The Dodgers are at the beginning of what will be a year-long environmental and public review process for the plan. The process will formally begin when the City issues a notice of preparation (NOP) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The NOP is expected to be released in late spring 2008. The NOP will summarize the Next 50 improvements and the proposed areas of study for the environmental impact report (EIR). For 30 days after the NOP's release, public comments will be provided on the proposed scope of analysis. Thereafter, the City will prepare and release a draft environmental impact report (EIR) for public review and comment. The draft EIR is expected to be released in the fall of 2008. Public comments will be incorporated and addressed in the final EIR which is expected to be released sometime in late 2008/early 2009. Following that process, approvals for the plan will be considered in public hearings by the City of Los Angeles.

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/ballpark/next50/

Renderings and Models: http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/ballpark/next50/galleries.jsp

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/images/ballpark/legacy/legacy_sec4.gif

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/images/ballpark/legacy/legacy_sec3.gif

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/images/ballpark/legacy/legacy_sec1.gif

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/images/ballpark/legacy/legacy_sec2.gif

http://losangeles.dodgers.mlb.com/la/images/ballpark/legacy/legacy_sec5.gif

wow...the plans look amazing. Not bad for the 2nd oldest NL park. Now if we can win a world series in the next couple of years, that would be the icing on the cake.

i dont care much for the dodgers but ive always liked their stadium and i think the renderings and models look spectacular.

Yay :happy:

I like it a lot, I like that it will now be a place where you can have breathtaking views, like how Griffith Observatory and Getty Center are (but probably not as high of an altitude as those two)

If you go to the website, there is a link that will get you updates for the plan and allow you to leave a comment. Tell them that you want the plan to include better integration of transit at the stadium. There is some mention of it in the plan, but look at all that parking there, you know it's not a large emphasis. Tell them that you abhor the exorbiant parking rates and want an alternative means of transportation to the stadium.

This looks great. Adds spice without significantly tampering with the stadium structure. I always wondered why they didn't do anything behind the centerfield wall (between the two bleachers, where the speakers stand). Very bland. Now, this area will open up and can be used. Say what you want about the Mccourts but they have a vision.

I've always wondered why the field doesn't face the opposite way so there would be a beautiful and breathtaking view of Downtown and the rest of LA

All it needs is a Monorail to connect you to Downtown... Woohoo!!!

I've always wondered why the field doesn't face the opposite way so there would be a beautiful and breathtaking view of Downtown and the rest of LA

That would be something, but the sun would be in your face and... there wasn't a 'downtown' when the stadium was built, really :)

McCourt unveils stadium makeover planhttp://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/38195031.jpgBrian Vander Brug/LAT
Brian Vander Brug / Los Angeles Times
An architectural model displayed at Dodger Stadium shows the $500-million makeover planned for the stadium in Chavez Ravine.
Among the renovations, planned by 2012, would be a dedicated bus lane near the stadium and two parking garages plus additional underground parking.
By Bill Shaikin and Dylan Hernandez, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
April 25, 2008
Dodgers owner Frank McCourt unveiled plans today for a historic makeover of the club's 275-acre Dodger Stadium site in Chavez Ravine, describing new features designed to transform the ballpark into a year-round destination for dining, shopping and recreation that will be fan- and environment-friendly.

At the same time, McCourt challenged civic leaders to follow his $500-million investment by extending bus and subway lines to the ballpark.

"The ultimate way to improve access to Dodger Stadium is public transit," McCourt said.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said he would be happy to work with the Dodgers on finding ways other than driving to get people to Chavez Ravine.

"That clarion call, that challenge, I like that," Villaraigosa said. "Isn't it amazing that we built a public transportation system and it never connected to Dodger Stadium? Wouldn't it be great if we said, 'This city is going to also rectify the errors of the past and do something to change that'? I like that idea. Let's get working on it."

McCourt said that in addition to two parking garages and additional subterranean parking to replace the 2,000 spaces lost to construction, the renovations would include a dedicated bus lane running directly to a transit plaza adjacent to the stadium.

He also said he hoped local leaders would "tweak and adjust subway lines" to add a Dodger Stadium stop and provide "bus access in the interim."

City Councilman Ed Reyes, whose district includes Dodger Stadium, said the ballpark renovation "hopefully can stimulate a whole new transit system that gets us in and out of this great place."

McCourt said the Dodgers filed paperwork on Thursday morning to acquire the necessary permits for the stadium improvements and that he hoped to get approval by the start of the 2009 season. The project is scheduled to be completed in time for opening day in 2012.

Fifteen acres of the stadium's parking lot will be used to make room for the additions, resulting in the loss of about 2,000 spaces. But McCourt said there wouldn't be a net loss of parking during construction because of the extra spaces created by the reconfiguration of the roadways and parking lots.

The Dodgers have already received approval to move forward with the first phase of the project in the winter, which will be to renovate the loge level, as well as the home and visiting clubhouses. McCourt said the club is also considering installing high-definition scoreboards.

The improvements that will be made next off-season, he said, would be "comparable" in cost to those made this winter -- about $80 million.

McCourt said he wasn't concerned how the downturn in the economy might impact the returns on his sizable investment.

"Economies go up and down, they're not static," McCourt said. "We look at this thing in a very, very long-term, also generational fashion. We're not making these decisions based on what the economy is like today. We're making these decisions as huge optimists in the future of the Dodgers."

McCourt wouldn't say what else he saw in the future of the Dodger Stadium site, of which the stadium covers 16 acres and the renovations announced Thursday covering another 15. McCourt would not comment on whether he would pursue additional projects on the rest of the site and refused to say whether he would rule out residential development or the addition of an NFL stadium.

The NFL has long coveted the Chavez Ravine site.

bill.shaikin@latimes.com

dylan.hernandez@latimes.com

Ahhh, geez! I consider Chavez Ravine to be hallowed ground but if there is a place for an NFL stadium up there that won't turn the area into complete chaos, then I would rather have it there then out by Covina. Hey, McCourt? Get together with this Roski dude and see if you two can't find some sort of synergy, will ya?

Notice how they included Maguire's Tower in the renderings, isn't that interesting??????

Truly... on the website, they also included The Grand in another watercolor rendering...

Notice how they included Maguire's Tower in the renderings, isn't that interesting??????

i noticed the same thing! maybe they know something??

regarding the renovations, it looks great. long time coming. And im really surprised and enthusiastic to hear everyone from McCourt to the Mayor to Garcetti talking about getting transit to Dodger Stadium. Now, lets get it done. The only reason i never wanted the NFL at Chavez Ravine was i didnt think we would ever get a transit link or 2 to the area, but if we do, it becomes the best spot. Now all we have to do is improve the area around it on Sunset to the Orsini.

I DON'T TRUST McCOURT. I'm a huge Dodgers Fan, but if he could've of, he would've of torn down the stadium and sold the land piece by piece.

I don't buy that he cares for the Dodgers' legacy or for baseball, he's a greedy east coast-carpet bagger money maker.

I'm afraid they might turn our beautiful stadium into a "Downtown Disney"

Feeewww, I vented!:lol:

Notice how they included Maguire's Tower in the renderings, isn't that interesting??????

That's one of the first things I noticed, and wondered. Very interesting.

this is great news! I also like the fact that he actually spoke to the city about public transit.

Dodger Stadium is one of the (probably the only stadium) that does not face downtown. And I actually like it that way. I like the natural view better and I'm glad that it's faced that way. It's a place to get away from the hustle and bustle of the city into serenity.

It's the best, it just is. It has that big time feel and yet at the same time, especially if you're not looking straight up at that huge grandstand, it has a park like atmospere, almost like a softball park. Obviously it's the best looking design, otherwise it would have been torn down like everyone else's. A Classic.

Has anyone here seen that HBO documentary Brooklyn Dodgers: Ghosts of Flatbush? Well, Walter O'Malley was quoted as saying "This stadium is going to be the future". I don't think he could've been anymore correct.

I love how the article talks about implementing transit to the stadium. They got the right idea here.

Man, and look at that park. The Dodger Stadium is going to become a regular spot for those who don't even enjoy sports like that.

The future looks bright, my friends...

"Renovations" is spelled with one "n".

This project looks amazing!

Lamont! He..he said "Renovations is spelled with one 'n"!http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/sanford-and-son.jpgThat's our Westy, Pops!TV Guide

:lol:

So I corrected someone. Big deal.

So, what did you have before you edited your post? ;)

A New Dodger Vision

Team Owner Announces Plans for $500 Million Stadium Renovation

By Anna Scott

Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt stood at center field of Dodger Stadium last week to announce a $500 million planned renovation of the 46-year-old ballpark.

On Thursday, April 24, McCourt was joined by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City Council President Eric Garcetti, First District Councilman Ed Reyes and others to discuss the upcoming makeover. The effort is expected to get underway next year and wrap up by opening day 2012, in time for the stadium's 50th anniversary.

The announcement was significant not just for the size of the project and the scale of the investment, but for the message it sends about the team's future in the historic stadium. Ever since McCourt, a Boston real estate developer, acquired the team four years ago, there had been speculation that he might one day seek to move the team and create housing on the site.

Instead, McCourt discussed an expansive vision to improve the fan experience. Plans include an upgraded entrance, greenery, restaurants, retail and sustainable features.

McCourt said he expects the renovation to make the stadium a year-round, family-friendly dining and shopping spot. Part of the goal, he said, is to encourage people to come early and stay late on game days, which in turn could help ease traffic congestion.

"We will preserve Dodger Stadium's essential charm," said McCourt, while transforming the complex into "a lifestyle destination."

Downtown leaders praised the plan.

Reyes, whose district includes Dodger Stadium, stressed the stadium's potential to complement efforts to green the Los Angeles River and other community initiatives, and to create new jobs.

"Everything that you're doing is going to be about this holistic approach, and creating change in our city," Reyes told McCourt and his wife, Dodgers President Jamie McCourt.

Central City Association President Carol Schatz added, "Dodger Stadium, from our point of view, is the northern edge of Downtown. It will be a great resource for the Downtown community."

Green Necklace

Key elements of the renovation, which is being designed by a team led by architecture and planning firms Johnson Fain and HKS, start at the park's main entrance, which will be enhanced with trees and other landscaping.

Inside stadium gates, a landscaped grand plaza beyond center field will connect to a promenade called Dodger Way. It will feature restaurants, shops and a Dodger museum.

A so-called "green necklace," a landscaped outdoor walkway on what is currently several acres of surface-level parking lots, will encircle the perimeter of the stadium and connect to Dodger Way. Two new garages will replace the 2,000 spaces in the lots.

The walkway will also connect to a large, outdoor plaza showcasing views of the Downtown skyline, the Santa Monica Bay, the Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains and the Dodger Stadium playing field.

The project will aim for certification through the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program, and feature sustainable elements such as recycled materials, water-saving measures and possibly solar power, said architect Scott Johnson of Johnson Fain, which is headquartered near the stadium in Chinatown.

"But the hugest thing" the design team is doing in relation to the environment, he added, "is keeping the stadium intact."

Off-Season Construction

Dodger Stadium opened in 1962, four years after Walter O'Malley moved the team to Los Angeles from Brooklyn. The 56,000-seat stadium was the key to O'Malley's vision, and established Major League Baseball on the West Coast.

O'Malley's son Peter eventually took over the team, and in the mid-1990s began exploring plans to build a football stadium in the Dodger Stadium parking lot in the effort to help return the NFL to Los Angeles. However, after initially receiving city support, momentum swung to the Coliseum as the next site for NFL football. O'Malley said the experience was part of what led him to sell the team to Fox. The company in turn unloaded the stadium and the team to McCourt.

The project team filed its city applications last week, said Johnson, and expects to obtain all the necessary approvals to begin work in the fall of 2009. Construction will unfold mostly during the off-seasons, said McCourt, and will not interfere with Dodger games.

McCourt said that the renovation is privately funded but declined to give further details about the project's budget or financing. He did, however, say that the improvements will not be reflected in ticket prices, which currently range from about $10 to $150.

