pricey, you wouldn't have that much problem trading them.

alloverjr
08-31-2006, 10:06 PM
The best thing they could do to GABP is tear it down. Reminds me of Victory Field. Kinda plastic looking. But, I know this isn't the point of the thread.

As has been mentioned there is very little that can be done without decreasing seating capacity. Although that may never be an issue on non-giveaway nights. I think the biggest change is having a guy in the GM's chair, given a full off season, trade in his fly ball pitchers for ground ball pitchers. Oh, and then find some guys who can field it when it's hit.

Ltlabner
09-01-2006, 06:54 AM
Anyhow, you build a pitcher's park and then possibly you don't have to spend as much money on premium starting pitchers.

The other advantage of having a pitching park is that it can make mediocre pitchers look a lot better for trade. (Kind of like Washington).

I agree.

Being a bandbox imposes the "hidden cost" of having to have pitchers that are all above average to survive. Of course everybody wants all superstar pitchers but every team has to make do with some medocre guys on the staff. If you have a "pitchers park" you can get away with a few more medocre guys than if you have a "hitters park".

The other hidden cost is that it forces you to acquire only groundball type pitchers. This greatly limits the number of pitchers you could acquire or draft. If there's a weak market for pitching already, your teams market is even smaller because you need a specific type of pitcher. If you have a big "pitchers" park you can live with either type.

Obviously the home park is 1/2 the equation but since the trend has been smaller, more home run friendly parks you have to consider the effect on your pitching staff for away games too.

Overall, I see no need to change GABP, nor do I see it as a problem that so many homers are hit. As long as you work within the limitations & costs imposed on the pitching staff there's nothing wrong with so many balls flying out.

RedsManRick
09-01-2006, 09:28 AM
3 words: Twenty foot walls.

RedsFan75
09-01-2006, 09:31 AM
:D Naw, go for 40 all the way around.

Chip R
09-01-2006, 09:44 AM
It's too late now, but I wish they had built the park to be at least a slight pitchers' park. With all the bandboxes in the league, it possibly would've given the Reds a homefield advantage to have a pitcher's park. Most of Dunn's HRs are no doubters anyhow.

Bowden and Allen were thinking short term. They wanted to build a park to help Casey and Jr hit Hr. I always thought that plan of "loading up on LH pitchers and batters" was flawed.


One of the reasons they built such a small park, if you remember, is because they had limited space to work with. They had to squeeze it in there between the arena and Cinergy.

Not only do you have to factor in how much it would cost to move the walls back in construction costs but you also have to factor in the lost seats. They are going to be gone forever and aren't coming back. Besides, it's not like these HRs are clearing the fence by 5 feet anyway. Most of the HRs hit here are legitimate shots.

Want a solution to giving up so many HRs? Get better pitching. How many times have we seen guys like Oswalt shut the vaunted offenses the Reds have had in the past 4 years down?

BuckWoody
09-01-2006, 10:08 AM
Looks like I'm in the minority here but I have no problem with the batter's eye in center. I mean there has to be something there that's dark. They could have put up a big black sheet or a plywood wall but instead they put up a building that has bar in it and charge a little extra for groups to sit there....Brilliant!

I've sat there on many nights looking at the outfield and wondering what they might be able to do about that short right field. There aren't many options. One thing that I have thought of is to get rid of the stacks in center and extend the seating all the way over to the batters eye. They could then move the fences back and raise the height of the wall and offset the loss of the first few rows of seating. I'm sure that would be big bucks though and not likely to happen.

Another thing to bring up is the fact that the GABP is not a hitter's park. It's been brought up on here more than once that it is a neutral park since it gives up a lot of home runs but the dimensions cut down on the extra base hits. Maybe the idea here is the have pitchers that limit the number of base runners allowed so that when they do give up the inevitable tater, it's a solo shot instead of a three-run shot.

Highlifeman21
09-01-2006, 10:10 AM
Build a ballpark at Broadway Commons?

westofyou
09-01-2006, 10:22 AM
I think Baker Bowl had a huge wall made out of aluminum or tin.

Where's WoY?

Tin

Baker Bowl, hemed in by railroad tracks, and the first steel and concrete stadium.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/BakerBowl.gif

The first year of LA found them facing what Alston called "The Chinese Wall"

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/MemorialColiseum_spaced.gif
Alston said when he first saw the field he thought that all of Ebbetts could sit on the grass and not touch the stands.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/CrosleyField.gif

Crosley Field was a pure pitchers park until the 40's, and ten years later it was a hitters park all around thanks to The Goat Run the Reds often had trouble drawing when they didn't win, they had no sexy offense the 1956 season cemented in the eyes of the owners that offense sells in Cincinnati better then pitching and thus, that is where we are today.



As in some other stadiums, the data on field dimensions at Crosley Field are a little suspect. The original field dimensions were supposedly 360 feet down both the left and right field lines, but given the latter dimensions as shown above (which were pretty much established by 1938), that would only be possible if home plate had been subsequently moved about 30 feet toward the left side, which would have left an extremely unequal foul territory. In fact, home plate WAS moved considerably more than once, in 1927 and in 1938, but this was mostly in a forward direction. These changes reduced the distance to center field from 420 feet to 387 feet, the shortest in the majors other than Ebbets Field in its last decade.

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/index.shtml

terminator
09-01-2006, 10:49 AM
The park doesn't need to be changed.

Does anyone think the Yankees wouldn't win 90-100 games year-in and year-out in GABP?

The Mets, Cardinals, Dodgers, Yankees, Tigers and A's would all still be winning their divisions if they were playing in GABP.

What we need to do is increase our number of talented players. Plain and simple. Changing the park would just change our run differential to the difference between two high numbers to the difference between two lower numbers.

ochre
09-01-2006, 10:55 AM
I'd bring in a few groundball pitchers and better infield defense before I reengineered teh ballpark.

Homer Bailey
09-01-2006, 03:50 PM
The Reds are never going to be able to attract any free agent pitchers in this park. They are going to have to overpay like they did for Eric Milton, and like the Rockies did back in '01 (I think) with Mike Hampton.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of one really good team that plays in a hitters park and that is the Yankees. Correct me if I'm wrong?

BoydsOfSummer
09-01-2006, 08:55 PM
here is an idey. Put a nice big scoreboard out in right so's Big Rik can enjoy replays and stuff from his cheap seats in the bleachers!

