I attended my first game there and I liked it. There, I said it. It's not that everyone else who's reviewed it has said it is bad - but nobody wants to say that the park is good.
The chief complaint: "There is nothing DC about it." A fair point, but there is nothing LA about Dodger stadium, nothing NY about Shea, etc. Yankee, Giants, and DBack's stadiums are a bit different, but the latter two have just as many hokie add ons as the new DC digs. In our case, it's a Playstation arena, a massive "Diamond club" behind home plate, and an equally large eating/seating area across the park in the outfield. What can you do? This will never have the homie and hallowed feeling of Fenway or Wrigley, but instead of a tacky recreation of DC landmarks, they used retro 50's styling and a beautiful, wide open entry pavilion in center field. The overall effect is to make the park look small and really airy - and I, for one, can appreciate that.
And one more thing, at least National's Park is just that, not Fly-by-night Corporation Park.
6 comments:
Give it time- by next year, there will probably be a corporate name on the facade. They're just taking their sweet time getting it done.
I'd like to see "Taxation with representation park" myself - or better, "your tax dollars at play park."
< /snark>
While I don't like the corporate-named building trend (at least where it doesn't correspond to a name, as in Wrigley field, which is named after the founder rather than the eponymous company), if the company would retire some large chunk of the public debt the city has taken on to fund the park, I wouldn't mind at all.
My problem isn't that we have a price, it's that the price is so low...
Two things:
First of all, the park was designed to look uniquely "DC" - that's why it's all white marble, as opposed to the brick-and-steel look that's been so popular with new stadium construction (e.g. Turner Field, Camden, etc). I think they did a good job fitting into DC without trying to build a landmark, and the sightlines of the Capital, LOC and Memorials are a great touch.
Second - I'm pretty sure that the team's contract with DC stipulates that they can't sell naming rights for the first few (can't remember if it's 3 or 5) seasons. After that, I predict we'll be going to "Geico Park" or some other such nonsense.
And for the record - I like it too. Although the kosher food options could use an upgrade.
It would just be nicer if the view wasn't of the parking lots and soon to be high-rise condos...but maybe I'm just spoiled because Camden Yards is gorgeous (well, until the monstrosity blocked the clocktower...)
I particularly like how the kosher stand sells bottles of water for a dollar more than everyone else.
Re: naming rights, see here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/28/AR2008032803730.html
Were you also there last night and didn't let us know?
I'm still getting used to Nationals Park. Not that I dislike it, but RFK had been the only other ballpark that I had ever been in and it had this cozy feel to it. On the other hand, the concourses were crowded, there were no escalators, the kosher stand was impossible to get to and the sound system was bad.
NP is modern and I feel like they are trying to put the fans first. The view from our seats is great (Capitol and Washington Monument), one of the kosher stands is right near our section (as for one person's comment about the cost of the water, I haven't looked at other stand's prices, but I am guessing that liquids will fall into line. Plus, you can bring in your own water), the scoreboard is amazing (although the operator last night was HORRIBLE!), it is easy to get around and it is so close to the Metro. I think Metro is also doing a good job of getting folks in and out.
I think I might be able to do a better assessment after I get to Yankee Stadium in July. Maybe I'll even find myself at OPaCY for some game (even if it means giving Angelos my money). My dream is to see Wrigley Field and Fenway Park.
Post a Comment