"This has nothing to do with ticket prices at all. We look at it as providing more value for the ticket holder," said McCourt. "This is an opportunity to grow the business here." The project also will not increase the stadium's seating capacity, he said.

The new plans come on the heels of smaller upgrades that began when McCourt took over the Dodgers in 2004, including a recently completed $75 million overhaul of the Field Level concourse, new seats throughout the stadium and a new playing surface, new dugouts and more. Additional improvements are expected to be complete before the 2010 season.

Last season, Dodger Stadium hosted nearly 4 million fans, and officials have said they hope to hit that number in the coming years.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Los Angeles Downtown News (http://www.downtownnews.com/articles/2008/04/28/news/news03.txt)

All it needs is a Monorail to connect you to Downtown... Woohoo!!!


Oh Yeahhh Ferney! *High five * That's the spirit!! :banana::banana::banana:

I honestly, wouldn't mind seeing a monorail going up Chavez Ravine....

Notice how they included Maguire's Tower in the renderings, isn't that interesting??????

Are you sure they included the Maguire's Tower? I hate to burst your bubble..but I think it's supposed to be the LA Live/Ritz-Carlton Hotel Tower? If it were the Maguire Tower, shouldn't it be next to the 777 Tower?

Anyway, in the L.A. Times newspaper version you could clearly see they included a wavy tower reminiscent of Frank Gehry's planned tower in the lower left right, just right next to the Music Center.

I'm just very excited about Dodger's stadium getting a make-over.

:banana::banana::banana:

A New Dodger Vision

Team Owner Announces Plans for $500 Million Stadium Renovation

by Anna Scott, LA Downtown News

Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt last Thursday announced a half-billion dollar upgrade of the 1962 stadium. He pointed out details to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and City Council President Eric Garcetti. Photo by Gary McCarthy.

On Thursday, April 24, McCourt was joined by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, City Council President Eric Garcetti, First District Councilman Ed Reyes and others to discuss the upcoming makeover. The effort is expected to get underway next year and wrap up by opening day 2012, in time for the stadium's 50th anniversary.

The announcement was significant not just for the size of the project and the scale of the investment, but for the message it sends about the team's future in the historic stadium. Ever since McCourt, a Boston real estate developer, acquired the team four years ago, there had been speculation that he might one day seek to move the team and create housing on the site.

Instead, McCourt discussed an expansive vision to improve the fan experience. Plans include an upgraded entrance, greenery, restaurants, retail and sustainable features.

McCourt said he expects the renovation to make the stadium a year-round, family-friendly dining and shopping spot. Part of the goal, he said, is to encourage people to come early and stay late on game days, which in turn could help ease traffic congestion.

"We will preserve Dodger Stadium's essential charm," said McCourt, while transforming the complex into "a lifestyle destination."

Downtown leaders praised the plan.

Reyes, whose district includes Dodger Stadium, stressed the stadium's potential to complement efforts to green the Los Angeles River and other community initiatives, and to create new jobs.

"Everything that you're doing is going to be about this holistic approach, and creating change in our city," Reyes told McCourt and his wife, Dodgers President Jamie McCourt.

Central City Association President Carol Schatz added, "Dodger Stadium, from our point of view, is the northern edge of Downtown. It will be a great resource for the Downtown community."

Green Necklace

Key elements of the renovation, which is being designed by a team led by architecture and planning firms Johnson Fain and HKS, start at the park's main entrance, which will be enhanced with trees and other landscaping.

Inside stadium gates, a landscaped grand plaza beyond center field will connect to a promenade called Dodger Way. It will feature restaurants, shops and a Dodger museum.

A so-called "green necklace," a landscaped outdoor walkway on what is currently several acres of surface-level parking lots, will encircle the perimeter of the stadium and connect to Dodger Way. Two new garages will replace the 2,000 spaces in the lots.

The walkway will also connect to a large, outdoor plaza showcasing views of the Downtown skyline, the Santa Monica Bay, the Santa Monica and San Gabriel mountains and the Dodger Stadium playing field.

The project will aim for certification through the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) program, and feature sustainable elements such as recycled materials, water-saving measures and possibly solar power, said architect Scott Johnson of Johnson Fain, which is headquartered near the stadium in Chinatown.

"But the hugest thing" the design team is doing in relation to the environment, he added, "is keeping the stadium intact."

Off-Season Construction


Dodger Stadium opened in 1962, four years after Walter O'Malley moved the team to Los Angeles from Brooklyn. The 56,000-seat stadium was the key to O'Malley's vision, and established Major League Baseball on the West Coast.

O'Malley's son Peter eventually took over the team, and in the mid-1990s began exploring plans to build a football stadium in the Dodger Stadium parking lot in the effort to help return the NFL to Los Angeles. However, after initially receiving city support, momentum swung to the Coliseum as the next site for NFL football. O'Malley said the experience was part of what led him to sell the team to Fox. The company in turn unloaded the stadium and the team to McCourt.

The project team filed its city applications last week, said Johnson, and expects to obtain all the necessary approvals to begin work in the fall of 2009. Construction will unfold mostly during the off-seasons, said McCourt, and will not interfere with Dodger games.

McCourt said that the renovation is privately funded but declined to give further details about the project's budget or financing. He did, however, say that the improvements will not be reflected in ticket prices, which currently range from about $10 to $150.

"This has nothing to do with ticket prices at all. We look at it as providing more value for the ticket holder," said McCourt. "This is an opportunity to grow the business here." The project also will not increase the stadium's seating capacity, he said.

The new plans come on the heels of smaller upgrades that began when McCourt took over the Dodgers in 2004, including a recently completed $75 million overhaul of the Field Level concourse, new seats throughout the stadium and a new playing surface, new dugouts and more. Additional improvements are expected to be complete before the 2010 season.

Last season, Dodger Stadium hosted nearly 4 million fans, and officials have said they hope to hit that number in the coming years.

http://images.townnews.com/ladowntownnews.com/content/articles/2008/04/28/news/news03.jpg
Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt stood at center field of Dodger Stadium last week to announce a $500 million planned renovation of the 46-year-old ballpark.

I won't believe it until the construction actually begins.

Are you sure they included the Maguire's Tower? I hate to burst your bubble..but I think it's supposed to be the LA Live/Ritz-Carlton Hotel Tower? If it were the Maguire Tower, shouldn't it be next to the 777 Tower?

Anyway, in the L.A. Times newspaper version you could clearly see they included a wavy tower reminiscent of Frank Gehry's planned tower in the lower left right, just right next to the Music Center.

I'm just very excited about Dodger's stadium getting a make-over.

:banana::banana::banana:

Good eye, but still, there is a building just to the right of the 777 Tower that isn't part of the skyline, it's the beige box.

Only on this sight can we virtually ignore a new fam coming in here and gussing up the place with half a bil, only to debate the content of the background illustrations! You guys never take your eyes off the prize!! :)

hey..i just noticed..they're planning on renovating Dodgers' Stadium. cool

Lamont! He..he said "Renovations is spelled with one 'n"!http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/sanford-and-son.jpgThat's our Westy, Pops!TV Guide


^^ Too funny!!!!!!

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I won't believe it until the construction actually begins.

^ Hey Mr Previous Angelino have some faith on the old ballpark. Your beginning to nag like a bitter giant...:nuts:

An email I got today:

Thank you for your support of the Dodgers' Next 50 plan. The Next 50 will bring you the most modern amenities - including new attractions, plazas and picnic areas, trees and landscaping - while preserving Dodger Stadium as the heart of Los Angeles for the next 50 years.

We will soon begin the public review process for the Next 50 plan, which will provide opportunities for your input. We will update you as those opportunities arise.

Also, please check out the latest version of our "Next 50 Announcement" video, narrated by Vin Scully and available on our website at dodgers.com/next50.

We are excited about embarking on this plan, and we look forward to sharing additional information about our progress as we move ahead. In the meantime, please continue to visit our website, dodgers.com/next50, to stay up-to-date.

Sincerely,

The Los Angeles Dodgers

An email I got today:

Thank you for your support of the Dodgers' Next 50 plan. The Next 50 will bring you the most modern amenities - including new attractions, plazas and picnic areas, trees and landscaping - while preserving Dodger Stadium as the heart of Los Angeles for the next 50 years.

We will soon begin the public review process for the Next 50 plan, which will provide opportunities for your input. We will update you as those opportunities arise.

Also, please check out the latest version of our "Next 50 Announcement" video, narrated by Vin Scully and available on our website at dodgers.com/next50.

We are excited about embarking on this plan, and we look forward to sharing additional information about our progress as we move ahead. In the meantime, please continue to visit our website, dodgers.com/next50, to stay up-to-date.

Sincerely,

The Los Angeles Dodgers

I wonder if they are still going forward with the renovation of each level at the end of each season? Level 1, finito!

I haven't heard anything, but I assume so. It's the nicest ballpark in MLB, but those concession stands are pretty old and so people think it's not nice because of that. What other stadium can you go to where you actually are turned away from the city and get a view of beautiful hills. Talk about getting away from the city and relaxing (until you're forced to get in your car on the way back, lol).

true. it's like a total getaway right in the middle of the city.

You guys don't have to tell me,...........I'm a huge Dodgers fan, I practically live there.

Dodger Stadium shuttle begins tonight

Trolley2 Mass transit returns to Dodger Stadium this evening when city of Los Angeles DASH buses start running a new route between Union Station and the ballpark.

The flier, at right, shows the route -- it's basically from Union Station straight up Cesar Chavez and Sunset to Elysian Park. The buses run from 90 minutes before the game until one hour after -- for those who like to stay until the bitter end. The ride is free.

We wrote about this last month. The Dodgers wouldn't help pay for the service, saying that mass transit isn't their responsibility, rather it's a civic function. The team did promise to help publicize the bus, which it appears to be doing -- although I wonder if that trolley at the right can afford to eat at the stadium.

The Dodgers are also intent on developing some of the land around the stadium. That could mean to a loss of some parking or an increase in the number of people going up the hill, which perhaps is the reason that the team wants to get people on the bus.

Either way, it's intriguing that the team is embracing something that could cost it parking revenue. With parking at $15 a pop and the high price of gas, now seems the time to strike.

A prominent elected official once suggested to me that I bear a distinct resemblance to a rain cloud, and in that spirit I would like to suggest that another bus be added that picks fans up at some downtown eateries and bars. The last time I was at the stadium I whipped out a $20 bill to pay for two watery beers and discovered it wasn't enough; next time I'm eating and drinking before the game.

-- Steve Hymon

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/07/dodger-stadium.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/images/2008/07/25/trolley2.jpg

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/images/2008/07/25/trolley2.jpg

I'll ride it, but only if it looks like it does in the illustration :)

I took this trolley on Friday nite.

cahuenga subway stop to union station to the shuttle to the stadium. 90 minutes.

Shuttle, to union station back to cahuenga nearly 1 hour 45. Plus I was stuck sitting next to a recent ex-con swapping stories with another guy about their time in jail.

Thanks, but I'm sticking to my car.

That's the kind of attitude about transit that LA doesn't need any more of.

I took this trolley on Friday nite.

cahuenga subway stop to union station to the shuttle to the stadium. 90 minutes.

Shuttle, to union station back to cahuenga nearly 1 hour 45. Plus I was stuck sitting next to a recent ex-con swapping stories with another guy about their time in jail.

Thanks, but I'm sticking to my car.

I hope you weren't hurt! Did they do anything to you?

I took this trolley on Friday nite.

cahuenga subway stop to union station to the shuttle to the stadium. 90 minutes.

Shuttle, to union station back to cahuenga nearly 1 hour 45. Plus I was stuck sitting next to a recent ex-con swapping stories with another guy about their time in jail.

Thanks, but I'm sticking to my car.

why don't you just take the red line from cahuenga to union station?

Fans wait on deck for mayor, then enjoy Dodger Stadium shuttle's return
Amid high gas prices and the $15 stadium parking fee, the lift from Union Station goes over well on its first night, with 500 to 600 taking advantage of the free ride to Chavez Ravine and back.
By David Wharton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
3:25 PM PDT, July 26, 2008

Let us count the reasons for the crowd of Dodger fans that gathered outside Union Station on a warm summer evening.