UC_Ken
09-01-2006, 09:24 PM
The Reds are never going to be able to attract any free agent pitchers in this park. They are going to have to overpay like they did for Eric Milton, and like the Rockies did back in '01 (I think) with Mike Hampton.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of one really good team that plays in a hitters park and that is the Yankees. Correct me if I'm wrong?

Red Sox have had a great run lately.

Yachtzee
09-01-2006, 11:10 PM
The only thing I would do would be to do some sort of refacing of the batter's eye restaurant. I think it could be done relatively cheaply, much cheaper than getting rid of it, and it could be done to look more congruous with the rest of the ballpark.

RANDY IN INDY
09-02-2006, 08:25 AM
I think they should "86" it and do something else with the space.

redsfanfalcon
09-02-2006, 03:17 PM
I have a friend that works with the Reds, and he told me a while back that they were seriously discussing taking out the batter's eye restaurant and moving CF back, and also taking out some rows of seats. We had that discussion about 3 months ago.

mth123
09-02-2006, 06:52 PM
I'd get rid of the magic spot in left center field where cans of corn turn into doubles.

Yachtzee
09-02-2006, 07:02 PM
I'd get rid of the magic spot in left center field where cans of corn turn into doubles.

Sorry, that's caused by a geomagnetic anomoly, so it may be tough to remedy. Rumor has it, the Reds have two guys locked in a room, typing a mysterious code into a computer every 108 minutes to try to solve the problem. ;)

johngalt
09-02-2006, 07:10 PM
You guys realize that MLB has all kinds of restrictions on the color, shape, design, etc. of the batter's eye area right? Look around the league - it's not like there's a whole lot of award-winning designs in those spots. At least the Reds made it a group area so that the space wasn't completely wasted.

redsfanfalcon
09-02-2006, 08:44 PM
You guys realize that MLB has all kinds of restrictions on the color, shape, design, etc. of the batter's eye area right? Look around the league - it's not like there's a whole lot of award-winning designs in those spots. At least the Reds made it a group area so that the space wasn't completely wasted.

I realize it has to be black, but they are talking about getting rid of the restaurant, moving the fences back, then putting in a new batter's eye.

BCubb2003
09-02-2006, 09:14 PM
Some ballparks have a grassy knoll or other dark green plantings around the batter's eye to soften the effect.

Cooper
09-03-2006, 02:30 AM
IIRC, i remember reading about a park in the PCL (triple A) that was 233 down the left field line ...the fence was 60 feet high. I wanna say it was in the 70's when it was like this --and i think it was El Paso. The article was in Baseball Digest and i remember thinking (i was 10 or 11) "maybe i could hit a homer there!!".

WOY --any info?

Btw, i like when parks have odd dimensions...makes the game fun.

Any good GM should be able to make the adjustments for park factors.

GoGoWhiteSox
09-03-2006, 02:40 AM
The Reds are never going to be able to attract any free agent pitchers in this park. They are going to have to overpay like they did for Eric Milton, and like the Rockies did back in '01 (I think) with Mike Hampton.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of one really good team that plays in a hitters park and that is the Yankees. Correct me if I'm wrong?
The White Sox play in a hitter's park.

Newman4
09-03-2006, 08:54 AM
You guys realize that MLB has all kinds of restrictions on the color, shape, design, etc. of the batter's eye area right? Look around the league - it's not like there's a whole lot of award-winning designs in those spots. At least the Reds made it a group area so that the space wasn't completely wasted.

Actually, it seems that it just needs to be a solid color backdrop. The Rockies batters eye doesn't look bad with the green shrubs and green backdrop.

http://www.ballparkwatch.com/images/colorado/coors_8.jpg

http://www.ballparkwatch.com/images/colorado/coors_14.jpg

Philadelphia has RED brick

http://members.tripod.com/franksballparks/cbp2.jpg

Apparently the Cubs just have more ivy:

http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/9627/Chicago/chwrigly.jpg

The black monster is just ugly. I think the grass would be ok to leave and then make a big standing area with some picnic tables like they have in Atlanta. Whew, I been watching to much HGTV with my wife lol :D

Ltlabner
09-03-2006, 09:07 AM
I prefer the way the batters eye is blended into the surrounding structure at the Rockies ballpark. The batters eye at GABP just looks out of place and doesn't seem to "flow" with the rest of the ballpark.

Thanks for posting the pics Newman4.

Newman4
09-03-2006, 09:12 AM
I prefer the way the batters eye is blended into the surrounding structure at the Rockies ballpark. The batters eye at GABP just looks out of place and doesn't seem to "flow" with the rest of the ballpark.

Thanks for posting the pics Newman4.

Exactly. A lot of people don't like the white and red of GABP, but it's the team colors and then right in the middle is this big black clod. The walls are green, so it could at least be green.

Always Red
09-03-2006, 11:43 AM
Well, maybe along with getting rid of the black in the uni's, Castellini will get rid of the black behemoth in CF. or at least paint it green.

Much better would be the greenery posted above- thanks for the great pics, Newman!

BoydsOfSummer
09-03-2006, 04:23 PM
Well, maybe along with getting rid of the black in the uni's, Castellini will get rid of the black behemoth in CF. or at least paint it green.

Much better would be the greenery posted above- thanks for the great pics, Newman!

Paint Junior green also since they are both immoveable objects in the same general vicinity.

mth123
09-03-2006, 04:38 PM
Paint Junior green also since they are both immoveable objects in the same general vicinity.

:D

Always Red
09-03-2006, 09:38 PM
Paint Junior green also since they are both immoveable objects in the same general vicinity.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

George Anderson
09-04-2006, 12:29 AM
I like GABP, it sure as heck beats Riverfront/Cinergy but I am slightly dissapointed because it just doesnt seem to be as nice as other newer stadiums I have been to like Comerica Park and Jacobs Field.I think GABP would look alot nicer had more brick been used on the structure.

I heard rumors that the costs for Paul Brown stadium over ran and the city had to cut corners on GABP. Any truth to this?

Ltlabner
09-04-2006, 07:21 AM
I heard rumors that the costs for Paul Brown stadium over ran and the city had to cut corners on GABP. Any truth to this?

Paul Brown Stadium had serious cost overruns. IIRC it somewhere close to twice as expensive as planned.

