10 years of Great American Ball Park

[RedEye]

This is a topic that has interested me for some time, so now that the place is 10 years old, I thought it would be interesting to revisit the venue and discuss it as a group.

When GABP opened in 2003, I can remember the regime talking about how it was a revivification of Crosley Field and how it would have charm built-in with the gap to the city, the riverboats, the smokestacks and what not. If memory serves, most people liked the place well enough when it opened, and almost all agreed it was an improvement on Riverfront Stadium / Cinergy Field -- although this wasn't exactly a ringing endorsement. Folks liked the sight lines and the intimacy of the field and basically thought it was a nice venue for watching the game. "Experts" on architecture were less enthused, and thought it compared unfavorably to the other "new old-style" parks in Pittsburgh, Baltimore and Cleveland. Some thought the Pepsi smokestacks were gaudy and that the whole structure should have either been placed elsewhere or facing the opposite direction. I kind of agreed with some of these criticisms; though I was excited to have a new place to watch the game, GABP just didn't seem to have the charming ambiance I'd found in its peer parks.

Nowadays, the place is growing on me a lot. The Reds Hall of Fame, the statues of famous players outside and the completion of the Reds-Bengals riverfront after years of construction have added a lot of appeal. I also think there has been a fair amount of "touching up" inside the park, which now looks a lot cleaner and more polished to me -- some of the exposed cement behind home plate, for instance, has now been painted over (others can likely comment more on this aspect). Finally, I don't know whether it's just me getting old, but those elements that I first thought tacky -- like the Pepsi smokestacks -- have grown on me over the last decade, as I watch players like Bruce, Votto and Phillips literally grow up on the field, and as I myself age in the process. I would imagine that putting a few World Championship banners up would make the place look even better, of course.

So what are your thoughts about the Reds (relatively) recent home? Did you like it then? Do you like it now? What do you see in its future? Of course, feel free to post pics from any moment in the decade of GABP as well. This should be a thread to commemorate recent history as well.

[DocRed]

Wow...I am shocked that it is 10 years old already.

[Plus Plus]

I love the park, but they really need to refurbish the bat-and-ball mural that faces the east side of the park (towards US Bank arena). That thing is super washed out.

[Raisor]

How is it aging? One day at a time.

[RedEye]

How is it aging? One day at a time.

Literalist

[Always Red]

Crosley Field (1912-1970) 58 years
Riverfront/Cinergy (1970- 2002) 32 years
GAPB (2003-2013) 10 years, so far.

I love the new, 10 year old park, it's a wonderful place to watch baseball. It still feels brand new to me, and I'm sure it will last the rest of my life.

There's not a bad seat in the park. Of course, I'm a guy who remembers obstructed view seating at Crosley (behind poles that held the upper decks).

[dougdirt]

There's not a bad seat in the park. Of course, I'm a guy who remembers obstructed view seating at Crosley (behind poles that held the upper decks).

You clearly haven't sat in the bleachers (where you can't see parts of the outfield) or in the moondeck in section 144, where about half way up the smoke stacks block you from seeing parts of the outfield as well.

[Always Red]

You clearly haven't sat in the bleachers (where you can't see parts of the outfield) or in the moondeck in section 144, where about half way up the smoke stacks block you from seeing parts of the outfield as well.

Clearly, I have.

[dougdirt]

Clearly, I have.

Then I have no idea how you can say there isn't a bad seat in the house, because if you can't see the entire field of play from your seat, it is a bad seat. There are quite a few of those at GABP.

[Always Red]

Then I have no idea how you can say there isn't a bad seat in the house, because if you can't see the entire field of play from your seat, it is a bad seat. There are quite a few of those at GABP.

One mans trash is another mans treasure.

[Superdude]

Then I have no idea how you can say there isn't a bad seat in the house, because if you can't see the entire field of play from your seat, it is a bad seat. There are quite a few of those at GABP.

The one huge plus though is that the right side of the bleachers gives you something like a TV angle towards homeplate. I love actually following the pitcher/batter matchup instead of sitting around waiting on an action pitch. Call me crazy, but I'll take a lot of bleacher seats over third and first baseline no matter how close they are.

[KittyDuran]

You clearly haven't sat in the bleachers (where you can't see parts of the outfield) or in the moondeck in section 144, where about half way up the smoke stacks block you from seeing parts of the outfield as well.

I've sat both places - didn't mind the bleachers' view, you're paying for cheap, uncomfortable seats so that comes with the territory. Section 144 wasn't too bad and it was just a small section of the Moon Deck. IIRC nothing compares to the seats they used to sell behind the jumbotron at Riverfront or in front of the camera well.

The seat I paid $45 for back in 2001 at the Jake on the first base side about 4 rows from the field you couldn't see the full trajectory of the ball. There was the part where it was in the air and when the outfielder caught that you couldn't see. Not really too much of a problem, because each section had multiple TV monitors so you could see the action. But still for that price you'd expect a better view.

[redsfanmia]

GABP is nice and clean but boring and nothing special. I wish the park was built under the new ownership and built before PBS so it could have been special.

[muethibp]

It has always been a good place to watch a game but was designed somewhat on the cheap and with architectural challenges arising from the decision to build it on a site where there was insufficient room.

On the question asked - how it is aging - two points are important to me.

1. Current ownership constantly seeks to improve the place. Consider all of the new things that have been added: the centerfield boat, improved food/beverage options and quality, new areas in right field and in the club section, new things for kids...trying to move the place forward prevents it from moving backwards.

2. While this does not relate to the physical plant of the stadium, the opening of all the bars/restaurants at the Banks (finally) and the riverfront park have dramatically improved the overall experience of attending a game. For years there were two big drawbacks of immediately outside the park: no bars/restaurants and a huge dirt hole. Now, the dirt hole has been replaced with things to do, so it's a double improvement. I have to think it's unusual for the surrounding area of a stadium to improve so much a decade in.

[mgbrown66]

My biggest gripe is that I don't feel connected to the city while inside like the parks in Pittsburgh and St Louis.