Gas prices approaching $5 a gallon. The $15 it costs to park at the stadium.

"Every single game I'm paying," season-ticket holder Rudy Montoya said. "It adds up pretty big."

Big enough to lure Montoya and an estimated 500 to 600 others downtown Friday for the debut of a new - and free - shuttle that will circulate between the train station and Chavez Ravine for every home game.

By most accounts, the inaugural "Dodger Trolley" was a success.

The majority of riders were ferried up the hill, a trip of 10 or so minutes, and unloaded outside the stadium well before the first pitch. All but a small group landed back at Union Station within an hour of the final out.

"You get tired of driving," said Dick Martin, who took light rail from Pasadena. "I think I'd do this again."

Not that all went smoothly. Not on the first try.

Team executives started the evening by parking a blue-festooned minibus in Union Station's main entrance where it might attract attention and make for a dramatic television shot. Soon, an official-looking woman was telling them to move because they were blocking traffic.

After several minutes of testy discussion, the celebration was allowed to stay put.

Then Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa arrived to shake hands and take the maiden voyage. But most of the minibus was reserved for politicians and other officials, with only a few fans welcomed aboard.

The rest were ushered around the corner to larger, plain-looking buses.

"We'll be following this shuttle in our shuttle," a bus company employee announced cheerily to a momentarily puzzled crowd.

That first run accommodated the initial rush. Thereafter, fans arrived sporadically and waited only a short time.

Many had paid $5 to take rail and bus service from their homes, while others parked at nearby lots that charged $6 or less. It wasn't just the money -- they wanted to avoid traffic.

"Driving up the hill," said Miguel Reyes of Manhattan Beach, referring to congested surface streets leading into Dodger Stadium. "It's like 20 to 30 minutes."

Which is exactly the point team and local officials hope to drive home.

A city bus line that ran to Dodger Stadium was discontinued in 1994 because of budget constraints and declining ridership. In 2004, Friday night shuttles from Union Station attracted only 400 passengers a game.

This time, the city is spending $70,000 in surplus transportation funds to reacquaint fans with public transportation.

"With the high gas prices, this is a great time to get people to try," City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel said.

The "Dodger Trolley" recalls "Trolley Dodgers" -- one of several names, including the Superbas and Bridegrooms, the team went by in its Brooklyn years.

The shuttles begin 90 minutes before each game and run continuously until an hour afterward. They make two stops along Sunset Boulevard, at Figueroa Street and Marion Avenue.

Ben Fournier and his buddies, who came north from Lakewood, said they enjoyed riding into the stadium with other fans. And waiting half an hour for the return trip did not seem so bad, not with cars idling all around them, inching toward the exits.

"Look at the parking lot," Fournier said. "This is much better than trying to drive out of here."

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2008-07/41254564.jpg

A cop out for what in a perfect world should be a subway line from Union Station.

Oh geez.........why would you need a subway line specifically to Dodgers Stadium?

It would be the "Think Blue" line :)

RE: "that's the kind of attitude. . ."

Hey, I tried it. I left my car behind, and the experience sucked. Not my fault.

I treated my car with a deluxe car wash this morning.

:-)

I did take the redline. Harrowing ride home. I sat in the back of the front car and two HUGE guys sat around me essentially pinning me in. Both as it turned out were ex-cons--one from russia, one who was bragging about being an illegal alien. They compared tattoos, talked about fights they got into, beating the system by not paying for tickets they've gotten for not paying their transit fares. . .To make matters worse, the train kept stopping for no apparent reason between union station and wilshire/vermont.

Not fun.

Not fast.

Not better than my car.

Well, enjoy that traffic and those gasoline prices and that air quality.

Seriously, keep your car and enjoy yourself but leave the subway alone. Your attitude, that same attitude that too many others share, is the reason why public transit can't get off the ground in LA - because no one will have even a little bit of faith in it.

So you had a sucky experience one time. How many shitty experiences have you had on the freeway?





... our biggest consolation is the hope that someday people who think like this will fade into the background

Oh geez.........why would you need a subway line specifically to Dodgers Stadium?

When they decide to develop that parking lot, assuming they don't fill it with more single-family homes.

surfnspy, why don't you try it for your commute. And when you're comparing driving to taking rail, make sure that you consider maintenance, accidents, pollution, stress, and time wasted going to a gas station.

No way to take the subway for my commute--the nearest rail stop to la brea and beverly is far, far away.

Look again at my post. I did not exactly DIS the subway. I am a huge proponent, in fact. I, unlike 99% of the residents of l.a., actually TRIED mass transit.

The option was just crap compared to driving. That was my experience. And is going to be the experience of most who try it. It just doesn't beat driving. You just can't help wondering as your sitting in traffic on a shuttle full of the Dodger dog and beer belching masses--why aren't I sitting in my car in the same traffic?

I live less than a mile from the Universal stop so I DO try and make use if it.

I try to use it to go to L.A.X. TERRIBLE! You have to transfer from Red, to Blue, to Green then to a SHUTTLE.

That is a 2 1/2 hour trek. No traffic is bad enough to make THAT worth my while.

I do use it to go to the arclight in hollywood on fri/sat nights. That actually works out pretty well, tho the 20 min wait for a train at 11pm can be a drag.

As far as air pollution goes. Um, people, where do you think electricity comes from? Power plants that create pollution. Oh, right! And gas is still cheaper than electricity. My gas bill at home--17 bucks a month. Electricity? $200. SO don't go throwing the argument that gas is more expensive.

Face it. This is L.A. It wasn't designed for cars in the beginning, but it has EVOLVED into a car culture. It will take MANY MANY years before viable alternatives are built so that it will make sense for the average person to use mass transit.

And believe me. I've lived in London and I never had a car there. Now THAT'S a subway system.

You're talking to people who would give their right hand if there were some way to undo those years of DEVOLUTION from the 1930's and 40's to today.

When you say to people, "transit in LA sucks, your car is better", that isn't exactly constructive, nor does it help educate and persuade like we try to do by setting the example.

The chicken-or-egg ridership and revenue issue of transit is fantastically difficult to overcome. Every last person we can have rid of the cars-first bias is a small but crucial step into what is admittedly a distant solution.

Do you think the London Underground is such a successful system because Londoners have had an enduring prejudice that public transit is unsafe, slow, unreliable, and not worth it? Most definitely not.

I try to use it to go to L.A.X. TERRIBLE! You have to transfer from Red, to Blue, to Green then to a SHUTTLE.

That is a 2 1/2 hour trek. No traffic is bad enough to make THAT worth my while.



Why don't you try taking the Red Line to Union Station and then taking the Flyaway?

Also, power plants are much, much cleaner than a gasoline powered car. There is no comparison.

The problem is that right now it is way too convenient and cheap (free parking and toll-free roadways plus an insufficient gas tax) to use cars, so we don't see other alternatives as viable. Until car drivers pay the full price and we make our city less friendly to cars (and in doing that more sustainable) we will see other modes are more efficient and we will actually use them. That stems not only from our transportation, but from our city planning as well.

Anyway, PM me if you want to continue this; this thread is straying away from DS Renovations.

It would be the "Think Blue" line :)


^ Yeah more like the "3rd strike your out" line...:lol:

from Union Station to LAX airport, you just need to take the Flyaway Bus.

No way to take the subway for my commute--the nearest rail stop to la brea and beverly is far, far away.

Look again at my post. I did not exactly DIS the subway. I am a huge proponent, in fact. I, unlike 99% of the residents of l.a., actually TRIED mass transit.

The option was just crap compared to driving. That was my experience. And is going to be the experience of most who try it. It just doesn't beat driving. You just can't help wondering as your sitting in traffic on a shuttle full of the Dodger dog and beer belching masses--why aren't I sitting in my car in the same traffic?

I live less than a mile from the Universal stop so I DO try and make use if it.

I try to use it to go to L.A.X. TERRIBLE! You have to transfer from Red, to Blue, to Green then to a SHUTTLE.

That is a 2 1/2 hour trek. No traffic is bad enough to make THAT worth my while.

I do use it to go to the arclight in hollywood on fri/sat nights. That actually works out pretty well, tho the 20 min wait for a train at 11pm can be a drag.

As far as air pollution goes. Um, people, where do you think electricity comes from? Power plants that create pollution. Oh, right! And gas is still cheaper than electricity. My gas bill at home--17 bucks a month. Electricity? $200. SO don't go throwing the argument that gas is more expensive.

Face it. This is L.A. It wasn't designed for cars in the beginning, but it has EVOLVED into a car culture. It will take MANY MANY years before viable alternatives are built so that it will make sense for the average person to use mass transit.

And believe me. I've lived in London and I never had a car there. Now THAT'S a subway system.

This is such a stupid and ignorant rant that really you sound like a glorified suburban hick. 99% of people in "LA" don't drive it's far far less remember we are the Capital Of The III World. But you reveal yourself because you believe that the millions in LA county that ride transit are not real people or worthy people or people that should be included into your ideal of what LA is supposed to be since you refuse to include us into your well researched statistics.
LA was not designed for cars but yes it has evolved just like 99% of all other American cities that now sport highways and wider thoroughfares where there once were trolley lines. LA is not static, in fact it's the antipathy of static. The city has been in flux now particularly since the late 1800s and has taken on somewhat of a mercurial nature. As far as transit no other city has built and invested into transit as much as LA has over the past 20 years (US). Because you are inoculated within your car you are missing the next evolution of the city, the easing of parking requirements and height limitations of buildings and the massive rezoning and densification of urban areas coming into their own such as Hollywood, Koreatown and Downtown. These areas are becoming more and more auto resistant and pedestrian and non-auto sympathetic. And didn't London introduce congestion pricing into its core? Oh, so you didn't ever stop to think that the reason that you were riding trains in London was because you had little to no choice. Between the exhorbitant fuel prices, congestion pricing, expensive parking and those awful little streets why would anyone drive?

I have completely lost my patience with people like you who believe nothing else but what they can see from behind their windshield. People who talk like this immediately don the ignorant crown for me.

Please stay in your car and leave seats on the Red Line train open for much much more intersting and people that I may sit next to.

No way to take the subway for my commute--the nearest rail stop to la brea and beverly is far, far away.

Look again at my post. I did not exactly DIS the subway. I am a huge proponent, in fact. I, unlike 99% of the residents of l.a., actually TRIED mass transit.

The option was just crap compared to driving. That was my experience. And is going to be the experience of most who try it. It just doesn't beat driving. You just can't help wondering as your sitting in traffic on a shuttle full of the Dodger dog and beer belching masses--why aren't I sitting in my car in the same traffic?

I live less than a mile from the Universal stop so I DO try and make use if it.

I try to use it to go to L.A.X. TERRIBLE! You have to transfer from Red, to Blue, to Green then to a SHUTTLE.

That is a 2 1/2 hour trek. No traffic is bad enough to make THAT worth my while.

I do use it to go to the arclight in hollywood on fri/sat nights. That actually works out pretty well, tho the 20 min wait for a train at 11pm can be a drag.

As far as air pollution goes. Um, people, where do you think electricity comes from? Power plants that create pollution. Oh, right! And gas is still cheaper than electricity. My gas bill at home--17 bucks a month. Electricity? $200. SO don't go throwing the argument that gas is more expensive.

Face it. This is L.A. It wasn't designed for cars in the beginning, but it has EVOLVED into a car culture. It will take MANY MANY years before viable alternatives are built so that it will make sense for the average person to use mass transit.

