My friend Andrew Dresdner chided me for getting the "actual neighborhood
ballpark" discussion off on a less-than-serious foot, so I want to redeem
myself somewhat.
I am a big baseball fan (for example, my three-year-old and I went to 5, yes
5 Twins games this year, along with an equal number of Saints games...the
poor misbegotten youth was so scared by the Windsor Canadian hockey shootout
between Saints innings that he vastly prefers the calm nothingness of the
dome....I still have time to work him, though). I have also been a big
stadium opponent - gargantuan plans by gargantuan architects requiring
gargantuan subsidies to small-minded owners.
If the thing will be privately financed - one of Andrew's key conditions -
then I say put it downtown, which is clearly the most underutilized real
estate in town (at least on the periphery...am I nuts to think we could
incorporate a library and save money? No, no joshing this time, sorry...).
But if a park was to make more sense in a neighborhood, it could more fully
realize one of Philip Bess's ideas. (Bess is the architect who started the
"small ball" ballpark idea in Chicago. He has been a prophet unappreciated
until Tom Goldstein of Elysian Fields Quarterly, Paul Ostrow, and Andrew
fought to get him into the local debate.) Bess favors multi-uses, especially
high-density housing, as part of the site plan.
I would say looking for this type of space: a big stretch of territory
needing to be redeveloped, where lots of housing wouldn't occur but for a
stadium type amenity. The problem, I'm guessing, is that that sort of parcel
is also coveted for light-industrial development, which yields more jobs and
property tax base.
I can't think of a stretch of territory that works southwest, though I do
like Craig Miller's half-joking Broadway-and-riverfront idea (pending
enthusiasm from folks who live there. The North and Northeast stretches of
the river would make beautiful backdrops. Yes, they should probably be a
park, or something like it, but my understanding is the resources aren't
really there (and given the city's financial bind, probably won't be soon).
So if you ask the north riverfront people, "would you take a ballpark or the
same ugly commercial site?," they might go for it. Plus north and northeast
are great sports-loving parts of town, and would give me more chances to get
darts thrown at my head coming in the door at Stand-Up Frank's.
However, the private financing, to me, seriously limits the chance of
anything happening outside of downtown. Andrew, would the business owners
who would have to finance a park contribute to something they'd have to
drive to? What about the city, which is obviously craving downtown parking
revenue?
To stay serious: I like creative thinking like this...whatever you think of
the basic stadium idea, it is "thinking outside the (batters') box." May
come to nothing, but sure better than ideas crammed down our throats by
small-minded bankers.
David Brauer
King Field - Ward 10
