Awful California Stadiums

DublinRedSox

New Member
May 18, 2017
153
My lord Oakland's stadium is utter garbage. And who in the world is in charge of their audio stuff. Between the music selected and blaring from a 14 year olds beatbox on blown out speakers and the empty seats covered with a tarp.

I hate west coast trips, Angels stadium is nearly as bad. It always looks like the flood lights only partially work.

End of Rant
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,278
My lord Oakland's stadium is utter garbage. And who in the world is in charge of their audio stuff. Between the music selected and blaring from a 14 year olds beatbox on blown out speakers and the empty seats covered with a tarp.

I hate west coast trips, Angels stadium is nearly as bad. It always looks like the flood lights only partially work.

End of Rant
Blame the Raiders. The Stadium Was a jewel pre mr Davis

 

PseuFighter

Silent scenester
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2003
14,408
Sure, but head to the other side of the water and you'll find one of the best ballparks on earth. I don't think it's a California thing. That said, the Mausoleum is the worst stadium in the bigs. There's nothing like it left in baseball, and that's for the best. I imagine they'll be playing on the water at the Howard Terminal site within the next 10 years.

Note that they removed the upper tarps along the bowl about a month ago. The only tarps left are on the Mt. Davis monstrosity. So instead of tarps in the upper deck, you've got a sea of empty green seats.

edit: this is a topic (stadiums!) probably better/best for MLB Discussion.
 

curly2

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2003
4,887
That said, the Mausoleum is the worst stadium in the bigs .
Been to 29 MLB stadiums (including a few defunct ones), and Tropicana Field is the worst. Oakland wasn't NICE, but it was much better than the Trop.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Blame the Raiders. The Stadium Was a jewel pre mr Davis

I'm sorry, the judges were looking for "almost tolerable."

That stadium is still a joke. Between the almost incomprehensible amount of foul territory that robs teams of two to three outs per game and ensures no seat will be near the actual field of play to the soulless character of the perfectly symmetrical dimensions, what we have here is Tropicana field without the roof.

The view was nice.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
I'm sorry, the judges were looking for "almost tolerable."

That stadium is still a joke. Between the almost incomprehensible amount of foul territory that robs teams of two to three outs per game and ensures no seat will be near the actual field of play to the soulless character of the perfectly symmetrical dimensions, what we have here is Tropicana field without the roof.

The view was nice.
Nah, it was a nice park in the early 90s, especially before Camden Yards reinvented stadiums. Who gives a crap about the foul territory? I went to probably 60-70 games there (definitely seen the Sox play there more than at Fenway) and I never felt it made a difference to my experience other than seeing some more foul outs than usual. Which didn't bother me, pitcher's parks are a good thing in my book. The difference in foul territory only became comical when teams built new parks and teams like the Sox with old parks began to

Natural grass, real bleachers, a hand-operated out-of-town scoreboard*, good and diverse food options (the first cheesesteak I'd ever eaten in my life), clean, comfortable (for a 50 year old stadium, the leg room is still really good). You can get there without a car too. You think about what ballparks were like in 1992 and there were only a handful of parks in the majors that ticked off all those options. The view of the Oakland hills was just the cherry on the top.

The problem with the park has always been Mt. Davis. Both in that it exists at all, and that the city and county have clearly had buyer's remorse ever since and skimped on maintaining the Coliseum. That's led to all the things people don't like about it.

The A's will get a new park and that's great, but I can still go to the Coliseum, get a pretty decent seat for under $20, get a dog and a beer, and have a very comfortable afternoon/night watching baseball. That I have to piss in a trough doesn't matter because I don't go to ballgames to piss in private.

*You might think who gives an F, but Candlestick used to show out of town scores (to the left of the main scoreboard) on a loop that seemed to take forever. I remember my dad taking 10-15 minutes to find out the Red Sox score because he'd miss it, give up waiting and watch the ballgame, then try to catch the score again, miss it, so on and so forth. Meanwhile it was just *there* at the Coliseum.
 

