Citizens+Bank+Park+Design+Philosophy

An exploration of modern stadium design philosophy By Thomas Hagerty
 * Citizen’s Bank Park **
 * __INTRODUCTION__**

The Philadelphia Phillies are one of the oldest franchises in baseball. Being one of the oldest means that they have had a few places to call home over the years. Just like sports and society, baseball stadiums have changed a lot over the years. This paper is going to show how but also, more importantly, WHY the changes in stadium design are happening. There are many reasons that lead to the development of modern stadium design; I am going to stay to primarily the two most important, contemporary societal changes and of course, economics. The Phillies have called 4 stadiums home over the years. The first was the Baker Bowl, which will be used as the benchmark for all consequential designs. This design was followed by 2 designs that were cultivated from the “Bigger is Better” design philosophy. These two stadiums were Shibe Park and Veterans Stadium, which marked the culmination of this Fordist design philosophy. The Phillies 4th and current home, Citizens Bank Park, is a complete departure from the “Bigger is Better” mentality. This stadium is more streamlined in construction. The design of Citizens Bank Park puts more emphasis on maximizing profits of the fans that are in the stadium instead of allowing for more to be accommodated.


 * __BIGGER is BETTER__**

When the Phillies welcomed fans to their first home at the Baker Bowl in 1887, they were treated to the most modern stadium to date. (Westcott 28) This new design was mostly composed of brick instead of wood, which was the standard of the era. This grand new stadium had a seating capacity of 12,500 when it opened and about 18,000 when it closed in 1938. (Westcott 28) Stadium construction at this time was bounded by the constraints of the economics of the time. During this era of baseball most of the revenue for a team came from ticket sales, the gate, and to get the most revenue you had to bring the most people in. To achieve maximum profits for the team the stadium had to be constructed in the optimal place available. The Baker Bowl was built at 15th and Huntington, which was in the middle of a neighborhood. This was a time before the car was something that every one had, so the stadium had to be in walking distance for most fans. This of course limited the size of the stadium. To give some perspective on the times, in the 1930’s a ticket to a Phillies game at the Baker Bowl cost somewhere between $0.50 and $1.65 and the stadium was constructed at a cost of $101,000. (Westcott 28,59) Built in 1909, Shibe park would be the next home of the Phillies. When constructed, only 20 years after the Baker Bowl, Shibe Park was to be home to 23,000 Philadelphia Athletics fans. This new venue would be replacing the home of the Athletics, Columbia Park that only sat about 9,000 people, and was also built to compete with the Phillies relatively new home, The Baker Bowl. This explains why the stadium was built for far more money, $457,167, but sat only about 5,000 more people. (Westcott 104) Like the Baker Bowl, Shibe Park was constructed in a neighborhood, 21st and Lehigh, and had the same constraints in spacing as did the Baker Bowl.

Continuing on the “Bigger is Better” school of design the Phillies moved into Shibe Park in 1938 as co-tenants with the A’s. By this time, after a few renovations to the stadium, Shibe Park had a capacity of about 33,500 which was about 50% more then that of the Baker Bowl. (Westcott 112) Both of these first 2 homes were relatively “no frills” ballparks. Any money that was spent on the stadium was geared toward one end; get more people through the gate. At Shibe Park, renamed Connie Mack Stadium in 1953, tickets went from $0.50 to $2.00 (1920’s). (Westcott 105) The culmination of the “Bigger is Better” design school came to Philadelphia in 1971 when the Phillies left Connie Mack Stadium for the ultimate Fordist stadium, Veterans Stadium. The design of this stadium is referred to as “cookie cutter” for a couple of reasons. First, the stadium looked like a cookie cutter from the sky. Second, there were many stadiums with almost the exact same design around the country. I consider this the peak of Fordism in stadium design because of the almost factory like reproduction in several cities and extremely high capacity of almost 63,000. Any one who has ever been to Veterans Stadium will attest to the simple fact that the stadium was, like the previous 2, no frills. You came to the stadium to watch the game, if you wanted something to eat, you had a hot dog. This Stadium was designed to accommodate both the Phillies and the Philadelphia Eagles, another key aspect of the Fordist design, double duty.