Again IIRC the sales tax increase was designed to pay for both stadiums from the same tax increase.

But I don't know if that meant that the funds for GABP were "used up" by PBS.

My guess is that because PBS is sorta "space age" looking with zero brick, stainess steel perforated pannels on the sides and loads of white concrete that someone wanted GABP to be roughly simular so they didn't clash. That may be why GABP has zero brick but that is 100% speculation (of course the Natl Underground Railroad Museum is made from all red and light brown squared stones that resemble brick from a distance so it totally clashes with both stadiums. So what do I know).

And I agree with you, I like GABP but I prefer brick, even if a decortive facade over concrete, over stark white concrete.

westofyou
09-04-2006, 10:24 AM
I heard rumors that the costs for Paul Brown stadium over ran and the city had to cut corners on GABP. Any truth to this?
The Reds and Bengals both have new riverfront stadiums, paid for by taxpayers through a half-penny increase in the Hamilton County sales tax.

That's where the similarities between Great American Ball Park and Paul Brown Stadium - and the deals between Hamilton County and Cincinnati's two professional sports teams - end.

Consider these differences:

There were no cost overruns for the Reds ballpark, even though the team agreed to pay for them.

Taxpayers paid $51 million in overruns at Paul Brown Stadium, plus another $1 million spent by the county in legal fees trying to get some of that money back.

The Reds will contribute $30 million toward construction of their stadium - with money coming directly from the team's bank account.

The Bengals $26 million contribution to Paul Brown Stadium came from their fans, who purchased personal seat licenses for the right to buy season tickets. Hamilton County officials ran the seat license program and, last year, Bengals officials denied to the Internal Revenue Service that the $26 million was theirs.

The Reds are paying more than $11 million for luxury items in the ballpark, such as statues of Crosley Field-era players, mosaics near the park's entrance, a sculpture on the side of the team's administration building and much of the Hall of Fame to open in 2004.

In contrast, the Bengals complained when the county declined - amid cost overruns - to spend additional money for unbudgeted upgrades.

In 1999, the Bengals were upset that Hamilton County refused to release funds for upgrades, which a lease provision allowed if the project came in under its $287 million budget. Construction managers advised the county against releasing the money, requesting instead that additional funds be used so they could hire more staff to ensure the stadium would open on time.

Troy Blackburn, who is Mike Brown's son-in-law and worked as the team's director of stadium development, criticized the county's decision to hold onto the money.

"It seems unseemly that (construction managers would) exacerbate the problem by requesting additional fee(s) now when ... they are arguing that the project not release any dollars for improvements or upgrades," Blackburn wrote in a June 10, 1999 memo. "This strikes me as analogous to the child that kills his parents and then asks the court for mercy because he is an orphan."

Hamilton County Administrator Dave Krings said the Reds took a much different and more helpful approach to their project. The team worked with a lease agreement that forced the Reds to pay for overruns and capped the county's contribution to the stadium at $280 million.

"With the Reds, it was a partnership arrangement from the start, both in terms of controlling the cost and producing a quality facility," Krings said.

Helping that improved attitude is a construction project that has remained remarkably free of the overruns, controversy and squabbling between the team and the county that came to define the Paul Brown Stadium project.

"To the Reds' credit, they did not push to get the kind of unconscionable deal that the Bengals got," said Todd Portune, Hamilton County commissioner. He won election in 2000 after running on a campaign that criticized overruns at the football stadium.

Portune and others say Bengals' management was more demanding than the Reds in lease and construction negotiations.

Architect Michael Schuster, who served as the Reds design consultant for the project, said cooperation defined the baseball project.

"The Reds were very cost-conscious and felt they had a responsibility to the fans and the city to make sure that we spent the right amount of money," Schuster said. "Money was never a hammer hanging over every single issue because the Reds were willing to study the issues and make decisions that were helpful."

John Allen, the Reds chief operating officer, wouldn't compare the deals. He said only that the Reds are pleased with their stadium.

"We have a very, very tight budget and in order to do certain things, the Reds are paying for a few things on our own," Allen said. "I think the learning curve from (Paul Brown Stadium) had to have a positive impact on our job."

The county hiring a construction project executive at more than $100,000 per year to act as a liaison between commissioners and the construction managers building the baseball stadium.

Making sure there was sufficient contingency money in the budget for unanticipated expenses. The ballpark had a 10-percent contingency while the football stadium had just over 1 percent.

The county hiring an outside construction auditor, at more than $500,000, to track expenses.

Negotiating a Reds lease to make the team responsible for any overruns on the project. The lease also had no provision for financial penalties against the county if the ballpark wasn't completed on time.

Holding all ballpark budget updates in public. That was something that didn't happen with Paul Brown Stadium until the Enquirer reported on the commissioners' practice of receiving project briefings in closed-door sessions, where they made decisions and even spent public money.

The Reds' decision to hire a construction manager and design consultant to work with construction managers on the project.

"We were responsible for any cost overruns, so we spent some money" on consultants, Allen said. "The county will tell you it really helped out to have a voice coming from the Reds."


http://reds.enquirer.com/2003/03/18/wwwred1a18.html

indyred
09-05-2006, 10:58 AM
They are going to change the center field area. I really hope they move the fences back in CF. Could be done without losing seats. Right field needs to raise the fences some, a bunch of cheap one's drop in there just a few rows back. Do what the Phillies did, raise the fences a few feet (mesh) and add some flowers/shrubs around them.....take a few rows out. There outfield seats, they aren't that special anyways. I think they have said just minor tweaks have cut a good 30 dingers off there total there.....I agree. As much as people say the park is neutral. It is #1 this year in home runs allowed. Gives up a bunch of runs and pitcher's will not want to come here as FA. It was the main reason the Phils did change there new park, when first 2 years it was giving up way too many homers. They made changes.

TeamBoone
09-05-2006, 03:07 PM
For the person who prefers brick, the two buildings that "hide" the stark white concrete are brick.

During yesterday's game, one of the interviewees stated they will add a party deck atop the batters eye and that foliage will also be added. In addition, a beer garden will be added between the batters eye and the misters under the smokestacks. He said some others things are also being considered but declined to elaborate.

johngalt
09-05-2006, 04:36 PM
During yesterday's game, one of the interviewees stated they will add a party deck atop the batters eye and that foliage will also be added. In addition, a beer garden will be added between the batters eye and the misters under the smokestacks. He said some others things are also being considered but declined to elaborate.

