caulfield12 Posted 6 hours ago Share Posted 6 hours ago (edited) 7 minutes ago, WestEddy said: I agree that Rate isn't "must see". I agree with SS2k5 that it was out of style the day it opened. It's a perfectly passable game experience. It most likely is a bottom 5 (or worse) visit for the non-Sox fan. "Passable" isn't going to be good enough for the Ishbias...just look at his estate/mansion. it's missing that sense of "awe/wonder" and history as well. Same reason the second Arlington stadium (meant to evoke "The Natural" with its decking in the OF) and Atlanta downtown Olympic stadium didn't work. Edited 5 hours ago by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted 6 hours ago Share Posted 6 hours ago (edited) 10 minutes ago, WestEddy said: I agree that Rate isn't "must see". I agree with SS2k5 that it was out of style the day it opened. It's a perfectly passable game experience. It most likely is a bottom 5 (or worse) visit for the non-Sox fan. I wish that wasn't the case. I'm actually one of those fans who generally just wants to go to the park, see the game, and then go home. But that's not what many people want in their gameday experience these days. I haven't been to as many other ballparks as @southsider2k5, but I've been to enough to see how much of a difference location and ballpark design makes. What I'm rooting for is for the Sox to consistently draw well so that they can have the resources to become and stay competitive in MLB. If they could do that at the current ballpark and location, that would be great. But the current ballpark situation creates challenges to that. Edited 5 hours ago by 77 Hitmen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago 5 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: I wish that wasn't the case. I'm actually one of those fans who generally just wants to go to the park, see the game, and then go home. But that's not what many people want in their gameday experience these days. What I'm rooting for is for the Sox to consistently draw well so that they can have the resources to become and stay competitive in MLB. The current ballpark situation creates challenges to that. JR has repeatedly said the Sox couldn't draw three million. In the new park with diminished seating capacity, that would mean 37000 per game. Even with SRO that's impossible to do at GRF. Certainly not with Monday through Thursday games in April May and September. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago 16 minutes ago, caulfield12 said: Last time I was following this story it was North Kansas City across the river bridge into that neighborhood area. If they don't move with the Chiefs to KCK, it's going to be miles and miles of parking lots with nothing resembling an entertainment district like Power&Light. Part of the reason why the Royals ballot initiative failed a couple of years ago was that downtown businesses were concerned about what a new ballpark would mean for them. It sounds like they are now warming up to the idea of a downtown KC ballpark. https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/royals-stadium-talks-continue-as-some-in-kcmo-warm-to-washington-square-park-location Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago 47 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: I think this gets the whole "listicles" thing totally backwards. It isn't that potential paying customers are just sitting back and waiting for some online ranking of ballparks to decide whether or not to catch a game at Rate Field. It's that the rankings that are out there generally reflect what people think about MLB stadiums throughout the league. There's a reason why Rate Field is consistently ranked near the bottom, it's because that's how people outside of diehard Sox fans generally feel about the place. It's one thing to convince people that the place is much better than it used to be (true), not as bad as people think (true), a nice enough place to see an MLB game (true), and that there's nothing "dangerous" about the neighborhood (true). It's quite another to convince them that Rate Field is a must-see place that they want to devote their limited entertainment budget to (both money and time) unless the Sox are in contention for a pennant. Sure, you can find write ups out there that take unfair, ignorant swipes at Sox Park because they're just going on reputation. But that isn't what's causing attendance problems for the Sox and they aren't the only ones ranking the place near the bottom of the league. I think the idea is completely backwards. It's the people who haven't been to a lot of parks who don't get what holds Sox Park back. Those who have been around MLB have seen it for themselves. Much easier to convince the ignorant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted 5 hours ago Share Posted 5 hours ago (edited) 21 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: Part of the reason why the Royals ballot initiative failed a couple of years ago was that downtown businesses were concerned about what a new ballpark would mean for them. It sounds like they are now warming up to the idea of a downtown KC ballpark. https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/royals-stadium-talks-continue-as-some-in-kcmo-warm-to-washington-square-park-location You'd almost have to have home plate at the SE point of that park...facing to the north and west. Roughly five acres. Parking wouldn't be great, but you do have Crowne Center and Union Station. Most importantly, not very far from the Plaza for shopping and restaurants. Edited 5 hours ago by caulfield12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.