NJ: Modernity and changes in ballpark opinion

Notes and Judgments

Time has a great deal of influence on people's opinions of ballparks. The cookie cutters, innovative and sparkling new stadia when they opened, were decaying, boring, out-of-date structures when they closed. All they had going for them when they opened was that they were modern and simple, so when that benefit wore off, opinions were sour. I noticed this especially a few years after Great American Ballpark opened in Cincinnati. I knew Great American was a "nicer" and newer ballpark, but I didn't realize just how much until I reviewed some photos a couple years after the new park opened. I noticed a few things: The footprint of the new park is substantially bigger than that of the old park, and in the photos, the concourses of the plaza level at the old ballpark look incredibly small and dark compared to those of the new park. When I would reminisce about Riverfront Stadium, I would note the simplicity and ease of navigation about that concourse which encircled the entire stadium and all the way around provided a view of the field. But I had forgotten about, or perhaps never realized, just how out of date that park would seem today. There was certainly a reason its footprint appeared small, and part of it was the smallness of the concourses. But a similar logic can be applied to some of the very old parks fans reminisce about. Of course fans have great memories of Crosley Field or the Polo Grounds. They remember the grass, their childhood heroes, and the names and numbers of the different sections of the park. But they perhaps don't realize just how dark and dank those parks were when they closed. When the cookie cutters opened they were hailed for their modernity. It's that which we tend to forget. The concept of modernity loses its luster when it no longer applies.