That was actually Bob Castellini's son Phil I believe who was being interviewed by George and Chris. Sounded like some interesting changes.

TeamBoone
09-05-2006, 06:12 PM
That was actually Bob Castellini's son Phil I believe who was being interviewed by George and Chris. Sounded like some interesting changes.

Ah, you're right! That's exactly who it was... I couldn't remember.

I loved that yesterday's game was short on commercial interruption and enjoyed the interviews with the Reds' work force. It was very informative and a nice tribute to these folks on Labor Day.

sonny
09-06-2006, 05:30 AM
i would actually like to get rid of the power stacks and relace it with oh, i don't know, something else classic baseball stadiums have. theres an element of cheapness in the stacks. you think im crazy don't you? stop labeling me!

Jpup
09-06-2006, 05:55 AM
I like the stacks, maybe it's just me. The beer garden idea seems to follow what happenned this past offseason at Miller Park. I don't know how a "party deck" on top of the batter's eye would look? It couldn't be good. I like GABP, I just wish they would fix the mess outside. It looks bad.

TeamBoone
09-06-2006, 10:22 AM
What mess outside? It has two very nice brick buildings... one housing the Reds Hall of Fame and gift shop and the other housing the administrative offices and the ticketing "booths", the latter sporting an absolutely beautiful bass relief from street level to the upper story.

The plaza is welcoming with the inscribed bricks, low walls, and great statues that lead to the main entry gates. I think it's beautiful.

There's no doubt in my mind that the party deck will not be an eyesore. It's not like it's just being thrown up there to utilize the space.

I like the stacks too. They're reminiscent of the riverboats which are such a big part of Cincinnati's history. And the misters underneath are a Godsend on hot sticky days... which is just about every day throughout the summer. I'm not exactly sure of the location of the beer garden but it's somewhere in that vicinity... between the stacks and the batter's eye, I think.

dabvu2498
09-06-2006, 10:28 AM
What mess outside?

The mess outside would be the "banks" area. Of course, the Reds have no control over this, but may have some political power to bear.

For the record, I hate the stacks. Cartoonish.

Always Red
09-06-2006, 10:29 AM
What mess outside? It has two very nice brick buildings... one housing the Reds Hall of Fame and gift shop and the other housing the administrative offices and the ticketing "booths", the latter sporting an absolutely beautiful bass relief from street level to the upper story.

The plaza is welcoming with the inscribed bricks, low walls, and great statues that lead to the main entry gates. I think it's beautiful.

There's no doubt in my mind that the party deck will not be an eyesore. It's not like it's just being thrown up there to utilize the space.

I like the stacks too. They're reminiscent of the riverboats which are such a big part of Cincinnati's history. And the misters underneath are a Godsend on hot sticky days... which is just about every day throughout the summer. I'm not exactly sure of the location of the beer garden but it's somewhere in that vicinity... between the stacks and the batter's eye, I think.
I think it's a beautiful park, too. I like the stacks, as well. I'd get rid of the riverboat wheel (I think it's a bit hokey, but that's me) and grow ivy all over the black part of the batter's eye except for the black windows.

The previous poster was probably referring to the "Banks," the mess that does exist between the Freedom Center and the ballpark.

dabvu2498
09-06-2006, 10:35 AM
I'd get rid of the riverboat wheel (I think it's a bit hokey, but that's me)

The paddlewheel is actually down on street level at the public landing.

TeamBoone
09-06-2006, 10:36 AM
You're right, The Banks are a mess. But as you said, the Reds have no control over that. It will come in time, but Lord only knows how much time! The city just can't seem to get it done. I have no idea what the problem is. It would be nice if they just planted grass while the rusty wheel turns slowly in City Hall.

Though it's not great, I kind of like the riverboat wheel and the "fog" it emits. It's not located inside the park though, so it certainly doesn't detract from it. It does add a bit of curiosity on the river walk.

KittyDuran
09-06-2006, 11:25 AM
The previous poster was probably referring to the "Banks," the mess that does exist between the Freedom Center and the ballpark.Right now the Cirque Du Soleil is there [which looks kinda nice].

Ltlabner
09-06-2006, 12:04 PM
I think BCast is chairing the group trying to get the Banks project out of the political morrass and back to life. So he might be able to use some of the Reds "clout" to get things done.

Good luck to him.

TeamBoone
09-06-2006, 05:49 PM
In addition, a beer garden will be added between the batters eye and the misters under the smokestacks.

Ooops! Between the Batters eye and the last group of seats down the 3rd base line, above the bullpen.

paintmered
09-06-2006, 05:55 PM
The mess outside would be the "banks" area. Of course, the Reds have no control over this, but may have some political power to bear.

For the record, I hate the stacks. Cartoonish.

Castellini is wearing the biggest hat for the Banks project now. Interestingly, it's progressed farther in the few months he's been in charge than it has in the five previous years.

But still, I'd be shocked to see any dirt being moved before 2008.

ochre
09-06-2006, 06:36 PM
Castellini is wearing the biggest hat for the Banks project now. Interestingly, it's progressed farther in the few months he's been in charge than it has in the five previous years.

But still, I'd be shocked to see any dirt being moved before 2008.
Castellini and the riverfront, eh?


Lindner kept stake in Castellini Co. quiet

Financier owned firm during crucial land sale
Cincinnati Business Courier - December 20, 2002
by Lucy May and Dan Monk (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/bin/search?t=cincinnati&am=cincinnati&q=%22Lucy%20May%20and%20Dan%20Monk%22&f=byline&am=120_days&r=20)
Courier Staff Reporters