And believe me. I've lived in London and I never had a car there. Now THAT'S a subway system.

you can't just try out transit. try it for a week, a month, make it a lifestyle or at least integrate it into your set lifestyle. one time is like a "i tried a merlot and hated it... i give up on alcoholic beverages"... you have to try many things at different times.

i'm glad to hear that you are a proponent for transit, but you need statistics on these types of issues (any issues really). i'm pretty sure that more than 1% of angelenos take public transit. i know you were probably just being sarcastic, but i'm not easily lifted or persuaded by rants (doesn't matter who you are).

this one time may have been crap for you, but i'm sure other times would be better, others worse and i'm also sure you can't speek for everyone when you say it will be crap for most others who try public transit.

i know it might take me a short amount of time to get to LAX via car, but not always. in fact, Christmas 2007, my cousin and i did take different modes of transportation to get to LAX for the same flight. she drove from westwood and i was riding from downtown. we got there the same time, but i left my place an hour after she left hers.

grade separate rail is especially efficient during rush hour compared to driving. and although most here don't think much of the green line (including myself at times), it's like riding in an airplane anyways. never had a problem with smell or timing on that particular line.

and my gas bill is cheaper than my electric bill as well, and it's because i don't watch a gas powered tv or run a gas powered computer or cook a hot pocket over a stove rather than a microwave. electricity may be made at a number of power plants that do use methods involving pollution to create electricity, but those plants are far from here and the number of generator plants is not growing. in fact solar energy is the more recent direction people would like to go.

L.A. may have developed or evolved into a car culture, but it is slowly (however, quickly) evolving into a city with options.

i suppose if i lived in london, i wouldn't need or want a car since the tube could probably get me anywhere faster than a car over there would (or at least fast enough). london probably won't have the car freedom most of us have AND their extensive rail network at the same time (not without some serious demolition)...

it's what i love about this third world, exotic paradise

Hick? Hardly.

I was born and raised in this city. (Ok, I did go to high school in simi valley!)

I live near a subway stop and I am stating my opinion, based on my many, many experience of trying/using the subway for over fifteen years now. I have brought people along to show them the lines. And without fail, the novelty of L.A. public transit is a disappointment. It is simply does not compare to the convenience of car travel. I, and the peers I have exposed to rail travel, don't have the luxury that you all seem to have to spend two to three times the amount of time traveling from point A to point B and back.

If you do, then great!

I am simply pointing out the reality for the VAST majority of people in Los Angeles. No, I don't have the numbers, but in a city of millions, I think the percentage of people using public transit would be in the single digits. I never said people who ride transit are not real people. And no, millions of people do not ride public transportation. How big do you think this city is?

And no, in London, I could have had a car. I had a car allowance. The transportation is simply better and complete. Grade separated (not all rail there is subway--but there are no "street cars.") Yes, there were bad days--the trains are overcrowded, in constant state of repair (they are OLD!) but they get you where you want to go.

It is nice that you all very passionate about getting great public transportation, but until better decisions are made: rail directly to the airports, grade separated transit, lines where people want to go--the vast majority of people are going to stay in their cars.

SO instead of reacting to me, write letters and lobby politicians to raise taxes and create better transit plans.

Have any of you written to Arnold? I have. He's raiding the transit fund to fill the budget gap. THIS is what should be pissing you off. Have any of you written to our mayor about the poor transit planning? I have. I write every time I have a problem on the line. Getting high from second hand pot smoke at the blue line green line transfer point. Having to walk across the tracks to get from the green line to the blue line platform. More poor planning! I curse every time I spend 30 minutes waiting to catch the shuttle to get to the green line from LAX. And this past weekend, my experience with the Dodger Trolley was not great.

I'm going to direct this conversation here:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=441314&page=113

Why does Dodger stadium need a renovation? Does the Dodger stadium ever get outdated by today's standards?

^^Well it is now going to be the 3rd oldest stadium in MLB once the Yankees start playing in their new stadium. The only older ones are Wrigley and Fenway. Wrigley is falling apart (remember the falling concrete from the second deck) and Fenway just can't seat all of their fans. 100% of their games are sold out. Dodger Stadium is considerably newer than these two stadiums, but it's starting to show its age. This year the field level concession stands and restrooms were renovated and it was a great facelift. Besides those back areas I think that the stadium still looks great and will be around for a very long time. However, for more casual fans the stadium does not have the amenities that most newer ballparks have (stuff that I think detracts you from the real reason for going to a game) and still has massive transportation problems and that is what this plan is meant to combat.

Will the Dodger Trolley return?

I was driving in WeHo Friday afternoon when the phone rang. I tapped the talk button on the phone speaker and got ... "It's Rosendahl." It was Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl and he was ticked.

Not at me. At the Dodgers. He had earlier in the day been in the City Council's Transportation Committee and heard a report on the Dodger Trolley. It seems the shuttle between Union Station and Dodger Stadium went over budget due to its popularity (blogdowntown reported this last month) and Rosendahl said that the price had gone from an expected $70,000 to $150,000. About 704 people on average took the trolley to games, according to a city report released last month.

What really steamed Rosendahl was that, according to him, city officials were saying it would cost $350,000 to run the trolley for a full season in 2009, if the council decides to continue it. This past year, the trolley was basically a test program and didn't start until late July.

Furthermore, Rosendahl was ticked because the Dodgers wouldn't pick up any of the cost this year, saying that baseball teams shouldn't have to pay for mass transit. That's government's job, the team said. Of course, not every team builds its stadium far from the downtown street grid, behind residential neighborhoods, and surrounds it with 16,000-plus parking spaces that are currently going for $15 a pop.

"The city isn't going to pay for it if I have my way," Rosendahl said.

He also wanted the Dodgers to open their books for the city. Good luck with that -- the players union has wanted to see the real books of Major League Baseball teams for years. Nonetheless, as ESPN reported at the time, the last labor negotiations in 2006 were a cinch simply because teams were making so much money.

This will be a fun standoff, should it transpire. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is saying the city budget is already deep in the hole, but the Dodgers have proved in the past to have a lot of friends on the City Council. At the same time, the Dodgers may be rolling the money trucks up to free agent Manny Ramirez any day now -- giving the team cause to plead poverty.

What do you think should happen? Should the city send the Dodgers to the showers? Or is the city getting good bang for its buck (or in this case 350,000 of them)?

-- Steve Hymon

November 24, 2008 in Dodger Stadium parking | Permalink

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/11/will-the-dodger.html

The City and the Dodgers should've planned accordingly when the Gold line was constructed. A loop extension to the Stadium was in order, same shit happenend with the Green line to LAX. Dumb asses!

And it is lame that there isn't a seasonal stop under the Hollywood Bowl or at least a tunnel from the HI-HO station to the bowl.

I guess planners didn't travel to other int'l cities to see how it's done.

Dodgers, L.A. and charity vow to remodel or build park baseball fields
The project's goal is to revitalize or create 42 fields in the city and L.A. County. No timeline for completion is set.
By James Wagner
November 26, 2008

Shards of glass, bumpy grass and rocks are what Jose Serna was used to as a kid.

Lights and modern turf on a baseball field were luxuries.

"If the ball took a bad hop, you lose a tooth," the Roosevelt High School senior outfielder said.

So now, as he watched with his teammates on the edge of the baseball infield at Evergreen Recreation Center in Boyle Heights, Serna was pleased to hear the news. Los Angeles Dodgers' owner Frank McCourt, a local charity and city officials announced Tuesday that they would begin a long-term campaign to remodel or build 42 baseball fields throughout the city and Los Angeles County.

McCourt and city officials offered few specifics, including how much money the Dodgers' owner would contribute. A representative from Friedman Charitable Foundation, a local philanthropic organization, said it would match the Dodgers' efforts up to $5 million. No timeline was set for completing the project.

The Dodger Dream Foundation, a charitable group funded by McCourt, has already remodeled eight parks in Los Angeles County since 2003. Four years ago, the foundation built a field in Koreatown from land provided by the city, team organizers said. McCourt said he would commit as much money as necessary to bring the total number of parks to 50 -- also the number of years since the team famously moved from Brooklyn.

"These fields, along with libraries and schools, are the backbone of the community," McCourt said. "And kids deserve a safe place to play."

The Dream Foundation and Los Angeles Department of Recreation and Parks are asking the public to nominate parks for the revitalization effort.

Of the nearly 50 elementary and middle school-aged children who attended the announcement, few, if any, recognized the notable Dodger alumni in attendance or the owner of their hometown team. Fewer paid attention to the announcement, as they twirled their caps, fidgeted in their seats and stretched their arms.

And when Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa appeared and asked the children to put their blue and white caps on, two balked.

Despite their love of baseball, Javier Hernandez, 11, and Johnny Gonzalez, 12, said they didn't want to ruin their hair.

Wagner is a Times staff writer.

Dodgers name executive to oversee $500-million stadium upgrade http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/340xdaylife.jpg Daylife . Los Angeles Dodgers owner Frank McCourt today said he has moved his real estate company, John McCourt Co., from Boston to Los Angeles and hired veteran real estate executive Geoffrey Wharton as president. McCourt Co.'s holdings include nearly 300 acres in Chavez Ravine, where the Dodgers play baseball. Wharton's first task will be to complete the city entitlement process for McCourt's planned $500-million makeover of Dodger Stadium that McCourt hopes will transform the ballpark by 2012 into a year-round destination for dining, shopping and recreation. The project, announced last year, would include parking structures, a Dodgers history museum and a landscaped plaza behind centerfield connecting to shops and restaurants.

Work on the project, called the Next 50, could begin at the end of this season.

Wharton came to John McCourt Co. from Apollo Real Estate Group, according to a news release, "where he oversaw the master planning and entitlements for Sunset La Cienega in West Hollywood and the Columbia Square project in Hollywood. He also was a consultant to the Georgetown Group on the master plan for the Sony complex in Culver City. Prior to Apollo, he led Silverstein Properties’ role in developing a master plan for the World Trade Center site and the development program for 7 World Trade Center in New York."

The company was founded in 1893 by John McCourt, Frank McCourt's great-grandfather. It recently acquired an office building on College Street in Los Angeles for its headquarters.
Roger Vincent LATIMES BLOGS

Interesting! I was wondering what happened to this proyectc.

Ugh, I've really been hoping this project fails. I know they're having some major issues getting funding because of the economy so maybe it will doom the project!

2012 is kind of right around the corner, so what bothers you about this project?

2012 is kind of right around the corner, so what bothers you about this project?

I don't think the project will succeed and as a result, McCourt will be in more of a bind for money than he is now, which will hurt the Dodgers. I know a consultant on the project and he says that the research they did on the project wasn't very promising. McCourt is determined to go ahead with it though because he's convinced that this will be his legacy. He wants the "new Dodger Stadium" to be viable for 50 years and be the guy who kept Dodger Stadium the home of the Dodgers.

Also, while I grew up going to games at Dodger Stadium and have very fond memories of the place, it's just not a great place to watch a game anymore. An absurd amount of seats are not in the infield and are higher up. The angle to which the seats are set up doesn't face the infield in many areas and the slope, combined with the angle makes it very easy for people in front of you to block your view. The second level overhang is so great that you can't see a fly ball from the top rows of the first level. Throw in the fact that it's an old stadium that has physical limitations in terms of concession and restroom space and it's an outdated facility. It doesn't have as many suites as could be sold and a variety of other physical limitations keep the Dodgers from maximizing revenue. McCourt is convinced the renovations and additions beyond the fences will make up for the revenue lost in an older facility, but I, along with many others, disagree.

The original plan estimated that the project would cost $500 million, but it's going to cost more than that. It will likely top $600 million and if that's the case, why not just build a new stadium and give the fans the best viewing experience possible? I'd rather be in a first class new stadium than a second class renovated Dodger Stadium. If the project goes through, the stadium will lose a lot of its charm anyways because you'll be looking at buildings beyond the outfield instead of the beautiful hills and trees.

Oh yeah, it also will still not be served by quality public transportation.

I haven't perceived this image of The Stadium over the years but if you say it's so... You have an older facility with sightline issues and a lot of construction unrelated to the playing of the game. Cost of a state of the art stadium for baseball in Chavez with the requisite boxes for revenue would be about 1.1 billion. 600 mil won't do, not even for football in Industry. I hope this idea for year round retail won't emulate what's about to take place in Industry but apparently that's what businessmen think is the latest thing.