Average Reds

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 24, 2007
35,330
Southwestern CT
Nah, it was a nice park in the early 90s, especially before Camden Yards reinvented stadiums. Who gives a crap about the foul territory? I went to probably 60-70 games there (definitely seen the Sox play there more than at Fenway) and I never felt it made a difference to my experience other than seeing some more foul outs than usual. Which didn't bother me, pitcher's parks are a good thing in my book. The difference in foul territory only became comical when teams built new parks and teams like the Sox with old parks began to

Natural grass, real bleachers, a hand-operated out-of-town scoreboard*, good and diverse food options (the first cheesesteak I'd ever eaten in my life), clean, comfortable (for a 50 year old stadium, the leg room is still really good). You can get there without a car too. You think about what ballparks were like in 1992 and there were only a handful of parks in the majors that ticked off all those options. The view of the Oakland hills was just the cherry on the top.

The problem with the park has always been Mt. Davis. Both in that it exists at all, and that the city and county have clearly had buyer's remorse ever since and skimped on maintaining the Coliseum. That's led to all the things people don't like about it.

The A's will get a new park and that's great, but I can still go to the Coliseum, get a pretty decent seat for under $20, get a dog and a beer, and have a very comfortable afternoon/night watching baseball. That I have to piss in a trough doesn't matter because I don't go to ballgames to piss in private.

*You might think who gives an F, but Candlestick used to show out of town scores (to the left of the main scoreboard) on a loop that seemed to take forever. I remember my dad taking 10-15 minutes to find out the Red Sox score because he'd miss it, give up waiting and watch the ballgame, then try to catch the score again, miss it, so on and so forth. Meanwhile it was just *there* at the Coliseum.
You want to know who gives a crap about foul territory? The fan paying to sit in the front row 50 yards from the action.

If you liked that old park, then to each his own. But even back in the 70s (when these multipurpose monstrosities were all the rage) it always struck me as one of the worst.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Haven't been to the Oakland Coliseum but agree with how awful The Trop is. Of California parks, I've always enjoyed games at PetCo.
 

Ale Xander

Hamilton
SoSH Member
Oct 31, 2013
72,567
Haven't been to the Oakland Coliseum but agree with how awful The Trop is. Of California parks, I've always enjoyed games at PetCo.
What's the dea with the Park at the Park at Petco. That looks like a ridiculous idea.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
What's the dea with the Park at the Park at Petco. That looks like a ridiculous idea.
Eh, it's neither here nor there. It doesn't get in the way, and kids play in it before the game when the weather is nice (which is only always) so I have no problem with it.
 

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
I think Oakland is pretty bad. Maybe the pre-Raiders days were better but they weren't great. Candlestick was fucking awful for baseball (though I only went once). The big A was also terrible circa early 90's, and Qualcomm was fucking awful for baseball too.

So, if this post were from 1995, it would make sense to me.

since it's not, I'll just say that I love Dodger Stadium, it's a gem despite its size. It can be a bit warm, though.
The Big A since it was re-modeled ca. 1997 is not that bad. It still lacks the feel of an old time or modern baseball only stadium. But it's much nicer than it was and enjoyable for a game other than the miserable fucking traffic.
PetCo is really really great, even moreso if you like hoppy beers, of which you can probably find 2 dozen in the park at any given time. Regardless, it has interesting sight lines from a lot of different areas.
AT&T was the jewel of the post OP@CY's until PNC (IMO).

So the statement that California stadiums are awful hasn't made a lot of sense since about 2004.
 
Last edited:

smastroyin

simpering whimperer
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 31, 2002
20,684
Eh, it's neither here nor there. It doesn't get in the way, and kids play in it before the game when the weather is nice (which is only always) so I have no problem with it.
It is open to the public when there are not games which is basically most of the time. While the Padres make some money on it during game days, it's primary benefit is a 2.9 acre park in a neighborhood of San Diego that doesn't have any the other 270 days of the year (and actually every day until 2.7 hours before gametime)

Yes, you can walk up to Balboa, it's only a mile or so. Or across the PCH to the Embarcadero Park, but that's kind of a pain. If you live in the neighborhood around the Park and just want to sit in some grass with your dog, that's basically where you go.
 

