Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Tiger Stadium Closes (1999)

I have a lot of good memories in that ball park....but I don't miss it. What a freaking dump! Not just the park but everything around it.
 
I used to be able to see the CF scoreboard and some of the upper decks and bleachers of Tiger Stadium, from my desk in my office when I worked on the 11th floor of the Michigan Central Station during the mid-70s-early 80s. The building is still there of course, unlike the late and lamented Tiger Stadium, but it is now a gutted ruin..what a shame that happened to that grand old building, like so many others in downtown Detroit. It is like a giant tombstone now, and there can't be more than maybe a hundred or so of us left of the railroad employees who worked there in its last active years.
 
I tend to think Illitch let it go so he could build his ballpark on Woodward and create an Illitch-town.
 
I remember one game me and my two friend were in left field and this huge drunk guy hit my leg as i was swinging it on a aslie seat and he turned around and threaten me and I was a high school kid and i was so scared.. I had brought my little swiss army knife (I know stupid) and I ended up slicing my own finger in my pocket... Tiger stadium memories. LOL.. I wish I had tried to go to the world series in 1984.. I still kick myself for that.. i probably couldn't afford it.. I did go to opening day in 1985 and the Tigers got their World series rings and Chris Pittaro went 3 for 4 and Sparky gave him the kiss of death saying he could be the greatest Tiger third basemen or something like that..
 
tycobb420 said:
I tend to think Illitch let it go so he could build his ballpark on Woodward and create an Illitch-town.

It was a dump before ho bought the Tigers. Anyway...it was a good move. Building a new stadium downtown is probably what kick started the revitalization of that area of downtown. Nothing could save the area where the old Tiger Stadium was.
 
tomdalton22 said:
tycobb420 said:
I tend to think Illitch let it go so he could build his ballpark on Woodward and create an Illitch-town.

It was a dump before ho bought the Tigers. Anyway...it was a good move. Building a new stadium downtown is probably what kick started the revitalization of that area of downtown. Nothing could save the area where the old Tiger Stadium was.

Well, that is debateable. The park might have been renovated at less expense. Switching locales really did little to help the city...at least that is what studies have shown.
 
tycobb420 said:
tomdalton22 said:
It was a dump before ho bought the Tigers. Anyway...it was a good move. Building a new stadium downtown is probably what kick started the revitalization of that area of downtown. Nothing could save the area where the old Tiger Stadium was.

Well, that is debateable. The park might have been renovated at less expense. Switching locales really did little to help the city...at least that is what studies have shown.

There is no way they could have renovated that dump to make it a modern stadium with all of the amenities that are in modern staduims. As far as moving downtown...there are probably studies that prove both sides....it depends on who is doing the study and what they want the outcome to be. I for one love the new location with a lot to do around the stadium. Towards the end I was scared for my life walking around old Tiger stadium after a night game.
 
tomdalton22 said:
tycobb420 said:
Well, that is debateable. The park might have been renovated at less expense. Switching locales really did little to help the city...at least that is what studies have shown.

There is no way they could have renovated that dump to make it a modern stadium with all of the amenities that are in modern staduims. As far as moving downtown...there are probably studies that prove both sides....it depends on who is doing the study and what they want the outcome to be. I for one love the new location with a lot to do around the stadium. Towards the end I was scared for my life walking around old Tiger stadium after a night game.

Every independent study done has shown that new ballparks do not help the areas they move into. Generally, any benefits are short-lived and it generally spreads blight to new areas.
There was a plan to renovate the ballpark and modernize it. It would have been less expensive than Copa.
 
tycobb420 said:
tomdalton22 said:
There is no way they could have renovated that dump to make it a modern stadium with all of the amenities that are in modern stadiums. As far as moving downtown...there are probably studies that prove both sides....it depends on who is doing the study and what they want the outcome to be. I for one love the new location with a lot to do around the stadium. Towards the end I was scared for my life walking around old Tiger stadium after a night game.

Every independent study done has shown that new ballparks do not help the areas they move into. Generally, any benefits are short-lived and it generally spreads blight to new areas.
There was a plan to renovate the ballpark and modernize it. It would have been less expensive than Copa.