In days, one of the last remnants of Cincinnati's old riverfront, Cinergy Field, will be imploded, blown into a million tiny pieces on the shores of the Ohio River. The timing is ironic, coming just weeks after the discovery of a missing puzzle piece for how Cincinnati's new riverfront took shape.
That puzzle piece was revealed Dec. 13 in an unlikely place, a one-page news release in which Chiquita Brands International Inc. (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/bin/search?q=%22Chiquita%20Brands%20International%20In c%22&t=cincinnati) announced it was selling its ownership stake in Greater Cincinnati's largest produce distribution firm, the Castellini Co. (http://www.bizjournals.com/search/bin/search?q=%22Castellini%20Co%22&t=cincinnati), for $45 million. Chairman Robert Castellini and members of his management team bought the company back from Chiquita for $21 million in cash and assumption of debt.
The news registered barely a blip on the business radar screen, a relatively small deal that will give Chiquita a $10 million gain and decrease its annual earnings before taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) by $8 million.
What made the deal interesting was that Chiquita, controlled until this year by Cincinnati financier Carl Lindner, had never previously disclosed that it owned Castellini, despite years of speculation that the ownership ties existed. That speculation reached a peak in the late 1990s, when some observers felt Lindner influenced the siting of Paul Brown Stadium to force Hamilton County to acquire Castellini's riverfront land. The county paid $36.5 million for Castellini's 24-acre riverfront property in 1998, although county officials now say Lindner had no impact on the decision.
Chiquita spokesman Michael Mitchell said Castellini got "the great bulk of the proceeds" from the land sale, since the real estate was owned by the Castellini family, not by the company.
Mitchell said Chiquita received a small share of the proceeds related to the county's purchase of lease agreements involving the Castellini Co.
Mitchell also said the banana company acquired "substantially all of the equity interest in Castellini" in 1988. Another news release, issued by Castellini Co., said Robert Castellini retained a majority of the voting stock.
"There was voting stock, and there was nonvoting stock," said Mitchell. "(Robert Castellini) owned a majority of the voting shares."
The voting stock gave Castellini control over the company's operations.
Both companies and Lindner, through a spokeswoman, declined to say how the ownership arrangement came about or say why it was never disclosed.
"It was not required under SEC disclosure rules," said Mitchell, "and we chose not to disclose it."
What all of that means in the context of Cincinnati's reinvented riverfront remains murky. By the time Paul Brown Stadium gave Castellini a way out of his riverfront property, Castellini had tried to redevelop the land himself for nearly a decade, first proposing a floating entertainment complex, then a mixture of hotels, retail and housing. Hampering those efforts was the fact that much of Castellini's land was in a flood plain, making it more costly to develop.
Nevertheless, Castellini was still working to develop the western riverfront when the Bengals began the stadium-development process by threatening to leave town in 1995. The Bengals' original goal was a new stadium located just west of the Roebling Suspension Bridge, a spot also coveted by the Cincinnati Reds, then owned by Marge Schott, with Lindner holding a minority stake.
After intense negotiations among business leaders and a lengthy public planning process, city and county officials moved the Bengals west. The Reds moved east, making way for The Banks, a mixed-use development that city and county leaders hope will produce housing, retail, office buildings and a hotel on the land between the stadiums.
Hamilton County Administrator David Krings said Lindner's ownership interest in the Castellini group had no impact on the county's stadium planning or negotiations. He said he wasn't even sure that he knew of Lindner's ownership stake. Other local business leaders, who did not want to be quoted, agreed with Krings that Lindner's ownership had no impact. Others aren't so sure.
Rob Fredericks, a legislative aide to Hamilton County Commissioner John Dowlin, said former Commissioner Bob Bedinghaus changed his bargaining stance on the Castellini land after receiving a phone call from Lindner. Fredericks said he attended a meeting where Bedinghaus disclosed the call.
Attorney Robert Manley, who represented several produce houses relocated by the Bengals' stadium project, said one of his clients told him Lindner directly negotiated Castellini's land sale with Bedinghaus. Manley said his client got that information from either Lindner or Bedinghaus. He wouldn't say which, nor would he identify the client.
Bedinghaus declined to comment for this story, but a local business leader, who didn't want to be identified but was close to the negotiations, downplayed Lindner's influence.
"I never saw his hand in that thing," he said.
Whatever Lindner's involvement, this much has long been clear: The Bengals siting decision added millions to the project's price tag. It meant the county had to purchase more land than originally expected and grant the Bengals concessions, including the placement of the team's three practice fields on the western riverfront.
Hamilton County initially budgeted $50 million for stadium land. In the end, it paid $68 million, including more than $1 million per acre for the Castellini property. The land-acquisition process also took longer than expected, forcing design changes and construction delays. The county once estimated moving Paul Brown Stadium further west added more than $100 million in stadium cost.
When asked if it was worth it, Krings said, "I think that the region is getting an excellent riverfront that it wouldn't have had otherwise."
Yet it has come at a cost the county continues to bear due to lower-than-expected sales tax revenues.
"Sometimes leadership is painful," Krings said.

TeamBoone
09-06-2006, 11:40 PM
I remember reading a long long time ago (and no, I'm not going to take the time to try to find the article) that Bob Castellini offered to GIVE his riverfront property to the Reds, but that it took them such a long time to make a decision as to where they wanted to build, that he ended up selling it to Hamilton County for the Bengals stadium.

Jpup
09-07-2006, 07:27 AM
The mess outside would be the "banks" area. Of course, the Reds have no control over this, but may have some political power to bear.

exactly. it's awful. It takes a lot away from the walk across the river when coming from KY. It gives a bad impression for people that haven't been to the area before. The idea of planting grass and keeping it very manicured would be great.

Chip R
09-07-2006, 09:10 AM
exactly. it's awful. It takes a lot away from the walk across the river when coming from KY. It gives a bad impression for people that haven't been to the area before. The idea of planting grass and keeping it very manicured would be great.

Like they could get anyone to agree on that. They would probably spend a year deciding what kind of grass to use and another year to interview companies to put the grass in. Then it would take another year to actually sod the thing.

Always Red
09-07-2006, 09:25 AM
Like they could get anyone to agree on that. They would probably spend a year deciding what kind of grass to use and another year to interview companies to put the grass in. Then it would take another year to actually sod the thing.

I never realized that growing grass was so complicated until the Bengals tried to do it. ;)

Politically seeded grass is the hardest kind to grow....

Ltlabner
09-07-2006, 09:51 AM
Like they could get anyone to agree on that. They would probably spend a year deciding what kind of grass to use and another year to interview companies to put the grass in. Then it would take another year to actually sod the thing.

It's prob a thread for "Non-Baseball Chatter" but the amount of politicall inepitude in Cincinnati vis-a-vis the entire riverfront development process (especially when compared to the northern Kentucky side) is spectacular. As you said Chip, if someone proposed just making a beautifull "mall" type area out of the banks with grass, reflection pools, a walking path or whatnot would probably turn into a 10 year polticial cat fight chock full of law suits, protests, wild speculation, news conferences and plenty of local heek-hack.