I haven't perceived this image of The Stadium over the years but if you say it's so... You have an older facility with sightline issues and a lot of construction unrelated to the playing of the game. Cost of a state of the art stadium for baseball in Chavez with the requisite boxes for revenue would be about 1.1 billion. 600 mil won't do, not even for football in Industry. I hope this idea for year round retail won't emulate what's about to take place in Industry but apparently that's what businessmen think is the latest thing.

It wouldn't cost $1.1 billion for a new stadium. Citi Field in New York was built for $850-900 million and they purchased building materials before the sharp drop in cost. That stadium would be cheaper now and they used some materials for aesthetics that cost a little more. They also are getting $20 million over 20 years in naming rights alone totaling $400 million. Now, I doubt a new Dodgers Stadium would get that much for naming right, but assuming they built a stadium similar to the one in New York, they would need only $250 million in naming rights money alone to cover the difference. Throw in added revenue from additional suites, club seats, other sponsorships, etc. and the Dodgers would certainly come out ahead with a new stadium. The problem is McCourt is a bumbling buffoon so concerned with his public image that it clouds his thinking and affects his ability to make the correct decision.

ryebreadraz, have you been to other stadiums? Dodger Stadium is still very nice despite its age.

ryebreadraz, have you been to other stadiums? Dodger Stadium is still very nice despite its age.

I've been to every stadium in the NL West and 13 stadiums total (including three that no longer stand) so yes, I've been to my share. I thought Dodger Stadium was great until I visited other stadiums and I saw how much closer many of the seats were, how much better the sightlines were, how much wider the concourses were, etc. Dodger Stadium isn't an awful place to watch a game, but if you're going to pour as much money as they are into a stadium, make it a new one that provides a better viewing experience.

^^ Which, again would be between the cost of Citi and the exorbitant 1.5 billion of Yankee Stadium- and who said anything about naming rights? Is nothing sacred in L. A? The only name I would accept would be Farmer John Weiners Park! Dodger Stadium, to build in today's dollars, would probably be around 8 or 900 million as it is- especially with the multi-level parking structure.

^^ Which, again would be between the cost of Citi and the exorbitant 1.5 billion of Yankee Stadium- and who said anything about naming rights? Is nothing sacred in L. A? The only name I would accept would be Farmer John Weiners Park! Dodger Stadium, to build in today's dollars, would probably be around 8 or 900 million as it is- especially with the multi-level parking structure.

Why would it be between the cost of Citi and Yankee? The stadium would be a little bigger than Citi, but building materials cost less. Citi Field also has some unique designs and architecture that increased the cost of the stadium. A new Dodger Stadium could likely be done for less than Citi and certainly not more.

Naming rights are needed to build just about any new ballpark or stadium now. The Yankees are the exception because they have the YES Network, which the Dodgers don't have. At the end of the day, I'd rather be in a nicer, better corporate named stadium in a seat closer to the action than in a worse seat at Dodger Stadium. I love the place because of the memories, but I go for the game, not the stadium and I'd rather have a superior place to watch the game.

The cost is just a comparable example. Personally, I would have a 1.7 billion stadium built if it meant destroying something like Dodger Stadium! Why wouldn't we have special or unique architectural design? I'm only concerned with Los Angeles on this board. I could give a shit about Citi park or their "special" architectural needs, and we're supposed to, yet again, settle for LESS? Fuck that shit, I'll settle for more. How's that! As to why people go to the Stadium, sometimes it's not about the game at all! Our setting is already unique enough.

You know? You're right! Lousy sightlines! What a dumpstye :) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/xtinaaskew.jpg xtina askew/FLICKR

I've been to Petco, much steeper than Dodger Stadium (and some seriously obstructed views, it has to put them on the ticket). Dodger Stadium has none like that. Been to Angel Stadium, can't comment much on that one since I was basically sitting behind the 1st base dugout (it did seem to smell to me, but maybe that's all of Orange County). I've been to the Coliseum where the A's play, now that's a place where you don't want to play baseball. Been to Shea, that place was a dump.

We really don't have it that bad. Unless you're sitting in the pavilions or the extreme of the reserved section you have decent seats.

Our setting is already unique enough.

My thoughts exactly!!!

(it did seem to smell to me, but maybe that's all of Orange County)

You're kidding right?

I don't think the project will succeed and as a result, McCourt will be in more of a bind for money than he is now, which will hurt the Dodgers. I know a consultant on the project and he says that the research they did on the project wasn't very promising. McCourt is determined to go ahead with it though because he's convinced that this will be his legacy. He wants the "new Dodger Stadium" to be viable for 50 years and be the guy who kept Dodger Stadium the home of the Dodgers.

Also, while I grew up going to games at Dodger Stadium and have very fond memories of the place, it's just not a great place to watch a game anymore. An absurd amount of seats are not in the infield and are higher up. The angle to which the seats are set up doesn't face the infield in many areas and the slope, combined with the angle makes it very easy for people in front of you to block your view. The second level overhang is so great that you can't see a fly ball from the top rows of the first level. Throw in the fact that it's an old stadium that has physical limitations in terms of concession and restroom space and it's an outdated facility. It doesn't have as many suites as could be sold and a variety of other physical limitations keep the Dodgers from maximizing revenue. McCourt is convinced the renovations and additions beyond the fences will make up for the revenue lost in an older facility, but I, along with many others, disagree.

The original plan estimated that the project would cost $500 million, but it's going to cost more than that. It will likely top $600 million and if that's the case, why not just build a new stadium and give the fans the best viewing experience possible? I'd rather be in a first class new stadium than a second class renovated Dodger Stadium. If the project goes through, the stadium will lose a lot of its charm anyways because you'll be looking at buildings beyond the outfield instead of the beautiful hills and trees.

Oh yeah, it also will still not be served by quality public transportation.

Completely disagree with you on everything except the transportation aspect.

Dodger Stadium in any public/player poll is still considered a "Cathedral of Baseball".

Now a days people don't even want to turn their heads to watch a pop fly! Let's change the stadium so that fans are not inconvenienced! Please!

What do we want? whistling trains with oranges running around? a waterslide off left field? a useless rotunda?

In the past years they've moved the seats closer, how close do you wanna get?

We have the quentisential basebal park in all the majors, the rest came after.

Dodger Stadium will evolve, for now, the plan to renovate every level in the off season is good for me. I've seen the changes and they work.

Tho, I'm not crazy about the retail use of the stadium year 'round, it wont work, not with L.A. Live just down the hill.

McCourt should just concentrate in renovating/updating the essentials.


Just look at this beauty!!!!! No much foul territory huh?

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1136/1058686115_7ed47ad23d_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3420/3286589659_e0d2dfa077_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3517/3286592031_f4fb0914a9_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3597/3287407858_545b8b2e36_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3214/3287403394_97c786a078_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3381/3287402830_d8f861024b_b.jpg


The new vegetation in the bullpens is a good touch. Much better than the metal walls!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3333/3441611485_e040665012_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3646/3357449484_72a4cf749f_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3386/3345037670_de14c968ef_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3252/2730075933_f211f848c9_b.jpg


OLD BULLPENS

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/212/497528742_bbead6bf98_b.jpg

They didn't move seats closer, they added seats closer. There's a major difference because the seats that were already there are just as far away as they were. The issue with not all seats facing the infield isn't that you have to turn your head, but that if you're looking at the infield from any seat past third base, especially on the lower level, it's not a natural angle ad it's very easy to have heads in your way.

I've seen designs and numbers on a number of major league stadiums and the sightlines aren't as good at Dodger Stadium as they are at many newer stadiums. The angles aren't quite right and the distance from many seats to the infield is farther away than they need to be and farther away the all of the new stadiums. If you like the history or the memories or the setting, then fine. We disagree on what we want most out of a ballpark, but the facts are the facts. When it comes to sightlines and proximity to the infield, Dodger Stadium doesn't compare to the newer parks.

What a DUMP! (can't believe this is an old stadium. If it were a car, it would be a 67' Camaro)

Last time I went to the Stadium, I was in the right field corner, lower level, and it didn't even seem far away. Dodger Stadium gave me the impression it was big and small at the same time. The action seemed close. And no one is reamed in by monkey bars like in some other "places!"

whatever, i love the stadium and renovations are alright with me too. i'm not in a hurry for a newer baseball stadium... and every seat i've been in has been great in comfort and view :)

They didn't move seats closer, they added seats closer. There's a major difference because the seats that were already there are just as far away as they were. The issue with not all seats facing the infield isn't that you have to turn your head, but that if you're looking at the infield from any seat past third base, especially on the lower level, it's not a natural angle ad it's very easy to have heads in your way.

I've seen designs and numbers on a number of major league stadiums and the sightlines aren't as good at Dodger Stadium as they are at many newer stadiums. The angles aren't quite right and the distance from many seats to the infield is farther away than they need to be and farther away the all of the new stadiums. If you like the history or the memories or the setting, then fine. We disagree on what we want most out of a ballpark, but the facts are the facts. When it comes to sightlines and proximity to the infield, Dodger Stadium doesn't compare to the newer parks.

They CANNOT add seats. The city and county only allows 56,000 seats, so they didn't ADD seats like you say, they moved them closer, they can move them around as long as they keep them at 56,000.

Alright, so we can't have everything, but Dodger Stadium still is TOPS.

Consider this...........

http://www.ballparktour.com/Dodger_Stadium_1963_Dia.gif

http://www.ballparktour.com/Dodger_Stadium_1977_Dia.gif

http://www.ballparktour.com/Dodger_Stadium_Dia.gif

Look at the new angle of the lower level after the 2005 shrinkage of foul territory. The rows of seats are facing toward the mound and home plate with a "better sight line".
http://www.ballparktour.com/Dodger_Stadium_2005_Dia.gif

It's a minor but significant improvement :)

1960's

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/DodgerStadium1962.gif

2005 - Present

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/DodgerStadium.gif



Comparison,...............just for kicks!


http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Dodger_Stadium.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/AT&T_Park.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Angel_Stadium.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Miller_Park.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Chase_Field.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Safeco_Field.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/PETCO_Park.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Coors_Field.GIF

They added seats closer. Per their contract, they can only sell 56,000 seats, but they can have as many seats as they want. For most games you'll see the reserve section seats at the ends are empty even if it's a sell out. That's because they can't sell more than 56,000 so they don't sell those. For the playoffs and opening day they're allowed to sell more than 56,000. It's why on opening day this year they had 57,099 people there. Look at the box seats on the first level down both lines. Those seats are designated row AA, BB, CC, DD, etc. and yet the non-box seats still go down to row A. That's because all those box seats were added. I've spoken to people in the organization and I've been told by them that they've added seats, NOT moved them closer. The actual capacity now is close to 58,000.

They added seats closer. Per their contract, they can only sell 56,000 seats, but they can have as many seats as they want. For most games you'll see the reserve section seats at the ends are empty even if it's a sell out. That's because they can't sell more than 56,000 so they don't sell those. For the playoffs and opening day they're allowed to sell more than 56,000. It's why on opening day this year they had 57,099 people there. Look at the box seats on the first level down both lines. Those seats are designated row AA, BB, CC, DD, etc. and yet the non-box seats still go down to row A. That's because all those box seats were added. I've spoken to people in the organization and I've been told by them that they've added seats, NOT moved them closer. The actual capacity now is close to 58,000.

58,000!!!:shocked:

I will investigate.

They added seats closer. Per their contract, they can only sell 56,000 seats, but they can have as many seats as they want. For most games you'll see the reserve section seats at the ends are empty even if it's a sell out. That's because they can't sell more than 56,000 so they don't sell those. For the playoffs and opening day they're allowed to sell more than 56,000. It's why on opening day this year they had 57,099 people there. Look at the box seats on the first level down both lines. Those seats are designated row AA, BB, CC, DD, etc. and yet the non-box seats still go down to row A. That's because all those box seats were added. I've spoken to people in the organization and I've been told by them that they've added seats, NOT moved them closer. The actual capacity now is close to 58,000.


yup, thats exactly right.