B H Kim

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 24, 2003
5,719
Washington, DC
since it's not, I'll just say that I love Dodger Stadium, it's a gem despite its size. It can be a bit warm, though.
The Big A since it was re-modeled ca. 1997 is not that bad. It still lacks the feel of an old time or modern baseball only stadium. But it's much nicer than it was and enjoyable for a game other than the miserable fucking traffic.
I've only been to the two LA-area stadiums, but I'd agree with this. Considering their age, Dodger Stadium and Anaheim Stadium aren't bad and are superior to a number of newer parks. For its size and age, Dodger Stadium is far superior to the circular multi-purpose stadia that followed. And, while the only time I attended a game in Anaheim, I sat in one of the below-ground boxes between the dugouts (where you can't really see anything beyond the infield), the stadium was clean and in good shape.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
I've only been to the two LA-area stadiums, but I'd agree with this. Considering their age, Dodger Stadium and Anaheim Stadium aren't bad and are superior to a number of newer parks. For its size and age, Dodger Stadium is far superior to the circular multi-purpose stadia that followed. And, while the only time I attended a game in Anaheim, I sat in one of the below-ground boxes between the dugouts (where you can't really see anything beyond the infield), the stadium was clean and in good shape.
One thing I liked about Anaheim when I lived in Santa Monica was that it was a breeze to get to, park, and get away from (on weekends, of course).

Dodger Stadium has charm and I definitely enjoy it, except for the one time I bought tickets in left field not knowing that you can not access any other parts of the stadium if you are in that section, which sucked.
 

Spacemans Bong

chapeau rose
SoSH Member
You want to know who gives a crap about foul territory? The fan paying to sit in the front row 50 yards from the action.

If you liked that old park, then to each his own. But even back in the 70s (when these multipurpose monstrosities were all the rage) it always struck me as one of the worst.
I've sat in those seats several times, they're fine. You're maybe 20-25 feet farther away from the action than at most new ballparks. Nobody sits in the loge section at Fenway and goes "I'm just too far from the action!" (and those tix are way pricier than A's tickets). You'd never build a ballpark like that today for good reasons, but it's just not a big deal.

There's no way in hell the Coliseum was worse than anything built in the Midwest in that time period (Cincy, Pittsburgh, Philly, St. Louis, I'll throw in the Metrodome too because that was a horrible ballpark). For having grass and not being enclosed and therefore not 20 degrees hotter inside than in the parking lot, it was better.

And it was WAY better than Candlestick, as much as I loved that place. Going to Oakland was like going to a real baseball park. Which is totally nuts and why going to Fenway in the summer was like going to heaven. Until the last few years when the Magowan/Baer group took over, the food stank, the foul territory was almost as big as the Coliseum, and the bleachers were inextricably like 50 feet behind the outfield fence, meaning you watched the game through a chain link fence if you were low enough and kids would fight each other in the space between the fence and the stands for home run balls. It was weird enough that the Giants built some temporary bleachers in left and center as part of a spruce up to make Candlestick feel more like a baseball park:



Oh yeah, and it was FREEZING. Oakland always had great weather.
 

Hendu for Kutch

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 7, 2006
6,920
Nashua, NH
Been to 29 MLB stadiums (including a few defunct ones), and Tropicana Field is the worst. Oakland wasn't NICE, but it was much better than the Trop.
I've been to about the same, and Oakland, Tampa, and Montreal were clearly in a tier below everything else. I remember Oakland just being concrete everywhere but the field. Not much to look at or explore there.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
I think Oakland is pretty bad. Maybe the pre-Raiders days were better but they weren't great. Candlestick was fucking awful for baseball (though I only went once). The big A was also terrible circa early 90's, and Qualcomm was fucking awful for baseball too.

So, if this post were from 1995, it would make sense to me.

since it's not, I'll just say that I love Dodger Stadium, it's a gem despite its size. It can be a bit warm, though.
The Big A since it was re-modeled ca. 1997 is not that bad. It still lacks the feel of an old time or modern baseball only stadium. But it's much nicer than it was and enjoyable for a game other than the miserable fucking traffic.
PetCo is really really great, even moreso if you like hoppy beers, of which you can probably find 2 dozen in the park at any given time. Regardless, it has interesting sight lines from a lot of different areas.
AT&T was the jewel of the post OP@CY's until PNC (IMO).