Chip R
09-07-2006, 10:52 AM
It's prob a thread for "Non-Baseball Chatter" but the amount of politicall inepitude in Cincinnati vis-a-vis the entire riverfront development process (especially when compared to the northern Kentucky side) is spectacular. As you said Chip, if someone proposed just making a beautifull "mall" type area out of the banks with grass, reflection pools, a walking path or whatnot would probably turn into a 10 year polticial cat fight chock full of law suits, protests, wild speculation, news conferences and plenty of local heek-hack.

It probably would be a P thread but I don't think you can find anyone who would disagree with that assessment. :laugh: It's just so odd that little old Newport, KY can do so much while big old Cincinnati can't walk and chew gum at the same time. Perhaps that's the benefit of being a smaller community. Less of an impediment to getting things done.

But getting back to the ballpark, sure there are some things you'd like to tweak here and there but all in all it's a pretty nice place to watch a game.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-07-2006, 10:55 AM
Next time you are at a game and walking around the concession area behind the RF stands, take look towards the river. It ain't pretty.

From the road to across it along the river bank is nothing but weeds. I know the Reds have nothing to do with this, but it's not a pretty picture. I took a couple pictures of it at the last game I went to (14-0 win over 'stros) and if I can even figure out how to post pics I'll put them in this thread. Yuck!

Things I'd like to see improved:

-Too much exposed concrete. Would rather see brick. This should be an easy fix.

-Batter's eye and smoke stacks are cheesy. What are you gonna do? I can live with the smoke stacks, but I'd like to see them do something with the batter's eye. It looks like something you'd see in Williamsport, PA. Very little league-ish.

-Wish they would have made an upper deck wrapped around the RF line for Dunn's shot to be deposited into. He can't hit the ball in the river (like Bonds in SF with the Bay), it's too far, so why have that so opened? It looks like the stadium was never completed. Too unbalanced. All that weight shifted to LF with the bleachers and it goes down hill all the way to the RF moondeck. I know they wanted to pay tribute to Crosley with the moon deck, but is there a way they could have done it without leaving the whole RF exposed to look like a minor league stadium? It's just not cozy. I love parks that make you feel like you are nestled in. GABP just seems way too open.

-The notch. Nothing can be done, but it's pretty cheesy and I'm sure contributes to the wind tunnel that converts some routine fly balls into HR's.

-The area arouind the stadium is weak. You have to cross I-71 to get to a the In-Between, which is all that is really there on the cincy side and you have to cross the bridge to Ky to get to the real action. Newport makes Cincy around the stadium look pretty weak. It's too bad you can't pick up Newprt and deposit it around GABP.

-Clean up the area behind the stadium, along the river. As I mentioned below, it does not look good. I wish they could just close down that road (Mehring way), and make it a brick path with shops, restaurants, and bars on each side. You could even have some nice places, right on the river. Make it like Camden with nice places to go to after the game. Keep the $$ in Cincy and give people a reason to stick around after the game.

TeamBoone
09-07-2006, 12:21 PM
My comments are in bold:


Next time you are at a game and walking around the concession area behind the RF stands, take look towards the river. It ain't pretty. I disagree; I think it's very pretty and even with the planned development, I hope they leave that relatively small area as is; I find it serene. (picture below)

From the road to across it along the river bank is nothing but weeds. I know the Reds have nothing to do with this, but it's not a pretty picture. I took a couple pictures of it at the last game I went to (14-0 win over 'stros) and if I can even figure out how to post pics I'll put them in this thread. Yuck!

Things I'd like to see improved:

-Too much exposed concrete. Would rather see brick. This should be an easy fix. Take a look at the Jake... nothing but concrete. And where exactly would you suggest putting brick inside the stadium? There's not much empty space to utilize.

-Batter's eye and smoke stacks are cheesy. Both of these are very subjective and not all feel the same way; ask 30 people and it would probably split close to 50/50. Granted, the BE isn't very asthetic, but I wouldn't call it cheesy. I like the smokestacks very much... again, subjective. What are you gonna do? I can live with the smoke stacks, but I'd like to see them do something with the batter's eye. From what I've read recently, it sounds like that's exactly what they're planning to do during the off season. It looks like something you'd see in Williamsport, PA. Very little league-ish. What exactly makes it "little league-ish"?

-Wish they would have made an upper deck wrapped around the RF line for Dunn's shot to be deposited into. He can't hit the ball in the river (like Bonds in SF with the Bay), it's too far, so why have that so opened? It looks like the stadium was never completed. Too unbalanced. All that weight shifted to LF with the bleachers and it goes down hill all the way to the RF moondeck. I know they wanted to pay tribute to Crosley with the moon deck, but is there a way they could have done it without leaving the whole RF exposed to look like a minor league stadium? It's just not cozy. I love parks that make you feel like you are nestled in. GABP just seems way too open. Again, subjective. I actually prefer the open feeling that the GAB projects.

-The notch. Nothing can be done, but it's pretty cheesy and I'm sure contributes to the wind tunnel that converts some routine fly balls into HR's. I love the gap; it's a great place to stand and watch the game.

-The area arouind the stadium is weak. True; but then again, they are working on it... hopefully I see the result in my lifetime. You have to cross I-71 to get to a the In-Between, Untrue; the InBetween is on 3rd... walk across the street to 2nd and you're at the park. For games at Riverfront, you had to traverse the walkway over I-71 to get to the park, but no more. which is all that is really there on the cincy side and you have to cross the bridge to Ky to get to the real action. Newport makes Cincy around the stadium look pretty weak. It's too bad you can't pick up Newprt and deposit it around GABP.

-Clean up the area behind the stadium, along the river. As I mentioned below, it does not look good. Oddly, I've never noticed this and I look at it often. I wish they could just close down that road (Mehring way), and make it a brick path with shops, restaurants, and bars on each side. Mehring Way is highly traveled during morning/evening rush by people going to/from work and parking in the garages/lots along that stretch. Therefore, I highly doubt that would ever happen. You could even have some nice places, right on the river. Make it like Camden with nice places to go to after the game. Keep the $$ in Cincy and give people a reason to stick around after the game. Again, that's what The Banks project is all about... but it's definitely not happening fast enough.

dabvu2498
09-07-2006, 12:34 PM
Untrue; the InBetween is on 3rd... walk across the street to 2nd and you're at the park. For games at Riverfront, you had to traverse the walkway over I-71 to get to the park, but no more.