Comparison,...............just for kicks!


http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Dodger_Stadium.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/AT&T_Park.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Angel_Stadium.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Miller_Park.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Chase_Field.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Safeco_Field.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/PETCO_Park.GIF

http://www.recessatthepark.com/images/seatingcharts/Coors_Field.GIF

from an aerial view as well, i'd say we have the most symetrical-looking stadium. others look like a giant dropped them on the floor.

from an aerial view as well, i'd say we have the most symetrical-looking stadium. others look like a giant dropped them on the floor.

That's funny! Who said that.... croyboy? That is funny :)

They added seats closer. Per their contract, they can only sell 56,000 seats, but they can have as many seats as they want. For most games you'll see the reserve section seats at the ends are empty even if it's a sell out. That's because they can't sell more than 56,000 so they don't sell those. For the playoffs and opening day they're allowed to sell more than 56,000. It's why on opening day this year they had 57,099 people there. Look at the box seats on the first level down both lines. Those seats are designated row AA, BB, CC, DD, etc. and yet the non-box seats still go down to row A. That's because all those box seats were added. I've spoken to people in the organization and I've been told by them that they've added seats, NOT moved them closer. The actual capacity now is close to 58,000.

58,000, crazy. Next year that will be the highest capacity for a baseball stadium, and we can fill it!

it already is the highest capacity.

it already is the highest capacity.

The Metrodome is close and may even have a higher capacity when it needs it. Next year though they'll be playing in Target Field so the point will be moot.

The Metrodome is close and may even have a higher capacity when it needs it. Next year though they'll be playing in Target Field so the point will be moot.

The Metrodome holds 46,564 for baseball, but can hold up to 55,000+, still below Dodger Stadium's capacity.

^^Ballparks.com puts that number at a little less than 55000, but this is a place that holds about 80000 for football.

^^Ballparks.com puts that number at a little less than 55000, but this is a place that holds about 80000 for football.

Ok well I assumed we were talking largest baseball capacity. Football capacity is 64,000+ though, not 80,000.

Yup, even before ryebreadraz enlightened us about the 58,000 seats, Dodger Stadium was already the largest capacity baseball park with 56,000.

I still hope the McCourt focuses on the mass transit issue, hmmm, it'll be difficult while he's pocketting $15 per vehicle.

In Dodger Stadium, a bleacher of girthly delights
In the all-you-can eat section, fans are packing away as many Dodger Dogs, nachos, peanuts and soda as they can manage.
Steve Lopez
From the Los Angeles Times
June 3, 2009

You've heard about Dodger Dogs.

Today, a story about Dodger hogs.

On Monday night, I went to the Ravine to see if the recession was driving more fans into the right field bleachers, where a ticket comes with a promise:

All you can eat, no questions asked.

Think about it. You can fast all day, pig out at the ballgame and not have to eat the next day.

On Monday, the Dodgers were playing the Arizona Diamondbacks, who aren't exactly a big draw. But even on a slow night, roughly 850 die-hards feasted on baseball and enough hot dogs, nachos, peanuts, popcorn and soda to feed the California National Guard.

Purchased in advance, a ticket to the All-You-Can-Eat Pavilion costs $25. If you were to buy an advance ticket to the left-field bleachers, you'd pay $11, but one hot dog, peanuts and a soft drink would have you up around $25. So the smart shopper heads for right field.

Dodger spokesman Josh Rawitch said that although total Dodger attendance is up 1% this year, it's up 6% in the All You Can Eat Pavilion. "We were just talking about this, and I think the recession might have something to do with it," said Eddie Vidana, usher captain, who has seen more sell-outs this year in right field.

As the game was getting underway Monday, I spotted Robert Ruiz, Juan Avalos and Steve Martinez, who all work at the Porterville Developmental Center north of Bakersfield. They were eating like they'd been sentenced to death and were going for broke on their last meal. Ruiz had polished off two hot dogs, nachos, a bag of popcorn, a soda and a water by the first inning.

Avalos was keeping pace with two hot dogs, two nachos and a soda. Martinez was on his third hot dog and had a tray with four sodas on it, all for himself. L.A. is more than three hours from Porterville, the buddies said, but the endless supply of food makes the long trip worthwhile, even with a $15 parking fee.

"The last time we came, he called in sick the next day," Ruiz said of Avalos, but they couldn't agree on whether it was four hot dogs or six that did the damage.

On the field, meanwhile, Dodger slugger Andre Ethier wound up and tossed a souvenir warmup ball into the bleachers between innings. It floated up like a big scoop of ice cream and landed in the grateful hands of Avalos.

"All you can eat, and a baseball too!" he said.

To be honest, though, these guys were pikers. Several rows down, Daniel Tzec, a Pomona housekeeper, had eaten six hot dogs and one order of nachos by the second inning. He also had quaffed three beers, which cost extra, unlike sodas or water. Tzec looked like he was running out of gas, but he insisted otherwise.

"It's just a little rest," he said, and he may not have been kidding. Four more dogs, on very short leashes, were cradled next to him on a cardboard tray.

As I talked to Tzec, I began questioning my support for universal healthcare. Do I really want to take on the burden of medical care for someone who's inclined to eat six hot dogs in two innings? According to the Farmer John website, a Dodger Dog has 240 calories, 200 of them from fat, as well as more sodium than the Salton Sea. Do you get a souvenir defibrillator with your 10th dog?

One of the ushers told me she'd seen people eat themselves sick in right field, and when the ballgames are over, fans have been known to smuggle more peanuts and hot dogs past security and out of the stadium. There's no way to prevent it, one guard said, so they don't even try.

Despite my rush to judgment, I must say there's something exhilarating about the idea of living without self-control or the desire to develop any. When I saw Paul Galle lift his girth off the bleachers and head under the stands for refills, I noticed that he was smiling like a thief, as if he couldn't believe the Dodgers and Levy Restaurants, the stadium concessionaire, were foolish enough to let him plow through their buffet of saturated fat to his heart's content.

He said he was still hungry after two nachos, one popcorn, two bags of peanuts and eight hot dogs.

Eight hot dogs?

"Actually that's four double dogs," said Galle, who's in his 30s.

And what exactly is a double dog?

Galle, a schoolteacher from Chino Hills, explained that he gets the maximum allowable four hot dogs on each trip to the concession stand, then throws away two of the buns and stuffs the extra dogs into the remaining buns. With less bread, he's able to eat more meat.

Galle has it down to a science at the condiment station, where he nimbly makes the dog transfer, tosses spare buns, and loads up with ketchup, mustard and relish.

"That's unfortunate," he said as one bun split under the weight of two dogs, and he substituted with a backup bun.

By the way, his ticket to this little orgy had cost him just $17.50 on EBay.

"I don't know if that's a recession-buster, but it's a great deal and an awesome value," said Galle, who said he weighs 320 pounds but tries not to think about it.

"I wouldn't weigh myself for a week after coming to Dodger Stadium," he said. "I'm not a glutton."

Yes, he said, he feasts on life, lives in the moment and offers no apologies.

"I'm very existentialist," he said. "I was a philosophy major."

His father, the much slimmer Richard, told me Paul had recently shed 25 pounds to get in shape for an Alaskan cruise in July. They're going with two friends and decided they couldn't all fit into one cabin, so they reserved two. Richard said his son is a good-hearted guy, but he needs to do something about his insatiable appetite.

"All he can say is, 'Oink,' " said the father.

"Thanks, Dad," said the philosopher, who ate 12 hot dogs (or six double dogs, I should say) before calling it quits by the seventh inning.

The Dodgers lost, by the way, 3-2. But out in right field, that was beside the point.

From Curbed L.A. (http://la.curbed.com/archives/2010/02/are_the_dodgers_still_after_an_nfl_stadium_for_chavez_ravine.php)

The McCourts' divorce continues to be very revealing. In a filing unsealed yesterday, Jamie asked that her temporary support be doubled to $988,845 per month. She says that more accurately "reflects property-tax bills as well as additional records that her lawyers claim can show the couple averaged $2.3 million per month in salaries, distributions and perks starting in 2004," according to the LA Times. We already learned how much property the couple has to pay taxes on. (By the way, that amount would still leave Frank, who is living in a "luxury hotel in Beverly Hills," with $1.3 million per month.) But here's the really crazy part: "The Dodgers remain interested in building an NFL stadium adjacent to Dodger Stadium, and in persuading City Hall to lift zoning restrictions and allow 'over a million square feet of mixed-use developments' in the stadium parking area, according to the filing."

We'll see how that turns out...

Now THAT .. I would be interested in!

VZN, I find that very odd, I thought that proposal had absolutely no wind behind it. I was sure it was a done deal with the City of Industry crappolla!

Nice!

^^ Honestly, I would rather they build it there (if they couldn't build it somewhere in DTLA) than to have it in CoI. At least it will be in proximity to DTLA and LA Live.

There's definitely plenty of room for parking and tailgating... not that Roski's plan didn't have any of that, but I would just rather for it to be in the city for obvious reasons.

^^ Honestly, I would rather they build it there (if they couldn't build it somewhere in DTLA) than to have it in CoI. At least it will be in proximity to DTLA and LA Live.

There's definitely plenty of room for parking and tailgating...

Yes! I like any plan that's close to downtown.

http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%202/Fullscreencapture220201010551AM.jpg . There is so much room on this property but there is also a row of residential homes up against the westside of the parking lot- amazing! I would have to stick it back by the Police Academy to get it away from the Barlow Respiratory Hospital campus. I'd take out the homes on Boylston Street easily- they don't need to be there.

A couple of problems:

1. Roski has an approved and funded plan and is in negotiation with several teams.
2. The McCourts seem unlikely to be able to fund this and the city even less given the existence of 2 facilities that hold over 100,000 within 5 miles. A tough political sell.
3. Traffic in and out would be way beyond the worst Dodger game ever.
4. Earliest possible date: 10 years?
5. Not really part of DT; you still need a shuttle from Union Station.
6. Supporting evidence: big cities aren’t building football stadiums DT (NY, Boston, SF, Dallas, etc.; Chicago was 70 years ago). They are vacant 95 percent of the time and not the best use of prime DT real estate.

The mixed use development is a great idea; effectively extend DT into the ravine with development and some form of transport.

I don't think they have that money. Who is gonna pay for the stadium? NFL? The City of LA? The County of LA? The State of California? Dodgers?........... or nobody?

None of them would, the city would do all the political movements to make it possible, and the Dodgers just have to say "yes", then let someone else build it.

Pesto, I disagree. Some cities are building football stadiums near baseball venues, it doesn't matter where. I'm sure a modern approach to "in n out" access will be implemented, something better than what they did in 1962.

So far the Dodgers have no problem reaching 3 Million plus in attendance every year, it could be easier to lure football fans to the ravine and maybe wait 20-30 minutes then an hour plus to get to City of Industry.

who is that someone else?

It's obvious they have to bring a 3rd pty in.

it's nearly impossible.

:ohno: Yeah I know, it's just that I REALLY want something near downtown.

I want baseball, basketball, hockey DT. Football should be a few miles removed. As far as I know, big cities do not waste DT areas on football stadiums and parking. I make an exception for the Coliseum which is already there, at just about the right removal from DT proper.

NY, Dallas, SF, Boston have the right idea. The area around Dodger Stadium should be housing (preferably moderate to affordable since it is in downscale neighborhoods and near a stadium) and retail/entertainment.

Not that LA needs to model on SJ, but I think SJ has the right idea here: baseball DT near transit (80+ games a year) and football 3 miles away (technically, just across the border in Santa Clara) with easier access to freeways and large parking lots (twice as many people but only 10 games a year).

And, yes, in an ideal world, Dodger Stadium is closer to Fig and Olympic.

http://www.ladowntownnews.com/articles/2010/03/19/news/doc4ba3fef9874fa184839696.txt

Dodger Bus to Return This Season
Los Angeles Downtown News
Published: Friday, March 19, 2010 4:00 PM PDT

DOWNTOWN LOS ANGELES - After a hiatus last year, the Dodger bus will return for the 2010 season, giving fans who arrive at Union Station a free ride to and from the game.