So the statement that California stadiums are awful hasn't made a lot of sense since about 2004.
I was in Pittsburgh when PNC opened and it is a phenomenal stadium. In recently moved to SF and live a 20 min walk from AT&T.
I have AT&T as my favorite (non-Fenway) stadium to watch a baseball game with PNC right behind it. I probably only rate AT&T ahead of PNC bc of recency bias as well as just enjoying SF more than Pittsburgh.
I am heading to the Sox - A's game on Sunday, should be a fun time, but getting to watch the Sox play at AT&T last June was probably better from a stadium perspective.

Edit - Fenway is just my favorite bc I am a Sox fan and all the history. I am not trying to say it is a nicer stadium than some of the new parks.
 

glasspusher

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
9,973
Oakland California
As long as I have the memory of seeing one game in the Kingdome, it's going to take a lot before there's a worse MLB stadium for me to be in.

I dunno, with all the hate, Oakland isn't so bad. Maybe I was primed to not expect much. I'll be enjoying watching Sale from behind the plate tonight.

SF's ballpark is great.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,510
Rogers Park
I'll also stick up for the Coliseum, where I used to catch a lot of games when I was in graduate school. And that's really the argument right there: I could afford to go to games when I was in graduate school.

I've spent more going to games at Hadlock than Oakland. Grab a burrito at your taqueria of choice, get on BART, and then trudge across that weird bridge to a ballpark with plentiful decent seats, some well under $20.

(That said, a hypothetical Jack London Square ballpark reachable by ferry from other parts of the Bay could be pretty damn fun, too.)
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,032
Oregon
So, reading through this thread, it appears that the only "awful" California stadium is the current construction of the Oakland ballpark.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,838
Unreal America
So, reading through this thread, it appears that the only "awful" California stadium is the current construction of the Oakland ballpark.
Correct.

In teens of awful stadiums, I trust some of you attended games at Exhibition Stadium. That place stunk. Metal benches practically everywhere, bleachers that ran to nowhere. Just horrid.
 

patinorange

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 27, 2006
30,685
6 miles from Angel Stadium
One thing I liked about Anaheim when I lived in Santa Monica was that it was a breeze to get to, park, and get away from (on weekends, of course).

Dodger Stadium has charm and I definitely enjoy it, except for the one time I bought tickets in left field not knowing that you can not access any other parts of the stadium if you are in that section, which sucked.
Dodger stadium is great, the fact you are limited where you can walk around sucks. Anaheim is perfectly fine for baseball and you can walk all over the stadium. I like to wander, some people sit in their seats the whole game, so this isn't a factor.

I had season tickets in the 70's and 80's in Fenway, and I must say, it's much better experience attending nightly games in Anaheim than it is at Fenway, all things considered. If you know where to park outside the stadium in Anaheim and you can walk a half mile, parking is free and traffic is zero.

It's been about 5 years, but I kind of like the grunginess and cheapness of Oakland. Petco is fine, but there is something off about that park, I just can't put my finger on it. AT & T is just about perfect in every possible way. I love it there.
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
I was in Pittsburgh when PNC opened and it is a phenomenal stadium. In recently moved to SF and live a 20 min walk from AT&T.
I have AT&T as my favorite (non-Fenway) stadium to watch a baseball game with PNC right behind it. I probably only rate AT&T ahead of PNC bc of recency bias as well as just enjoying SF more than Pittsburgh.
I am heading to the Sox - A's game on Sunday, should be a fun time, but getting to watch the Sox play at AT&T last June was probably better from a stadium perspective.

Edit - Fenway is just my favorite bc I am a Sox fan and all the history. I am not trying to say it is a nicer stadium than some of the new parks.
Regarding Pittsburgh and PNC park.

I lived in the 'burgh from 1997-2004. As a poor grad student my friends and I would buy cheap beer and hot dogs and have a pathetic-but-fun tailgate in the parking lot of Three Rivers Stadium, and then sit in our $3 outfield seats and get drunker, having a great time. The stadium was just plain awful for watching a baseball game, but hey, we were having an inexpensive fun time.

Then PNC Park opened. I went to several games there, mostly Red Sox games (I was at all three games of their first series there since the 1903 World Series), and I agree, it's a wonderful baseball experience. In the nosebleed cheap seats on the 1B line you have a fantastic view of the rivers. From the good seats on the 3B line you have great view of the skyline. The concessions are good. The park is lovely. They got it right.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
Regarding Pittsburgh and PNC park.