The downtown area is still pretty nice IMO. Much better than the area around the old Tiger stadium during the final 25 years of it's existence (I wasn't around it before that). There is no question that having Ford Field and the ball park downtown bring people to the area which allows for other entertainment to thrive (bars, restaurants, etc.) That kind of activity would never exist around the area of old Tiger Stadium. It was already a slum. I can remember watching people do crack in the parking lot across the bridge while walking to the stadium. That area was a scary place in the final years of Tiger Stadium.
 
tomdalton22 said:
tycobb420 said:
Every independent study done has shown that new ballparks do not help the areas they move into. Generally, any benefits are short-lived and it generally spreads blight to new areas.
There was a plan to renovate the ballpark and modernize it. It would have been less expensive than Copa.

The downtown area is still pretty nice IMO. Much better than the area around the old Tiger stadium during the final 25 years of it's existence (I wasn't around it before that). There is no question that having Ford Field and the ball park downtown bring people to the area which allows for other entertainment to thrive (bars, restaurants, etc.) That kind of activity would never exist around the area of old Tiger Stadium. It was already a slum. I can remember watching people do crack in the parking lot across the bridge while walking to the stadium. That area was a scary place in the final years of Tiger Stadium.

All it did was push the crap over a block or two. It did not eliminate or improve the city.
 
tycobb420 said:
tomdalton22 said:
The downtown area is still pretty nice IMO. Much better than the area around the old Tiger stadium during the final 25 years of it's existence (I wasn't around it before that). There is no question that having Ford Field and the ball park downtown bring people to the area which allows for other entertainment to thrive (bars, restaurants, etc.) That kind of activity would never exist around the area of old Tiger Stadium. It was already a slum. I can remember watching people do crack in the parking lot across the bridge while walking to the stadium. That area was a scary place in the final years of Tiger Stadium.

All it did was push the crap over a block or two. It did not eliminate or improve the city.

All I know is I wouldn't hesitate to go to downtown Detroit for a baseball or football game...go out to eat prior and stay at a bar after the game. Before the Tigers moved I would never have done that. I'm sure there are a lot more people like me now. That has to be an improvement for the city. More $$ being spent down there is a positive and it wouldn't have happened if they didn't move the stadium. I don't know how you can't see that.
 
tomdalton22 said:
tycobb420 said:
All it did was push the crap over a block or two. It did not eliminate or improve the city.

All I know is I wouldn't hesitate to go to downtown Detroit for a baseball or football game...go out to eat prior and stay at a bar after the game. Before the Tigers moved I would never have done that. I'm sure there are a lot more people like me now. That has to be an improvement for the city. More $$ being spent down there is a positive and it wouldn't have happened if they didn't move the stadium. I don't know how you can't see that.

we are talking about 2 different things. I am talking about the impact on Detroit. It has done little to nothing to help the city overall. Safety is a different issue, but I have never felt threatened or frightened in Detroit. Even at its worst in the 80s, I did not feel scared downtown. Detroit overall is more dangerous today than in 1999. Statistically, youre probably less safe now than back then...even near the ballparks.
 
tycobb420 said:
tomdalton22 said:
All I know is I wouldn't hesitate to go to downtown Detroit for a baseball or football game...go out to eat prior and stay at a bar after the game. Before the Tigers moved I would never have done that. I'm sure there are a lot more people like me now. That has to be an improvement for the city. More $$ being spent down there is a positive and it wouldn't have happened if they didn't move the stadium. I don't know how you can't see that.

we are talking about 2 different things. I am talking about the impact on Detroit. It has done little to nothing to help the city overall. Safety is a different issue, but I have never felt threatened or frightened in Detroit. Even at its worst in the 80s, I did not feel scared downtown. Detroit overall is more dangerous today than in 1999. Statistically, youre probably less safe now than back then...even near the ballparks.

Without the move the Tigers would be drawing significantly less people than they do now. In turn...there would be significantly less money spent downtown which means less buisness and less tax $. If you think that the city has not benifited from the new stadium you are a fool. The area around Comerica Park and Ford Field would be dead if it weren't for the those two stadiums being located there.
 
tomdalton22 said:
tycobb420 said:
we are talking about 2 different things. I am talking about the impact on Detroit. It has done little to nothing to help the city overall. Safety is a different issue, but I have never felt threatened or frightened in Detroit. Even at its worst in the 80s, I did not feel scared downtown. Detroit overall is more dangerous today than in 1999. Statistically, youre probably less safe now than back then...even near the ballparks.