County Supervisor Mike Antonovich recently announced that thanks to a $300,000 grant from the Mobile Sources Air Pollution Reduction Review Committee, the buses will run from the train station directly to Dodger Stadium every 10 minutes before the start of the game and about every 30 minutes during the game. Buses will run until 45 minutes after the game ends. The Dodger Stadium Trolley was popular with fans when it debuted in 2008, with several stops between the stadium and Union Station. It was canceled for the 2009 season due to lack of funds.

That's good news. I am curious to see how many people use it.

I still think that it would have been worth a try to save the 300k and instead charge $1 for the trolley and work out a voucher deal with participating DT bars/eateries that give a free trolley and MTA trip home. Bring some business DT.

The current method encourages driving to DT and parking there. But at least its simple.

The MTA figures 3000 riders per game on the new Dodger Express buses (a lot less fun than the Dodger Trolley; this is why government goes broke). Assuming they all came on metro, that's over $600k (assuming $1.25 average fare) for the year. So how is the MTA losing money on this?

Meanwhile, the Dodgers lose about 1000 parking fees per game or over $1 million for the year.

The early word is that the ride is very slow from Union Station to Dodger Stadium due to traffic. Hopefully this will work out as they gain experience. What seems to be needed is dedicated bus lanes or rail. But if people are willing to tolerate the bus, I guess those won't happen.

Saw quite a few people riding the train home from the game last night. Boy oh boy! MTA sure is nice and accommodating when the "right" people ride. Held doors open longer than usual. Gave out unasked for information. Let you board the train 10 min before it left its terminus at Union Station where you'd usually have to stand outside waiting until a minute before it left out for the doors to open. So how do we get these "right" people to ride the train more often again?

So is Dodger Stadium going to get renovated soon? What happened, I thought it was suppose take place last year or something.

Nothing substantial any time soon due to lack of funds.

Not sure what this is but here it is

October 25, 2010

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/5118197877_6c8d369749_b.jpg

I think they should just tear down Dodger Stadium and build a new one somewhere in Downtown. The Dodgers franchise is in desperate need of some rehabilitation. If Eli Broad owned the team, there'd probably be a new stadium already.

I think they should just tear down Dodger Stadium and build a new one somewhere in Downtown. The Dodgers franchise is in desperate need of some rehabilitation. If Eli Broad owned the team, there'd probably be a new stadium already.

This. For all the great memories and nice setting, the stadium itself is not very good and baseball is an urban game. With 81 games, it should be in an urban setting.

^ Yes, yes, yes. If they could tear down Yankee Stadium, a place LOADED with history, then I don't see why the same couldn't be done with Dodger Stadium. This isn't Fenway or Wrigley we're talking about here.

I'm gonna cry. There's a wave building.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-02/59393018.jpg

Let's do lunch -- at Dodger Stadium
He's letting the cat out of the (brown) bag — his secret favorite lunch spot is in the stands at the historic ballpark overlooking downtown, any day there's not an afternoon game. Drive up, walk in, sit down . . . it's all free, including the memories.
Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times
5:55 PM PST, February 12, 2011

Whenever someone asks me if I want to do lunch, they always wonder if I have a favorite spot, and I always lie.

I tell them about a funky steakhouse in Glendale, a bustling Chinese joint on Broadway, a bright Mexican diner in Pasadena.

I never tell them the truth, because they couldn't handle the truth.

I never tell them about my real favorite place, because it's my place, my secret, my unvarnished connection with this city's sporting soul, my midday siesta among this city's sports dreams, the darn near perfect spot for a sportswriter and his peanut butter sandwich.

I also never tell them because they wouldn't believe it if I did.

My favorite lunch spot in Los Angeles takes no reservations because it has no tables. It has no menus because it charges no fees. It requires no parking validation because parking is free. It has no waiters because, well, it doesn't even serve food.

All you need is a brown bag and a giant imagination and, on this, the quiet final winter weekend before the loud return of the NBA All-Star game and the start of the Lakers' spring push and UCLA's rush toward March Madness, I figure it's a good time to celebrate our simplest of pleasures.

I do lunch in the upper deck of Dodger Stadium.

I love to sit alone in the blue seats and munch on my midday meal while staring out over the field and mountains and memories.

I do it, and you can do it, as easy as a Tommy Lasorda smile, as memorable as a Vin Scully vignette, and here's how.

Around midday of any day when there is not an afternoon game — summer, winter, whenever— drive to the main Elysian Park entrance and tell the guard you are going to the gift shop. (By the way, is this the last place in America where the sports store is still called a "gift shop"?)

The guard will wave you through, and you will follow the road around the entire stadium until you come upon Parking Lot P. (Yeah, you can see the letter on the old-fashioned baseball lamp post.)

Park, walk through the stadium's open door to the gift shop, and then make the most important move of your day. Instead of turning right into the store, keep walking straight to seats beyond it.

Within seconds you will reach the top row, look down and realize, suddenly, that you are standing inside Dodger Stadium and nobody is telling you to leave. Sit in one of the blue seats, spread out, and begin eating your lunch while pinching yourself that, still, nobody is telling you to leave.

Soon, it will feel as if you are sitting and munching at a Dodgers game, without the game, which, given recent events, is not necessarily a bad thing.

You get an incredible view of the field — it's dirt now, but usually not — without seeing Jonathan Broxton crumble on it. You can get lost in the green slopes beyond the outfield without watching an Adam Dunn fly ball land there. You can realize the enormity of the "Think Blue" sign on a day when, truly, the only blue is in your thoughts.

The dugouts are quiet, so you can imagine Kirk Gibson storming around there. The bullpens are filled only with that blanket of green foliage, so you can imagine Eric Gagne working there.

On Friday afternoon, when my companion and I were the only ones there, it was so peaceful you could hear a dog bark, a pigeon warble, and the wind whispering through center field.

What I really wanted to hear, of course, was what the Dodgers thought about folks just walking into their house and hanging out in the middle of the day, so I phoned club spokesman Josh Rawitch with the news.

"I want to tell you about my favorite place to have lunch," I said.

"Top of the park at Dodger Stadium, right?" he said.

"How did you know?" I said.

"You're not the only one," he said.

It turns out, other folks are aware of this place, and the Dodgers tolerate it for the good of the town.

"There are a lot of fans who refer to the top of the park as the best-kept secret lunch spot in Los Angeles, and it's hard to argue with them," Rawitch said. "While we don't openly encourage it, the fact that it has become known this way is a reminder of just how special Dodger Stadium is to our fans, even when it's empty."

These days, with the stadium in dire need of refurbishing, it's actually more special when it's empty. I've written that Angel Stadium is an easier, better place to watch a game, and my Dodger Stadium lunches simply reinforce that shame of that truth. Sitting atop an empty house reminds you of Dodger Stadium's simple majesty, and of the importance of making it more viable for future generations, lest some new owner foolishly move it downtown.

The Dodgers' policy is that they will not stop folks from eating lunch there except before day games or several hours before a night game. It is my policy to buy some trinket from the gift shop on my way out in recognition of the fact that there is no free lunch.

Maybe I'll see you there sometime. Just don't take my spot. Section 3, Row R, Seat 2. Best table in town.



Read More: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-plaschke-20110213,0,5163295.column

^ Yes, yes, yes. If they could tear down Yankee Stadium, a place LOADED with history, then I don't see why the same couldn't be done with Dodger Stadium. This isn't Fenway or Wrigley we're talking about here.

Yankee Stadium was a dump. Dodger Stadium where it is.

Yankee Stadium was a dump. Dodger Stadium where it is.

So is Dodger Stadium. It is a dump surrounded by parking lots surrounded by even more dumps.

Dodger Stadium is historical alright but not that historical. The Los Angeles Coliseum, now that's a historical stadium.

I ain't even thinking about demolition of this great ballpark (Dodger Stadium). As long as it's the cleanest in MLB and the Dodgers attract a larger audience than most MLB Ballparks, I'm all right with it.

I think that Dodger Stadium is close enough to DT that with some transit improvement and actual execution of the new plan (parking structures, food, retail, eventually hotel and residential) it could become part of, or closely connected to, the DT area. I think this is very likely to occur over time given the location and growing demand for urban living.

I like urban stadiums for baseball and basketball but, once again, look at big cities: Yankee Stadium is not exactly at 42nd and Broadway, nor do the Mets or Cubs or Bosox, etc., exactly play in the center of DT. ATT Park in SF is as far from SF Civic Center or Union Sq. as Dodger Stadium is from LA Civic Center. It was intentionally built away from DT but convenient to DT so as to encourage redevelopment of that area. Big cities don't put everything they've got on the same two blocks.

DODGER STADIUM http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/NeatoCoolville2222.jpg NEATOCOOLVILLE . IMAGES HOSTED ON FLICKR (http://www.flickr.com) http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/ThomasJSebourn55.jpg THOMAS J. SEBOURN . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/ThomasJSebourn88.jpg THOMAS J. SEBOURN . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/rcvideo363366.jpg RCVIDEO . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/TheWestEnd.jpg TheWestEnd . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture2152011111856PM.jpg DoYouMindTheGap . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/Fullscreencapture2152011104312PM.jpg SOGGYOREOS . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/headphonic33.jpg HEADPHONIC . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/venicewow33.jpg VENICEWOW . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/BenGoetting33.jpg BEN GOETTING . http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/album%203/empsfmtakingaim222.jpg EMPSFMTAKINGAIM A SKINNY LINDA RONSTADT HAVING HER NAME CALLED FROM CENTER FIELD BEFORE SINGING THE ANTHEM - 1979

^ There is a bus terminal named after her in Tucson.

Bus terminal? Are you sayin' she's fat?

It would be an interesting comparision between Linda during the first Brown administration and the second. In all fairness, Jerry's gone a bit downhill as well.

Not sure what this is but here it is

October 25, 2010

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1198/5118197877_6c8d369749_b.jpg

That sphere was for the filming of Paula Abduls new dance show on CBS "Live to Dance".

http://scott-miller.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/6270335/33079996

Small bump to a dead thread. It looks like the Dodgers will be sold and the new owners will be interested in developing the stadium and parking lots. Could be new life for the proposed pre-game entertainment areas and maybe the hotels and resort condos.

It would be interesting to have Mark Cuban added to the personalities DT. I guess he would receive a poor reception at Laker games and a mixed one at Dodger games.

i think its early to speculate that a new owner will build the entertainment zone. I would bet its a better idea to sell all of the Chavez Ravine land and build and entirely new stadium at the Cornfields or somewhere else downtown accessible to transit.

Until the city of LA agrees to give the Dodgers a big chunk of land for a bargain price of $0 (just like the 50s) they are not going anywhere. Keep dreaming.

It depends who buys the team and what connection they have to Dodger Stadium. I favor the build a new stadium plan.

At the current Chavez Ravine location, the Dodgers:

- Own the land the stadium sits on, thereby not dealing with a landlord
- Generate money hand over fist from parking
- Still have among the highest attendance each year of any team

A new owner is somehow going to give all this up for some pie in the sky dream of building a downtown stadium?

At the current Chavez Ravine location, the Dodgers:

- Own the land the stadium sits on, thereby not dealing with a landlord
- Generate money hand over fist from parking
- Still have among the highest attendance each year of any team

A new owner is somehow going to give all this up for some pie in the sky dream of building a downtown stadium?


when you factor in that Dodger Stadium needs at least 100 million in rehabbing, and the cost of adding the entertainment zone, etc... the idea of selling Chavez ravine to a developer, buying new land and building doesnt sound so ridiculous.

It would be nice if the stadium could be rotated 180 degrees...the location has such a nice view of downtown, yet the stands face the other way.

Move the stadium to where transit is? It might be easier to extend transit to Dodger Stadium than move the stadium. Like they did with the Coliseum, Staples, etc. It's just a people-mover away. Maybe call it "Dodger's Flight".