I lived in the 'burgh from 1997-2004. As a poor grad student my friends and I would buy cheap beer and hot dogs and have a pathetic-but-fun tailgate in the parking lot of Three Rivers Stadium, and then sit in our $3 outfield seats and get drunker, having a great time. The stadium was just plain awful for watching a baseball game, but hey, we were having an inexpensive fun time.

Then PNC Park opened. I went to several games there, mostly Red Sox games (I was at all three games of their first series there since the 1903 World Series), and I agree, it's a wonderful baseball experience. In the nosebleed cheap seats on the 1B line you have a fantastic view of the rivers. From the good seats on the 3B line you have great view of the skyline. The concessions are good. The park is lovely. They got it right.
Great summary. I lived in Pittsburgh as a poor undergraduate student from 2000-2002. You are exactly right on the fantastic views.
 

Devizier

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 3, 2000
19,472
Somewhere
Then PNC Park opened. I went to several games there, mostly Red Sox games (I was at all three games of their first series there since the 1903 World Series), and I agree, it's a wonderful baseball experience. In the nosebleed cheap seats on the 1B line you have a fantastic view of the rivers. From the good seats on the 3B line you have great view of the skyline. The concessions are good. The park is lovely. They got it right.
PNC is a lot like Safeco in Seattle, w/re to city positioning and views. I prefer Safeco, but that's because it's not quite so damned hot during day games.
 

Skiponzo

Member
SoSH Member
Petco is fine, but there is something off about that park, I just can't put my finger on it. AT & T is just about perfect in every possible way. I love it there.
The game experience is incredibly "sterile" there. That's the only way I know how to describe it. Ball park is pretty, surrounded by cool bars et all, has the park in the park which is awesome (especially for kids) and has good amenities but the game feel is, well, sterile. Maybe it's because the padres sucks and so do the fans.
 

Quintanariffic

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2002
5,141
The City of Studios
As bad as the Coliseum and the Big A are, one thing I actually appreciate is that all levels of govt in CA have pretty much put the kibosh on public funding of new sports palaces for billionaires. That's why the Chargers are in LA, the Raiders in Vegas and maybe with the exception of Levi's Stadium (?), every venue built in the last 20 years has been with private money. That includes the forthcoming Bank of California Stadium for LAFC.

Public funding is a mug's game so yeah our stadiums suck but at least we get to tax ourselves for other stupid shit. Or something.
 

cgori

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,007
SF, CA
As bad as the Coliseum and the Big A are, one thing I actually appreciate is that all levels of govt in CA have pretty much put the kibosh on public funding of new sports palaces for billionaires. That's why the Chargers are in LA, the Raiders in Vegas and maybe with the exception of Levi's Stadium (?), every venue built in the last 20 years has been with private money. That includes the forthcoming Bank of California Stadium for LAFC.

Public funding is a mug's game so yeah our stadiums suck but at least we get to tax ourselves for other stupid shit. Or something.
Santa Clara county put up a big bond measure for Levi's, unfortunately - but your general point holds (and I support as well). Pac Bell had some crazy tax incentives but not a bond measure, to my knowledge.
 

heavyde050

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 17, 2006
11,257
San Francisco
Santa Clara county put up a big bond measure for Levi's, unfortunately - but your general point holds (and I support as well). Pac Bell had some crazy tax incentives but not a bond measure, to my knowledge.
And if I have it right, the stadium uses the SBL (Stadium Builders License) now as well, which is sold by the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and allows its owner the right to purchase season tickets.
 

cgori

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,007
SF, CA
And if I have it right, the stadium uses the SBL (Stadium Builders License) now as well, which is sold by the Santa Clara Stadium Authority and allows its owner the right to purchase season tickets.
I was wrong, they did create that third party entity to handle everything, and there was no bond (I seem to recall a bond measure though, will have to dig around some more): https://www.google.com/amp/www.mercurynews.com/2015/09/12/santa-clara-gives-first-financial-accounting-of-levis-stadium/amp/
 

cgori

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2004
4,007
SF, CA