My wife asked me this last night, and I thought it was interesting.
With the demise of Yankee Stadium happening this year, how long do you think the following stadiums will remain before they are replaced, and why:
Oh, for my part, I don’t imagine Dodger Stadium going anywhere for at least another 20 years, and probably longer. I think the majority of fans out here are very happy with the stadium as is. The only pressure that might change that is a new owner who wants to move the stadium downtown (an idea that was overwhelmingly rejected the last time it was pushed) or the real estate market making Chavez Ravine such a valuable property to build homes on that it becomes an offer the owner can’t refuse. But neither scenario strikes me as likely.
I could genuinely envision Dodger Stadium being around another 50 years.
All three will stand until pieces start falling off and killing people.
Wrigley and Fenway are institution stadiums that are not backed by a money man like Steinbrenner. Tradition will reign for both until there’s nothing left and a new stadium has to be built.
Dodger Stadium might get replaced someday, but I’ve never really heard it referred to as one of the greats, but I’ve never heard talk of anyone wanting to replace it either.
I have not been to those older stadiums but had many trips to Tiger Stadium. It had way too few bathrooms. When I took my son to the can I would miss 3 innings. The aisles were way too narrow. You had to try to navigate down to the seats while avoiding patrons desperate for the bathrooms. It had history . I had been going there for 50 years . But it was a crappy design and was falling apart. If they suffer from the same problems ,they should go.
Fenway has been getting massive renovation and remodeling work under the new ownership already. Wrigley, not so much, due to its historical-landmark status. But both can get (further) replaced, piecemeal, in situ. Would that count?
I can’t see LA coughing up for a new baseball stadium unless it builds a new football stadium first. IOW, not in this generation.
I don’t know whether it qualifies as major, but there was a fairly big bleacher expansion in 2005-6, as well as a couple hundred new box seats being added to right behind home plate, they got a completely new field this year, and 70 left field bullpen box seats have been scheduled to be added.
One bump for the weekday crowd.
The only way Dodger Stadium will ever be replaced is after the Next Great Quake, which levels most of LA. In that situation, I can see them tearing down the remnants and building a new stadium. But not until then. The view is too good, the atmosphere too heady for them to scrap it for a cookie-cutter, corporate dish. As long as they keep updating the seats and concessions, there will always be Dodger Stadium.
That could be interesting…maybe they’d temporarily relocate us to the Coliseum until Dodger Stadium was rebuilt. 
Or if you get another Northridge-style quake, the Angels might have to play in “Chavez Ravine.”
Then they can rebrand themselves the Los Angeles Angels of Los Angeles.
Really? I think it is universally considered a classic by design aficionados.
Its problem is transportation. Nothing like sitting in the parking lot for 90 minutes after the game.
Which is why it so perfectly suits Los Angeles.
It isn’t a geniune LA experience if you don’t sit in your goddamned car for at leat a few hours.
I personally haven’t had the parking lot issue in quite a while. Still, the $15 chaps my hide since I go so often. I really wish there was some reasonable form of public transportation to get you there.
I haven’t been to Dodger Stadium but it is a classic due to the Mountain view and history. However, it doesn’t really belong in this thread simply because it isn’t very old. They’ve been playing there since 1962 which is almost a full half-century newer than Wrigley and Fenway. Those are 50 big years too when you consider the advancements in amenities and building materials in those years.
It’s great, but it’s not the class of Wrigley or Fenway as far as history goes, nor is it in the middle of a dense urban area either.
Wrigley isn’t going anywhere any time soon. It’s going to be consistently maintained and renovated as long as the foundation can still support it’s weight. For an old park it’s not very claustrophobic and it’s remarkably comfortable. Fenway is a shoebox built for midgets compared to Wrigley. At some point Wrigley is going to need to undergo some renovation, mainly to add womens restrooms and concession areas, and they own the triangular block of land between the park and Clark St which will allow them to relocate some of the shops, The Stadium Club and some offices out of the concourse to add restrooms etc.
Anyone who says that a new ballpark is a good idea simply doesn’t understand what Wrigley is. For it’s small size and typically poor team, it’s a cash cow. It always sells out and it’s a tourist trap unlike any other. Were the Cubs to build a new stadium, even if they were able to keep it at the same site somehow, they’d end up like most of the other teams in the league who’s stadiums are half empty after August whenever the team struggles. Having a ballpark thats every bit the attraction a winning team is is priceless.
If it goes anywhere in my lifetime it will be some of single worst business decisions ever.
If the owners are willing to pay for a stadium ,then I am for it. The taxpayers paying for it is wrong. The franchise immediately is worth 600,000 dollars more. Then they raise prices. driving out the average taxpayer from the game. It is legalized theft.
All valid points. I included it merely because it becomes the third-oldest stadium after this season.
I was surprised to learn this past weekend that, because both the Mets and Marlins will play in new parks soonly, Coors Field will be the third-oldest MLB park in the National League.
Coors Field opened in 1995. Fourteen MLB parks have opened since then.
I am convinced that this is impossible, so I’ll just try to run through the list.
OK, so then there’s the Giants (new stadium), Padres (newer stadium), D-Backs (newer stadium), Cardinals (new stadium), Reds (newish stadium), Astros (newish), Cubs, Mets and Marlins already covered, Nationals (brand new stadium), Pirates (newish), and…Phillies? I don’t know how old their stadium is, but I’ll take your word for it. That makes for a HUGE gap from first oldest to second oldest and second to third. Everyone else is clumped together. Weird.
So here’s a question (and no, I don’t know the answer myself): what stadium, built since 1900, lasted the shortest period of time? And I mean a stadium that was specifically built to house a baseball team.
This is a tough one. Most of the stadiums built in the '60s were all multipurpose buildings which rules them out. Olympic Stadium had a really short run but it obviously wasn’t built for baseball. The best I can think of now is Milwaukee County Stadium which was built for baseball (when there was no team to play there aside form the Minor League franchise) and lasted 47 years, and was empty for 5 of those years. Sick’s Stadium in Seattle was built for a Minor League team and hosted the Seattle Pilots for 1 season and only lasted 41 years. Though I don’t know that a place built for a Minor league team really counts. Actually, further research leads me to Braves Field in Boston which was only open for 37 years but it was shut down because the team left town and was never replaced.