In Ballpark: Baseball in the American City, Paul Goldberger, a leading architectural critic, writes a history of ballparks from the 1860s to present day. While there have been a lot of books about baseball and baseball parks, Goldberger believes little has been written about the ballpark being both a civic space and a work of architecture and wrote a book address this omission.
Goldberger’s history breaks down the history of the ballpark into four phases. The first phase extends from the 1860s to 1920s in which nearly all major league parks were situated in urban areas, often residential neighborhoods. But while located in urban areas, baseball parks with their expansive green space and the game itself with its more relaxed pace, sought to provide a respite from the density and grittiness of urban life—a countryside in the city or rus in urbe and this theme of rus in urbe is discussed throughout the book.
During this period, there was no alternative to placing ballparks in urban areas because only cities (and fairly large cities) had the population density needed to support a team and the transportation infrastructure, namely streetcars, to transport spectators to games. These locational factors exerted a major influence on their design. Ballparks needed to be in neighborhoods with good public transportation, which already had some development in them, but these neighborhoods also had to have a few acres of affordable open space. These open areas were not particularly large and architects had to adjust the dimensions of the outfield to fit in them. This work against standardized and symmetrical playing fields used in other sports and added an idiosyncratic element to each ballpark.
In addition to the notion of rus in urbe, Goldberger compares how ballparks are integrated into the fabric of the neighborhood. Most of the ballparks of this era were well integrated into their neighborhoods. In many cases, the neighborhood grew up around the ballpark and gave it a certain character. However, this sense of integration started to dissipate the second phase of ballpark development as the automobile became a factor in ballpark location and design. This phase was evident in ballparks built in the 1930s but reached its pinnacle in the ballparks of the 1960s and 1970s as the earlier generation of ballparks were replaced.
Goldberger has nothing positive to say about the design and locational aspects of this second phase. In order to accommodate the growing number of spectators who preferred to travel by car (or who lived in areas without good access to public transit) the new ballparks needed parking facilities. So instead of ballparks being tucked into a neighborhood, they were surrounded by concrete and often isolated from other development, regardless of whether they were located in a city or suburb. One of the first examples of a more auto-centric ballpark was Memorial Stadium in Cleveland, OH built in the 1930s. Although located near the downtown, it was built on a landfill that was isolated from commercial and residential neighborhoods and public transit. In the words of one commentator cited by Goldberger, this type of ballpark led to the “suburbanization of baseball” in the decades that followed.
Its accommodation to the automobile was not the only change from the early ballparks, but so were its financing arrangements and its multi-purpose design. Memorial Stadium was publicly financed and built to host other sporting events, especially football. Given the different shapes of the two playing fields, the architecture of a multi-purpose facilities led to design compromises that were to the detriment of both sports, but especially baseball.
Goldberger draws a connection between public financing and multi-purpose facility. Since taxpayers’ funds are involved, it was less expensive to build one facility instead of two. However, I wish that he would have spent more time on this relationship and if only to see if there was any push back from the owners on multi-purpose facilities. I do not think the baseball and football owners wanted to share the same facilities but were willing to do so if it meant that they would not have to pay for their new ballparks and stadiums.
The end product of these three forces, automobile, public financing and the multi-purpose facility was what Goldberger calls the “Era of the Concrete Doughnut.” As the ballparks that were built during the first two decades of the 20th century were being abandoned in Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, St. Louis and Cincinnati, their replacements all seem to have been stamped with the same template. With some minor differences, they were all fully enclosed, circular, with symmetrical outfields and artificial turf surfaces . And since they were surrounded by parking lots, they had little connection with the closest neighborhoods.
In the early 1990s, a third phase of ballpark design emerged in Baltimore with Camden Yard. Unlike most phase 2 ballparks, it was a baseball-only facility with natural grass and an asymmetrical outfield. Not only was it located in an urban neighborhood but was designed to fit into that neighborhood. While there is parking within walking distance of the ballpark, it is located near several transit lines, including a light rail line with several suburban stations. Moreover, it had a strong sense of place with views of the Baltimore skyline and the historic Baltimore & Ohio warehouse just beyond the right field fence. Visually, Camden Yards had retro look with a brick façade but it still had the amenities that were required of a new facility, luxury boxes, more upscale dining and plenty of public circulation space.
Why did the design of ballparks change dramatically in the 1990s? The causal forces do not seem to be as visible as the shift from public to private transit or growing use of public finance that were so important to phase 2 ballparks. Instead, the impetus for a different model came from the senior management of the Baltimore Orioles who wanted a baseball-only facility and who were old enough to remember the first phase ballparks, such as Forbes Field in Pittsburgh and Fenway Park . One other important factor is that with the departure of the Baltimore Colts, there was no NFL team in Baltimore when Camden Yards was being designed to lobby for either a multi-purpose stadium.
That this new facility would turn out to be Camden Yards was not a certainty when the planning for a new sports facility was started. The State of Maryland created an entity called the Maryland Stadium Authority who purpose was to oversee and finance a multi-purpose stadium, one that would not necessarily be in Baltimore. In addition, the Authority hired HOK Sports, the same firm that did several phase 2 stadiums, to design the new facility.
According to Goldberger, HOK’s first draft too much resembled the other facilities it designed over the past 20 years and the owner of the Orioles rejected the draft. However, since the Authority was financing the facility, how much input did it have to accept from the Orioles? Although the Authority was in charge of the project, the contract with the team had a provision that gave the Orioles “design concurrence” which effectively gave the team a veto power over any elements it disapproved of. This provision plus effective negotiating by the Orioles senior management resulted in a series of changes that resulted in Camden Yards.
The positive response to Camden Yards made it a template for the ballparks that were built over the next 15 years or so. While some not all ballparks incorporated Camden Yards retro look, they all were designed only for baseball and located within and integrated with city neighborhoods. Moreover, one of the objectives of placing them in city neighborhoods was to generate or regenerate economic activities in those neighborhoods in the form of restaurants, bars and hotels. If the phase 2 stadiums led to the suburbanization of baseball, the phase 3 parks represented the gentrification of baseball, or at least baseball ballparks.
Camden Yards opened almost 20 years ago, is there a 4th phase in the works and what does it look like. Goldberger thinks that Atlanta’s Sun Trust Park may be the start of a new trend and its not one that he likes. It is not the design of the ballpark or its non-baseball related entertainment and amusement features that concern him but its suburban location, lack of public transit access and the scale of the project, which includes residences, offices as well as the restaurants, bars and hotels that surround other ballparks. In effect the Braves are building their own neighborhood or village that is isolated from the rest of the region rather than integrated with it.
In this phase, the ballpark is used to re-envision the neighborhood as a series of privately controlled spaces but one that can only mimic public spaces, similar to the way the Disney creates artificial communities. In this sense, the phase 4 ballpark could be the Disneyfication of ballparks. Such communities may be clean and well-managed but lack the color and at times the grittiness that make actual neighborhoods interesting. Thus the phase 4 ballparks may be more attractive than the concrete doughnuts of phase 2, they will lack the charm and sense of place that mark the most successful ballparks.