The In-Between is on 3rd. The block between 3rd and 2nd is filled with Ft. Washington Way (aka I-71). So you do have to cross-over I-71 to get from the In-Between to GABP. We've done it about 50 times this year on our way from the Skyline on Sycamore and 4th (walking right by the In-Between). Here's a map: http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?latlongtype=internal&addtohistory=&latitude=OpI9Xe3c5gU%3d&longitude=%2bQVsB89FvqM%3d&name=In%20Between&country=US&address=307%20Sycamore%20St&city=Cincinnati&state=OH&zipcode=45202&phone=513%2d621%2d7009&spurl=0&&q=In%2dbetween%20cafe&qc=%28All%29%20Restaurants


Next time you are at a game and walking around the concession area behind the RF stands, take look towards the river. It ain't pretty. I disagree; I think it's very pretty and even with the planned development, I hope they leave that relatively small area as is; I find it serene. (picture below)

I believe the area he's referring to is closer to the Public Landing, which does look fairly rough.

TeamBoone
09-07-2006, 12:38 PM
The In-Between is on 3rd. The block between 3rd and 2nd is filled with Ft. Washington Way (aka I-71). So you do have to cross-over I-71 to get from the In-Between to GABP. We've done it about 50 times this year on our way from the Skyline on Sycamore and 4th (walking right by the In-Between).



I believe the area he's referring to is closer to the Public Landing, which does look fairly rough.

Well, we've never had any problem crossing the street to the park. There's a light and a crosswalk.

The Public Landing is not behind the RF seats, but you're right, you can see it from there. I've never noticed that it looks awful.

dabvu2498
09-07-2006, 12:50 PM
Well, we've never had any problem crossing the street to the park. There's a light and a crosswalk.

The Public Landing is not behind the RF seats, but you're right, you can see it from there. I've never noticed that it looks awful.

I don't think he was saying it was a problem to park/walk. I think he was referring to the way the ballpark feels isolated from the rest of downtown due to the presence of I-71, which I whole-heartedly agree with him on. If you come to the Ballpark and your mission is to park as close to the ballpark as possible, you never venture into downtown (maybe a positive for some).

For the area he's referring to behind RF, walk to the retaining wall behind the sundeck and look straight down. When that area was first reopened after construction, it was pretty well maintained. Now, not so much.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-07-2006, 01:16 PM
I don't think he was saying it was a problem to park/walk. I think he was referring to the way the ballpark feels isolated from the rest of downtown due to the presence of I-71, which I whole-heartedly agree with him on. If you come to the Ballpark and your mission is to park as close to the ballpark as possible, you never venture into downtown (maybe a positive for some).

For the area he's referring to behind RF, walk to the retaining wall behind the sundeck and look straight down. When that area was first reopened after construction, it was pretty well maintained. Now, not so much.

Yes, that's what I meant. The picture Team Boone provided is to the right of what I'm talking about. I'm referring to everything left of that, all the way to the bridge.

And yes, it's just stinks that the only place to go and pre-game it (by the stadium) is on the other side of the freeway. It's just not a very intimate atmosphere. It's not gonna cause me to go to less games, but it's just something I wish were different.

If this is the way I knew it would end up, I would have been more supportive of building the stadium north of the city (Broadway Commons?). It would have cleaned up the city and provided more room on the Riverfront for other things.

As far as exposed concrete, I disagree with Team Boone. Just cover it up with brick. It would look very nice. It's not like the three inches of brick are going to take away any room in the stadium. Look at the Cardinals new stadium. Brick everywhere with green trim (seats/metal). That look is better to me, but that's just me. I'm not a fan of the "red" seats.

I have been to "The Jake" many times and GABP is nothing compared to it. Again, like you said, that's subjective in itself, but it's just they way I and most people I know, that have been to both places, feel. Actually, almost everyone I know, that is a Reds fan, was excited about the new park, but after the novelty has worn off, their true feelings are that it's a bit of a disappointment.

All in all. I know they were limited because of the space between the old Cinergy and the Arena. That's whay I think in hindsight the thing should have been built uptown with a nice view of the city in the OF. Not only would it have freed up what little space there is on the riverfront, it would have re-engergized a dead part of the city.

Just my opinion.

KittyDuran
09-07-2006, 01:33 PM
And yes, it's just stinks that the only place to go and pre-game it (by the stadium) is on the other side of the freeway. It's just not a very intimate atmosphere. It's not gonna cause me to go to less games, but it's just something I wish were different.
The people at Gameday say hi!:evil: Also the Machine Room opens 3 hours before the game...

Ltlabner
09-07-2006, 01:50 PM
I think he was referring to the way the ballpark feels isolated from the rest of downtown due to the presence of I-71, which I whole-heartedly agree with him on. If you come to the Ballpark and your mission is to park as close to the ballpark as possible, you never venture into downtown (maybe a positive for some).

Sure seems like a positive to me. The more I can avoid downtown the better.. I just don't see it was a positive to cram the stadium in the "uptown" area, surrounded by "crime areas" of downtown. Down on the river, seperated off by I71, is a good place to be. Peronally, I like the view of the river and N. Ky hills from our seats. A view of a bunch of buildings...no matter what the city, is just that, a bunch of buildings. Whoopie. My personal opionion.


The people at Gameday say hi!:evil: Also the Machine Room opens 3 hours before the game...

The Machine Room is a pretty cool place to go. My father and I go there before most every game. They have a nice big bar for those who would like to imbibe and a fair number of tables for those looking to sit down and eat. If you get there early enough, you can sit outside on the patio and watch batting practice while you eat. A very fun thing to do IMO.

dabvu2498
09-07-2006, 02:10 PM
Sure seems like a positive to me. The more I can avoid downtown the better.. I just don't see it was a positive to cram the stadium in the "uptown" area, surrounded by "crime areas" of downtown. Down on the river, seperated off by I71, is a good place to be. Peronally, I like the view of the river and N. Ky hills from our seats. A view of a bunch of buildings...no matter what the city, is just that, a bunch of buildings. Whoopie. My personal opionion.