The major change that had occurred in society from when Shibe Park was built until when Veterans Stadium was built was the car. By 1970, thanks in part to Henry Ford, many, many people had their own car. This allowed for the construction of a venue a little further away that had a lot more land to build on. That was chief reason why the size of Connie Mack Stadium was limited. Not only was there a limitation to the size of the actual stadium but also there was nowhere to park all the cars even if you could build a bigger stadium. Veterans Stadium, the Vet, was built at south Broad Street, with easy access to both the bridge to New Jersey and the I-95 highway. This was not in a neighborhood so there was plenty of room to build it as large as you wanted and there would still be plenty of room for parking. To give perspective, when the Vet was built in 1970 it cost about $50 million to construct (Westcott) and the ticket prices ranged from $8 to $26 dollars in 2002. (USA Sports)


 * __FUNDING for a NEW STADIUM__**

The cost for a modern stadium is staggering. There is no way that one agency, be it the team or the city or the state, can pay for the whole thing. Usually this means a combination of private, local, and state funds are used for the construction of the new stadium. This was true in the construction of Citizens Bank Park as well. There is a lot of controversy on this type of split in cost though. On one hand the team contends that the construction of a new stadium will bring over $67 million of “economic benefit” to the city in the next 30 years. (McConnell) On the other hand, recently it has been studied widely, and many peoples contention is, that having a sports team in town actually contributes no benefit to local economics. The team banks on the “Civic Pride” of a city in regards to its sports team and gets away with “doctoring” it’s books to show great economic benefit for the city. Since all of these projections for the city to profit take place over decades, it is hard to say that they cannot be correct. The only increased revenue for a city that can be stated and quantified accurately is the increase in tax revenues. When Baltimore built a new stadium for the Ravens, the increased tax revenue was projected to be and actually was 0.7% over the previous year. (Coats and Humphreys 16) This being said the city and state officials know that they are publicly elected officials and if they want to keep their jobs they will give in to whatever the team says they need to stay in the city. The political officials know that voters will not tolerate their beloved team leaving for another city because that other city would build them a new stadium where this one would not. So, the bottom line in if the city loses money on a new stadium is… It does not matter. The team, in most cases, has the leverage and the city knows it. After all of this back and forth about who profits from a new stadium, it was decided that the new venue, which would cost about $346 million to construct, would be split almost 50/50 between the Phillies and the city. (BallParks.com) The city would pay $174 million while the team would pay $172 million. (BallParks.com)
 * __CHANGE in DESIGN PHILOSOPHY__**

Over the past 15 to 20 years there has been a huge departure from the old way of building a baseball stadium. With the opening of Camden Yards in Baltimore in 1992, home of the Orioles, a new philosophy in design was begun. Before Camden yards the previous generation of baseball venues were built bigger and bigger. This was due in large part because of the revenue stream of team say 40-50 years ago. Back then almost all the revenue for a team came from the stadium. Now while the majority of the team’s money still comes from the stadium, the teams are supported by a huge $5.4 billion dollar television contract. (Sessa) This money is divided between the teams, as with anything in television, by ratings. Taking this into account, teams want to maximize the dollars they can get from the TV contracts. The team has also sold the naming rights of the stadium for almost $100 million. (Wikipedia) This change in economics for the sport helped to change the philosophy of design of the new stadium now, the design went to a more stream lined approach in size and also moved toward a more all-encompassing entertainment experience. Now teams could focus less on getting the most people through the gate and focus more on maximizing profit from each fan.

In the previous stadium designs you could argue that it was a very democratic approach. The price of seats did not vary very much from the least to most expensive and the concessions were standard. You can see the thought of “Everyone is equal” in the design. Even the Vet was built without luxury boxes. The luxury boxes were added to the Vet in the late 1980’s. This addition of the luxury “Skyboxes” is the first emergence of the republican way of thinking. The “Reagonomics” of the time produced a class division that has become prevalent in modern stadium design. Modern stadiums are built with different price points for tickets, concessions, even souvenirs. This is the primary philosophy in modern stadium construction.

The next most important design aspect of a new stadium is it must look good on TV. This is the main reason why stadiums are smaller than they used to be. With smaller stadiums may remain the same but looks a lot larger. This makes people think one of two ways, either that is where the action is and I have to get there, or that place is too crowded and can stay home and watch it comfortably. Both of the scenarios increase profits for the team either from the stadium directly or from the TV contracts, which is also from the stadium, just indirectly.

