Entertainment desk
< July 9	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	Current desk >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

July 10

Which MLB field is the least altered from when it was nature?

Things like how far away the soil came from, alterations to topography, if it's been a farm before, how tall/dense the natural vegetation was (trees/shrubs/grass) etc. What was the least artificial MLB field since 1900? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification, are you considering parking to be part of the stadium? As an example, Kauffman stadium (and Arrowhead) were built on farmland that was already rather flat. Then, the paved over more land than the stadiums themselves. Eyeballing it, I'd say that there is 6 times as much paved over parking area than there is stadium space. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, just the playing area. The 10 story tall building around it is obviously extremely artificial whether no trees were razed to make it or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They might have built bleachers around pastures in the early 19th century, but professional ballparks have long been designed with the field itself being part of the artificial environment. As regards the Royals ballpark, you may be unaware that its surface was initially artificial turf. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was unaware that specific ballpark was artificial turf. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One thing to keep in mind is that major league ballparks are urban, not rural. Whatever piece of land they select will be completely cleared and they will start over, including creating drainage and possibly sprinkler systems, with the turf on top of that infrastructure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them... Chavez Ravine had minimal development when they built Dodger Stadium, of course they also heavily graded the land, so I don't think it answers the OPs question, but it was not "urban" back in the 1950s, at best one could call it suburban. [1]. Honestly, I'm not sure the question is answerable as this does not strike me as the sort of information anyone had previously made note of before. Merely because a question can be posed does assure that information exists to answer it.--Jayron 32 16:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A number of homes and other buildings were cleared by eminent domain in the Chavez Ravine area, and the people weren't necessarily very happy about being displaced. Although not strictly urban, the Elysian Park area overlooks the downtown, from which the Dodger Stadium lights are visible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Modern stadiums for just about any sport seem to be built in urban areas. Only 5 MLB stadiums were built before 1989 and have a chance to be built in rural area: Fenway Park (1912), Wrigley Field (1914), Dodger Stadium (1962), Angel Stadium (1966), and Kauffman Stadium (1973). As noted above, both Dodger Stadium and Kauffman Stadium were built in rural areas. Fenway Park was built in the urban Fenway neighborhood. Wrigley Field was built on the site of an urban seminary. Angel stadium was built on flat farmland. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 17:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The more common suburban stadiums tend to be football stadiums. MLB has had its fling with semi-suburban ballparks. Kansas City is one. Milwaukee is another. And Arlington. San Diego and San Francisco were too, while their successors are near downtown. Every case is somewhat unique. But you can be sure of one thing: They do not build the stadium seating around existing grass. The field is built, just as the stands are. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned 1989. It was only in the 1950s or so that some ballparks began to be built well outside of urban areas. If you look at the "classics", they were all built in the city, and often accessible by public transportation: Crosley Field, Polo Grounds, League Park, Griffith Stadium, Shibe Park, Forbes Field, Sportsman's Park, Comiskey Park, Fenway Park, Tiger Stadium, Ebbets Field, Wrigley Field, Braves Field, Yankee Stadium. Of these, the closest thing to its original "natural" setting might be Braves Field, which was built on the site of a golf course. Totally re-graded, of course. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the overall conclusion is that every stadium completely reworks the land. It is dug up, refilled, flattened, and rebuilt. If it is urban, buildings are torn down. If it is rural, vegetation is removed. The only thing that could be said to be conserved is the lay of the land. If it was flat to begin with, it will likely remain mostly flat. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And if it was the Mets, a square kilometer of ash, trash and poop is dumped on wetlands (10 yards deep), then a 50 acre parking lot is put there (the ash was dumped under Interstates), and decades later someone decides to put a ballpark in the parking lot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Flushing Meadows was a marsh that was used as a trash dump. Eventually, it became a park. Then, the stadium was built on the park (it was originally Flushing Meadows Stadium). It is unfair to say that the stadium was built by filling in a marsh with trash. The trash fill occurred long before anyone went looking for a place to build a stadium. If you want to be that wishy washy with time, you might as claim that white people crossed the Atlantic just to kill off the natives and build sports stadiums. Everything else is just collateral damage. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I mentioned ash going under Interstates. And that it took a long time for someone to decide to put a ballpark on the parking lot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a given, it's just kind of coincidental. The field itself might not be perfectly flat. If it uses a "crown" system of drainage, as Wrigley used to before they reworked to field a few years ago, then its slightly dome-shaped and the water runs off toward drains and/or gutters. In some cases, the land has to be reworked to flatten it. A good example could be Forbes Field, which I think was built with kind of a containment wall behind the right field area, as the natural lay of the land was a serious slope. Fenway and Wrigley, to name two, were built on just slightly sloping land. The difference in grade was made up by hiding it behind walls. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fenway was more than just slightly sloping, left field used to have a noticable 10 foot hill leading up to the Green Monster prior to 1933 called "Duffy's Cliff". Crosley Field in Cincinnati had the reverse grade, there was a dip in the outfield that almost obscured the fielders from view.--Jayron 32 21:25, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 10 foot drop in Fenway's left field still exists, the slope was merely smoothed out in the 1930s and the new wall was built to not require Duffy's Cliff for support. The left fielder, and the guys inside the scoreboard, remain about 10 feet below street level (maybe hence the famous rat in Game 6 in 1975). In Cincinnati, instead of going the Fenway way, they created the terrace which rose up to street level. A bit less steep than Duffy's Cliff, although it could also give outfielders fits. Then there was Baker Bowl, whose centerfield was somewhat uphill in order to accommodate the trains running below it. One extreme case of artificiality could be Riverfront Stadium, whose field as I recall was a circle of plastic grass on top of a big concrete slab on top of a parking garage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly question because baseball stadiums are as unnatural as any other structure, however there is one way to look at it that may provide a moderately satisfying answer : Grass.

Most ball fields (that use real grass) use either "Kentucky Bluegrass" or "Bermuda grass" both non-native grasses. Ryegrass is also non-native. These grasses were unknown in the Americas until Europeans brought them over in boats.

According to this source, The Astros's Minute Maid Park, is surfaced with "Seashore Paspalum" which is a cultivar of Paspalum vaginatum which might conceivably have grown wild on that site in prehistoric times. ApLundell (talk) 20:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The closest thing to a notable ballpark in a natural setting was probably the Elysian Fields, which were once a large park in Hoboken which ran along the Hudson shoreline. It was the home field of the Knickerbockers and other amateur baseball and cricket clubs. It was never a major league facility, though. And eventually the parkland was totally developed, except for a small triangular piece. It seems fitting that a later New York-based club, the Brooklyn Dodgers, now plays its games in an area known as Elysian Park - on the opposite coast. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, here are a couple of pictures of the early stages of Dodger Stadium's construction.[2][3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]