Downtown's not as bad (crime-wise) as some portray it. I usually park at 5th and Sycamore (Chiquita Building - $5) or around Lydle Park (free after 6 on the street) and I've never felt unsafe walking to my car after a game, even alone.

The real "issues" don't start until about 8th-9th street. My wife hates it when I drive back to 75 that way, but I grew up in the hood. Plus, I'm packin heat.

westofyou
09-07-2006, 03:21 PM
I just don't see it was a positive to cram the stadium in the "uptown" area, surrounded by "crime areas" of downtown.

The sooner the greater Cincinnati area reclaims their downtown the better, turn your back on your city center and you end up getting what you see.

Livable cities are a must in american society.

smith288
09-07-2006, 03:32 PM
The smoke stacks arent too bad. Just get rid of those tired bats that tops them. They make it look like an out of place toy at the stadium.

It wreeks of a half hearted attempt to pay homage to the riverboats.

vaticanplum
09-07-2006, 04:28 PM
The sooner the greater Cincinnati area reclaims their downtown the better, turn your back on your city center and you end up getting what you see.

Livable cities are a must in american society.

Yep. What's the other option, accept that it's "crime-ridden" and leave it alone? I believe this is why Cincinnati is currently such a ghost town at night as it is.

I don't think of that part of downtown as dangerous at all. The only time I really ever feel my security threatened at all is if there's no one around...so give people reason to be there.

Ltlabner
09-07-2006, 05:40 PM
The sooner the greater Cincinnati area reclaims their downtown the better, turn your back on your city center and you end up getting what you see.

Livable cities are a must in american society.

I agree WOY, but the city of Cincy's problems are far bigger than simply building a ballpark and watching the downtown become vibrant again. A new ballpark "uptown" *might* have a positive effect but it does little to overcome the other non-baseball related issues that are plaguing the city.

Ltlabner
09-07-2006, 05:42 PM
Yep. What's the other option, accept that it's "crime-ridden" and leave it alone? I believe this is why Cincinnati is currently such a ghost town at night as it is.

I don't think of that part of downtown as dangerous at all. The only time I really ever feel my security threatened at all is if there's no one around...so give people reason to be there.

No, the issue is to deal with the crime head on. Something this city has done very little of, IMO. If you simply plop a stadium down in the uptown area and expect the crime to dissapear you'll be waiting a while. You have to have a commitment to dealing with the rampant crime along with that staduim project but I don't think the local government, county and city have the stomach to do that.

But that's a conversation better suited for the off-topic forum.

TeamBoone
09-07-2006, 06:16 PM
I usually park at the Weston on 5th and Vine ($1 evenings).

I've never ever felt unsafe downtown. Perhaps I should, but I don't.

vaticanplum
09-07-2006, 08:27 PM
No, the issue is to deal with the crime head on. Something this city has done very little of, IMO. If you simply plop a stadium down in the uptown area and expect the crime to dissapear you'll be waiting a while. You have to have a commitment to dealing with the rampant crime along with that staduim project but I don't think the local government, county and city have the stomach to do that.

But that's a conversation better suited for the off-topic forum.

No, I completely agree with you. What I said doesn't contradict that, I just didn't go really in-depth with it. But it is something they should deal with, and should start to do now; just saying that they haven't done so in the past is not an excuse for the future. Those things can work quickly. And while building up the area is not a solution, it does help. Immediately there are more people and more security there. But yes, there are things to handle first.

REDREAD
09-08-2006, 03:34 AM
I heard rumors that the costs for Paul Brown stadium over ran and the city had to cut corners on GABP. Any truth to this?

The Reds were responsible for all costs beyond a certain figure, so Allen made darn sure that the Reds paid the minimum required.
There was an article in the enquirer about Allen's "value engineering" which included things like removing toilet seat dispensers, making the vending stations out of thinner metal, etc.

I tried to do a search for it, but the enquirer site sucks even worse than it used to. You used to be able to search under Reds stories only.. My search returned a bunch of crap about IKEA and other nonsense.

puca
09-08-2006, 06:24 AM
I've always thought that the batter's eye was part of the reason there were so many HRs. The black batter's eye gives hitters an advantage because they can pick up the ball earlier and see it much clearer all the way in. As has been pointed out most HRs in the GABP are not wall-scrapers. Fuzzy up the batter's eye. Grow some shubbery or add some texture. At least give it a try, it would be a lot cheaper than messing with the walls.

BuckWoody
09-08-2006, 08:55 AM
I've always thought that the batter's eye was part of the reason there were so many HRs. The black batter's eye gives hitters an advantage because they can pick up the ball earlier and see it much clearer all the way in. As has been pointed out most HRs in the GABP are not wall-scrapers. Fuzzy up the batter's eye. Grow some shubbery or add some texture. At least give it a try, it would be a lot cheaper than messing with the walls.
They could just paint it completely white and VOILA, we'll have a pitcher's park! :D

TeamBoone
09-08-2006, 11:31 AM
Actually, the other day Chris Welsh said the sun causes a glare off the batter's eye on sunny days, or early evening during night games, something they're going to work on during the off season. Why it took three years to address the problem is beyond me.

Ltlabner
09-08-2006, 04:53 PM
Actually, the other day Chris Welsh said the sun causes a glare off the batter's eye on sunny days, or early evening during night games, something they're going to work on during the off season. Why it took three years to address the problem is beyond me.

The sun is brutal in LF as it sets. It glares off the big glass building across FWW and is directly in the LF's eyes. The folks in the bleachers look like they are being baked to death over there (my seats are on the RF line so I'm looking right at them).

TeamBoone
09-08-2006, 07:07 PM
The sun is brutal in LF as it sets. It glares off the big glass building across FWW and is directly in the LF's eyes. The folks in the bleachers look like they are being baked to death over there (my seats are on the RF line so I'm looking right at them).

I never thought about the reflection off the Walnut Building.

Until recently, my insurance company was housed there. We were having a meeting on the top floor and the conference room, windows floor to ceiling, overlooks the outfield. I remember commenting on what a great view it was.

Chip R
09-08-2006, 11:41 PM
I wonder if they can make some kind of shade for that reflection. It might not fit in with the design of the stadium but Bob can always sell advertising on it.

Ltlabner
09-09-2006, 11:43 PM
I asked my father what he thought about the batters eye building.

His response: "You mean that chicken coop they stuck out there?"