The new renovation will expand the areas that have nice views of DT; turn surface parking into mid-rise buildings and entertainment within walking distance of the stadium and a very short shuttle or people-move ride to Chinatown, Union Station, etc. Hardly seems worth tearing down the whole thing and building a new one next to it.

when you factor in that Dodger Stadium needs at least 100 million in rehabbing, and the cost of adding the entertainment zone, etc... the idea of selling Chavez ravine to a developer, buying new land and building doesnt sound so ridiculous.


Let's say I have a big house somewhere up in the hills. Great property, gorgeous views although the house itself is due for some renovation. Maybe put some new paint up, redo the kitchen. Well if I'm going to be spending the money I might as well put the property up for sale, buy another piece of land and build a new house from scratch.

This doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

Let's say I have a big house somewhere up in the hills. Great property, gorgeous views although the house itself is due for some renovation. Maybe put some new paint up, redo the kitchen. Well if I'm going to be spending the money I might as well put the property up for sale, buy another piece of land and build a new house from scratch.

This doesn't sound ridiculous to you?

except that its not just a coat of paint and the sports world is not like the real estate world. it happens all the time. look at yankee stadium, or the giants new stadium...

In principle, you are right. But the analogies are a little soft in this case. Yankee Stadium was ancient. Candlestick had terrible weather, was out on an isolated peninsula, and was normally half-empty (centerfield seating was eventually closed-off). It moved 5 miles to the edge of DT and shrunk back to its baseball configuration and size.

Dodger Stadium is in good condition, a good location near DT, fine weather, a good size. What it needs are basically additions (restaurants, condos, parking structures) that require removal of nothing but parking lots.

Of course, this is all speculation; the new owners may have something else in mind.

Dodger Stadium needs a lot more than that. It need additional suites, club seats, to remove seating, restaurants, concessions, restrooms, offices and more. That doesn't get into the fact that the sightlines are problematic and not really able to fix (the contours of the stadium don't allow for proper angles of seating beyond the bases).

There is also the fact that the entire plot of land is underutilized. McCourt initially proposed his development, but it was a reach and most of his advisors told him not to go ahead with it because it needs to be popular on non-gamedays for it to be successful and few believe it can be. The new owner will face the same problems.

Dodger Stadium needs a lot more than that. It need additional suites, club seats, to remove seating, restaurants, concessions, restrooms, offices and more. That doesn't get into the fact that the sightlines are problematic and not really able to fix (the contours of the stadium don't allow for proper angles of seating beyond the bases).

There is also the fact that the entire plot of land is underutilized. McCourt initially proposed his development, but it was a reach and most of his advisors told him not to go ahead with it because it needs to be popular on non-gamedays for it to be successful and few believe it can be. The new owner will face the same problems.

A variety of interesting theories. Some general comments:

I can't speak for investors, but in my view Dodger Stadium does not NEED anything; it is doing just fine as is, as pre-divorce attendance has shown. As with any stadium, it requires occasional updates; many of those were in the works pre-divorce and aren't controversial. Bathrooms, view terraces, walkways, plantings, restaurants, an amusement zone, etc. I would be shocked if a new investor didn't continue with something similar.

Meanwhile, a bid in writing of 1.2B has already been received; the value is now expected to reach 1.5B, far beyond what any team in history has sold for anywhere, even during economic boom times. Given that the team was valued at about 800M by Forbes last year, it would seem that there is another 700M of value sitting around out there.

The iconic value of the team and the stadium are among the drivers of value. Potentially hurting those by getting involved in a new stadium discussion strikes me as inadvisable. Conversely, development around the existing stadium strikes me as playing nicely into the cross-polination that could occur between the Asian/Latin television rights, tourism and the Dodger brands. Apparently media-savvy investors from all over the world are going to be involved in the bidding



I would find it stunning if they did not try to turn the area into a dining and entertainment zone, since it plays directly into the image and the regional and pay networks will be televising every game through most of the world (yes, that's WORLD, not LA).

the problem with bringing entertainment options to the parking lot area is that the stadium is open 81 days a year (= maybe 10 other dates) would it be feasible to add restaurants, bars etc when they are closed 70% of the time? thats why it makes more sense to build a new stadium close to existing facilities.

btw, the 1.2 billion dollar offer was made before the team was for sale. i think the team sells for about 1.1 - 1.2 max

For the team's fantastic attendance pre-divorce, it was not bringing in nearly the revenue that the newer stadiums do. You could argue that it doesn't need to improve the sightlights because you like the shape or it's worth it to you to wait in lines for concessions/restrooms to keep the place you love, but financially, it cannot be argued that it needs a lot of work (suites, club seats, restaurants, clubs, lounges, etc.) to keep up.

As with the development, McCourt was advised by most people not to go ahead with the surrounding restaurants and shops. I'd be really surprised if anyone who buys the team finds a way to make a similar development work and that leaves us again with a lot of wasted land.

Also, I haven't seen anything saying that they expect the team to cost $1.5b. There was one report that it MAY reach that high, but most have pegged it between $1-1.2b.

For the team's fantastic attendance pre-divorce, it was not bringing in nearly the revenue that the newer stadiums do. You could argue that it doesn't need to improve the sightlights because you like the shape or it's worth it to you to wait in lines for concessions/restrooms to keep the place you love, but financially, it cannot be argued that it needs a lot of work (suites, club seats, restaurants, clubs, lounges, etc.) to keep up.

As with the development, McCourt was advised by most people not to go ahead with the surrounding restaurants and shops. I'd be really surprised if anyone who buys the team finds a way to make a similar development work and that leaves us again with a lot of wasted land.

Also, I haven't seen anything saying that they expect the team to cost $1.5b. There was one report that it MAY reach that high, but most have pegged it between $1-1.2b.

Well, you never know in things like this, but it is going to be a great source of rumor and gossip for awhile. A couple of comments:

WSJ article: "team is expected to fetch 1.2 to 1.5B" citing several sports investment specialists.

The Chinese offer was 1.2M cash, with the proviso that the stadium and surrounding lands were included. As noted, Forbes valued the team at 700M.

McCourt orignally wanted to keep the stadium and land for development (he believes that is the real gold mine), but the whole thing is bundled in the auction process. As far as I know, no one has expressed any interest in the team absent the real estate.

More practically speaking, I could see a media-savvy owner focusing on packaging and marketing the content and getting a real estate developer to come in to handle the real estate development side. Hard to pass up an opportunity to build a privately-controlled housing-shopping-entertainment area.

You know, Rick Caruso and Eli Broad have been hanging together around downtown recently and talking about funding a trolley...

A trolley? From where to where?

A trolley? From where to where?

Broad, Caruso and AEG hosted the fund-raiser and awareness meeting for the trolley associated with Bringing Back Broadway. The trolley basically goes from LA Live, up Broadway and over toward Bunker Hill. Extensions to Union Station are also being talked about. A few people on the forums have talked about extending it to Chinatown and/or linking a separate people mover from the Chinatown station to the Stadium.

It looks like $1 billion is the number (http://espn.go.com/los-angeles/mlb/story/_/id/7229823/economists-say-1-billion-los-angeles-dodgers-realistic-price) and that's for everything included so the price is right around what we'd expect. FWIW, Zimbalist is probably THE authority on sports business and has pegged these things correctly before.

A record price tag of $1 billion can be expected for the Los Angeles Dodgers, Dodger Stadium and the surrounding real estate, according to several sports economists following the team's upcoming sale.

"If you're talking about the asset value of the Dodgers franchise, the stadium, the parking lots and the surrounding acreage, I think a number in neighborhood of $1 billion is reasonable," Andrew Zimbalist, a professor of economics at Smith College, said last week. "I believe the reasonable or final offer will be $900 million to $1 billion."

What we'll have to keep an on what is included in the sale. There's talk that the settlement with MLB could just be for the team and stadium. We already know that it asks to sell the TV rights separately and it could ask to sell the lots separately, which could kill the deal (if the TV rights part doesn't) and any chance of a development.

Well, should be interesting which guys bid 900M and who gets it for 1B.

In any event, as the article notes, the parking lots constitute a major part of the value of the Dodgers so we can assume that a buyer will have an interest in developing the area.

Well, should be interesting which guys bid 900M and who gets it for 1B.

In any event, as the article notes, the parking lots constitute a major part of the value of the Dodgers so we can assume that a buyer will have an interest in developing the area.

The question is whether they want to develop the area around a baseball stadium or not. It would cost roughly the same amount to renovate Dodger Stadium as it would to build a new stadium, possibly more, to get as close to making DS as profitable as possible and it still wouldn't be as profitable as a new stadium. Also, many believe that the land is more valuable for a development if there is no baseball stadium there. At the very least, the new owner will investigate the possibility of building a new ballpark elsewhere.

Several stories say that Steve Cohen has prepared a bid for the Dodgers and has hired Populous (designer of New Yankee Stadium, ATT and many other parks) to determine what improvements are needed to Dodger Stadium. Cohen has a real chance to win the auction, since he is worth 8B, is supported by Broad, Geffen and other local power brokers, and has connections with MLB, AEG and others.

A wildcard here is that it appears that McCourt will retain ownership of the parking lots, which could limit the ability to do large-scale renovations.

Or could Cohen be looking at another site?

And checking today's sports news, it looks like Joe Torre has joined Rick Caruso's bidding team, which gives it instant credibility.

Caruso, of course, is behind the fabulously successful Grove and Americana, and will spearhead Linq in LV, which will be a huge development on the Strip (sort of the Grove, plus Universal City Walk plus the world's largest Ferris Wheel). Presumably he has some thoughts about how to re-do Dodger Stadium.

I guess if Disneyland can copy LA, LA can build it's own Disneyland in Chavez Ravine.

Bidders for the Dodgers can submit bids that either include or exclude the parking lots. The two likely uses for the lots are a new housing/entertainment district surrounding the stadium or a new NFL stadium (less likely).

McCourt prefers to keep the parking lots and develop them himself, perhaps in collaboration with a media company or other bidder with no real estate background. Rick Caruso, who is one of the bidders, has also expressed interest in housing and entertainment, and another bidder, Steve Cohen, has retained Populous to develop new designs for the area).

Price is going to be the big driver, since most new owners would prefer to get McCourt out of the picture and obtain control of parking and competitive entertainment on their doorsteps. But he has the absolute right to keep the parking lots, so you may have to bid for just the Dodgers if you want to succeed. Or bid REALLY high for the team plus the lots.

Presumably this will get hammered out between the leading bidders and McCourt prior to the April 30 close. But every scenario points toward substantial development accompanying the sale.

i really think that this is a ploy by McCourt to get more money in the sale. i find it hard to believe anyone will buy the team without the surrounding land.

Of course it's a ploy for more money. But it's a live threat on McCourt's behalf since it you bid for just the Dodgers you pay less but don't have control, and if you bid for the whole thing you risk being rejected unless you go very high. One way he gets higher bids, the other way he maintains leverage over the owners and the ability to develop when he wants. Sounds like Business Strategy 101 from a solid MBA program. Get the bidders worried about what some other bidder might do to outfox them.

btw, last day to get your bid in. The Forbes sports business editor says that it will take at least 1.4B to play.

this is going to break all records for a sales price. unbelievable.

So the sneaky rat is going to have the last laugh after all. Geebus! I hate tht guy.

So the sneaky rat is going to have the last laugh after all. Geebus! I hate tht guy.

Hey, bad guys finish first. I like to think of it as just adding another chapter to LA business lore.

And the 1.4B is without the additional that would have come if they could have voided the Fox contract early; this could have added 200M or more. Some of the "experts" were predicting 700-900M which explains why they are teaching at small colleges rather than pricing deals in the real world.

I haven't seen any of the bidders talk about swapping land or building a new stadium; but I guess something around Chinatown or in place of Farmer's Field is possible.

Bidding is drifting toward 2B as more investors look about how big the Asian and Latin broadcast markets could be. It seems like 1.5B is a foregone conclusion.

The pundits claim Magic (w/ Dr. Pat's money) and Steve Cohen are the leaders, but they are basically just making this up.

Again, some kind of improvements to the stadium and surrounding area seem very likely.