 |
By Christopher Witflee
|
HOK Sport, architect of such modern-day retro wonders as Camden Yards, Coors Field, Jacobs Field and Enron Field, has evidently run out of good ideas in its design of the Reds' coming playground on the riverfront. But looks can be deceiving.
It's not that the architect can't generate ideas. Judging by the proposed designs for impending HOK projects in San Diego and St. Louis, the architects can keep dreaming for as long as there are more ballparks to build. More likely, the trouble is that the Reds and the county are out of money, long ago ran out of time to build a new yard economically and, sadly, are boxed in by that silly idea to wedge the ballpark between Firstar Center and Cinergy Field.
For $280 million, the Reds hope in 2003 to open their new facility, the initial uninspiring designs for which have been unveiled in the last couple of weeks. Blandness aside, their most disappointing feature lies in the requirement that patrons between the bases facing the pitcher's mound be turned toward the southeast, overlooking the river with their backs to the skyline.
Ideally, these patrons would face east to northeast, which would create a variety of scenes ranging from the Kentucky river bank to the river to Firstar Center and Bicentennial Commons to Mount Adams to the skyline. But there appears to not be enough room between Cinergy Field and Firstar Center to orient the playing field in that direction. This is a serious missed opportunity to maximize the park's aesthetic possibilities, which, therefore, defeats the only good argument for building it on the river in the first place.
Second, the design includes little large-scale ornamentation. Other than a "notch" that will allow pedestrians to peek in from Sycamore Street, one imagines something like the new Comiskey Park on the river. But you get what you pay for, and $280 million for a stadium to open in 2003 doesn't buy a lot. For whatever reasons, inflation of stadium building costs is a runaway train.
The first in this 10-year wave of new parks, Camden Yards, opened in 1992 for $100 million. Two years later, Jacobs Field opened in Cleveland for $175 million and The Ballpark in Arlington opened for $191 million. This year, Houston's Enron Field opened for costs running from $250 million to $300 million, Detroit's Comerica Park opened for $300 million and San Francisco's Pac Bell Park opened for $319 million. A proposed new park in St. Louis would open in 2004 for $370 million.
The St. Louis plans are gorgeous and probably a little over the top, but even by the more modest standards of the stadiums opened this year the cost of building a new ball park is increasing at around $25 million per year. So, to open a park as nice as Pac Bell or Comerica in three years would require excess of $350 million. For $280 million, then, the Reds will end up in a cut-rate stadium, certainly not the state of the art.
Blame it on Marge Schott's stalling tactics in the final years of her control over the Reds, who should, either now or a year from now, be playing in a $280 million palace at Broadway Commons. Schott's refusal to get serious cost the Reds and their fans $50 million or more in stadium value through inflation.
Not that $280 million can't build a beautiful stadium. Enron Field in Houston is all of that with the expense of a retractable roof. Unlike Cincinnati, though, Houston built its park on an edge of downtown in need of development, leaving plenty of room. The Wedge site here had to burden HOK with serious design constraints, the most dreadful of which is the necessity that home plate face toward the southeast.
The Reds and Hamilton County went into this with their eyes wide open to three options: build on Broadway Commons, renovate Cinergy Field or build at the Wedge. Recent designs show that the road taken was clearly the worst. If they must play on the river, one wishes the Reds could pour that $280 million into a Cinergy Field renovation, which would echo the club's history while giving fans the best setting.
As it is, the Reds stand to play in a relatively sparse baseball park while the perpetually horrible Bengals get the finest facility in the National Football League. But the people, the Reds, local governments and the business community all knew what they were getting into by picking the Wedge, so everyone should be very happy.
· · ·
As for the Bengals, they improved not one bit by picking Florida State's Peter Warrick, though he clearly was the best game-breaker available. The improvement came, oddly enough, in the third round, when they selected Florida State's other wide receiver, Ron Dugans.
The Bengals' problem, of course, is that the their few veteran offensive players good enough to start anywhere else are pushing all their leverage to make that happen. Corey Dillon has gone so far as to say he'll play only six games next season, the minimum needed to reach free agency. And for all that might be said against the Bengals, Carl Pickens comes off as the sort of character who's incapable of being happy anywhere.
The Bengals entered draft day driven by the overt strategy of making Pickens expendable. In a display of stunning frankness, the Bengals' official Web site put this lead on its account of the Warrick selection: "The Bengals opted for a wide receiver in the first round for the first time since taking Eddie Brown 15 years ago, but they gave Florida State's Peter Warrick the No. 80 of Cris Collinsworth and look for him to replace Carl Pickens."
Warrick can't flat out replace Pickens, for they're two different kinds of receiver. Warrick was the best instant scoring threat in college football in a very long time due to his quick feet and peripheral vision that might pass for eyes in the back of his head. Once again, many of the NFL's crack talent scouts outsmarted themselves, complaining about a 4.55 40 Warrick ran in a gym.
It's widely assumed that Warrick would have won the Heisman Trophy if he hadn't availed himself of a special clothing sale in his honor. One presumes the Bengals will pay him enough to come by his wardrobe legitimately so episodes of this sort might recede into his past.
Pickens also is a special kind of weapon, a 6-2 leaper who tears apart smaller cornerbacks on the high throw. But Dugans, besides being Warrick's college teammate, is the same kind of threat as Pickens, for he goes 6-1 with a 43-inch vertical jump. So it is Dugans, rather than Warrick, who replaces Pickens, should the Bengals be fortunate enough to dump the latter.
It would be tiresome to recount the various irksome traits and episodes that have done more to define Pickens than the fact that he's the Bengals' all-time leading receiver. The Bengals have to be kicking themselves for signing him to a five-year deal for $23 million last fall, because they can certainly understand why no other team will make a decent offer for him.
Baltimore has expressed an interest, but, it is said, the Bengals are reluctant to trade Pickens within the AFC Central. If so, the Bengals ought to rethink that position and just give Pickens to the Ravens. It would be a sly move, the moral equivalent of germ warfare, to make the Ravens put up with him. For the Bengals, it would be addition by subtraction, and, as a bonus, Mike Brown could have a nice laugh on Art Modell.
Over a 10-year period, the Bengals have failed so spectacularly in their long-running rebuilding effort that careful study of the team arouses various states of anger and laughter. But now that it's been three months since they've lost a game and another three months will pass before they lose again, perhaps we can venture a calm look at their upside.
Begin with basics. The Bengals improved last year from 19th to sixth across the NFL in rushing offense, also improving from 30th to 19th in rushing defense. A continuance of those trends would certainly result in victories, even if their reliance on an essentially rookie quarterback, Akili Smith, makes a winning season virtually impossible.
Moving to the new stadium and new facilities with clean walls means whatever got into the walls at Spinney Field and Cinergy Field will be gone. Just a little change of scenery can make a huge difference in outlook.
But the change of scenery accomplishes nothing if bad actors with their bad karma hang around and dirty the walls. So, as tiresome as this Bengals rebuilding project has become, it would be defensible for the Bengals to be rid of Pickens and Dillon, even if that means their running attack suffers in the short term.
They're not going to win this year, anyway. They might as well lose for a purpose.