The next factor in changing the design from “Bigger is better” is the shear cost of modern construction. The cost of construction per seat of the Vet was about $803 per seat, for the new stadium it would be about $7,927. In 2002 the average attendance for a Phillies game at the Vet was 20,486, the capacity was nearly 63,000, they were paying for nearly 43,000 empty seats. At a price of almost $8,000 dollars per seat for construction you have to try to limit the amount of empty seats you are paying for.


 * __Citizens Bank Park__**

Some consider Citizens Bank Park to be the top rated ballpark in the country. (MLB Venue Rankings) This is obviously a very subjective comment but it is quite easy to see why. First of all, you can still get a ticket for $16 although they can range up to $60. (Philadelphia Phillies) The stadium has a capacity of 43,647 with an average ticket price of $31.10. (Sessa) The stadium has about 10 different price points for just tickets. This stadium has a very open construction that allows the fans to see the game from just about anywhere in the stadium, not just their seats. This encourages people to get up from there seats and see the entire stadium and, of course, spend money. The stadium offers several different types of concessions from the classic hot dog to high-end catered meals in the luxury boxes.

Citizens Bank Park is also very technologically advanced. It is the first stadium in the major league to use 20 million Kilowatt-hours to power the stadium. Also, all the glass, plastic and cardboard is recycled and the used frying oil is converted into Bio-diesel. (Wikipedia) The “Bank” also has the largest video display board in the National League at 2,759 sq. ft. (Philadelphia Phillies)
 * __CONCLUSIONS__**

In conclusion, stadium construction has moved from a “Bigger is Better” mentality to a more focused approach on how to maximize profits. The focus changed from getting as many people into the game as possible to getting the most amount of money out of the people that are there. This is accomplished by creating tiered ticket prices and luxury boxes. Companies will pay a lot of money to bring clients to sporting events in hopes of closing a lucrative deal. Another way of maximizing revenues is by a large variety of concessions at a lot of price points.

The next reason stadium design philosophy has changed is the television revenues. Teams believe that if the stadium looks good on TV more people will watch which will increase revenues from league TV contracts. Also, if the team is getting higher ratings it can charge higher prices for advertising around the stadium. And of course, if the stadium looks good on TV more people will want to go out and see it for themselves.

Along with the high cost of construction, almost $8,000 a seat, there is the cost of maintenance. With the “Less is More” philosophy, less seats cost LESS to construct and to maintain and, with the tiered pricing schemes, will produce MORE revenue.

The most overlooked reason for building a smaller stadium is probably the most important to the avid sports fan. If the stadium is smaller you are going to be closer to the game and consequently the players. The biggest reason fans go to games is because it makes them feel like they are a part of the game. For this reason there is no substitute than actually going to a beautiful, new, modern, “Less is More” stadium like Citizens Bank Park. 

=Bibliography = BallParks.com. __Citizens Bank Park__. 10 June 2009 . Coats, Dennis and Brad R. Humphreys. "The Stadium Gambit and Local Economic Development." __Regulation__ 2000: 15-20. Delaney, Kevin J. and Rick Eckstien. __Public Dollars, Private Stadiums__. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003. John, Geraint and Rod Sheard. __Stadia A Design and Development Guide__. Boston: Architectual Press, 1994. McConnell, Beth. __An Economic Analysis of the Impact of Proposed Taxpayer Subsidized Sports Stadiums on Philadelphia__. Internal company. Philadelphia: PennPIRG and the PennPIRG Education Fund, 2000. __ MLB Venue Rankings __. 17 April 2009. 17 April 2009 . Philadelphia Phillies. __Citizens Bank Park__. 10 June 2009 . Sessa, Daniella. __Baseball Hit by Money Woes as Phillies-Rays Sell Out__. 22 October 2008. 10 June 2009 . USA Sports. __Philadelphia Phillies__. 10 June 2009 . Westcott, Rich. __Philadelphia's Old Ballparks__. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996. Wikipedia. __Wikipedia, The free encyclopedia__. 10 June 2009 .