Without the move the Tigers would be drawing significantly less people than they do now. In turn...there would be significantly less money spent downtown which means less buisness and less tax $. If you think that the city has not benifited from the new stadium you are a fool. The area around Comerica Park and Ford Field would be dead if it weren't for the those two stadiums being located there.

They just traded one dead zone for another. They would probably be drawing more at Tiger Stadium b/c it seated more. There has been no economic benefit based on the studies and reports done on the subject.
 
tycobb420 said:
tomdalton22 said:
Without the move the Tigers would be drawing significantly less people than they do now. In turn...there would be significantly less money spent downtown which means less buisness and less tax $. If you think that the city has not benifited from the new stadium you are a fool. The area around Comerica Park and Ford Field would be dead if it weren't for the those two stadiums being located there.

They just traded one dead zone for another. They would probably be drawing more at Tiger Stadium b/c it seated more. There has been no economic benefit based on the studies and reports done on the subject.

Well...the area around the old Tiger stadium was dead before they moved...along with the downtown area that currently occupies Comerica Park. Now, the area around Copa is NOT dead. As far as the Tigers drawing more people because the old Tiger Stadium is larger is probably wrong. The Tigers are more profitable now because of the new stadium which has allowed them to increase the payroll which in trun allows for a better product. If they were still in the old stadium it is very likely that they would still stink. They would not be able to afford players like Miggy and JV. As far as these studies that you refer to...I have not found a single study that supports your argument.
 
tomdalton22 said:
tycobb420 said:
They just traded one dead zone for another. They would probably be drawing more at Tiger Stadium b/c it seated more. There has been no economic benefit based on the studies and reports done on the subject.

Well...the area around the old Tiger stadium was dead before they moved...along with the downtown area that currently occupies Comerica Park. Now, the area around Copa is NOT dead. As far as the Tigers drawing more people because the old Tiger Stadium is larger is probably wrong. The Tigers are more profitable now because of the new stadium which has allowed them to increase the payroll which in trun allows for a better product. If they were still in the old stadium it is very likely that they would still stink. They would not be able to afford players like Miggy and JV. As far as these studies that you refer to...I have not found a single study that supports your argument.

If you have not found a single study, then you are not looking. In fact, some researchers have taken to calling the new ballparks "urban anchors." Tiger Stadium seated more people. With the Tigers winning, more people would have gone to games. Plain and simple.
 
tycobb420 said:
tomdalton22 said:
Well...the area around the old Tiger stadium was dead before they moved...along with the downtown area that currently occupies Comerica Park. Now, the area around Copa is NOT dead. As far as the Tigers drawing more people because the old Tiger Stadium is larger is probably wrong. The Tigers are more profitable now because of the new stadium which has allowed them to increase the payroll which in trun allows for a better product. If they were still in the old stadium it is very likely that they would still stink. They would not be able to afford players like Miggy and JV. As far as these studies that you refer to...I have not found a single study that supports your argument.

If you have not found a single study, then you are not looking. In fact, some researchers have taken to calling the new ballparks "urban anchors." Tiger Stadium seated more people. With the Tigers winning, more people would have gone to games. Plain and simple.

You do understand that the term "urban Anchor" is a positive not a negative...don't you??? As far as Tiger Stadium seating more people...in the 12 years of the new stadium the attendance has been over 1.9 million 10 times and over 2.5 million 5 times. In the last 20 years of Tiger Stadium there were only 5 times when the attendance was over 1.9 million and only once (1984) did it go over 2.5 million.
 
tomdalton22 said:
tycobb420 said:
If you have not found a single study, then you are not looking. In fact, some researchers have taken to calling the new ballparks "urban anchors." Tiger Stadium seated more people. With the Tigers winning, more people would have gone to games. Plain and simple.

You do understand that the term "urban Anchor" is a positive not a negative...don't you??? As far as Tiger Stadium seating more people...in the 12 years of the new stadium the attendance has been over 1.9 million 10 times and over 2.5 million 5 times. In the last 20 years of Tiger Stadium there were only 5 times when the attendance was over 1.9 million and only once (1984) did it go over 2.5 million.

Different era. More people are attending games within the last few years than in the 80s. Your comparison is not valid.

The term in the context I have read it in these reports refers to it as an anchor to economic progress...like a ship's anchor holding a boat in place.
 
Back
Top