Will OPACY be the legend...

[scOtt]

After 100 years, 2092, will Camden Yards still be here? Be the legend that Fenway, old Yankee Stadium, Wrigley is?

Didn't make a poll. Just what say you all?

[rudyrooster]

I think it's quite possible. The stadium is in a near perfect location--I don't see a reason to build a new stadium somewhere in the 'burbs. It's a nice baseball-only "throwback" kinda stadium. Yeah, I could see it still being there in 2092.

[weams]

I think it's quite possible. The stadium is in a near perfect location--I don't see a reason to build a new stadium somewhere in the 'burbs. It's a nice baseball-only "throwback" kinda stadium. Yeah, I could see it still being there in 2092.

It will need repairs.

[Redskins Rick]

It will need repairs.

All stadiums require repair, and they are too cheap to repair, then the stadium will become a dumping ground like in Oakland.

Hopefully, they wont mess up during repairs like they did with Wrigley this year.

So far, they have done a fantastic job maintaining the stadium, props for our crews.

[DrungoHazewood]

I think it will probably still be there. Depends on a lot of things, like the popularity of baseball in 80 years. 100 years ago Forbes Field and Crosley Field and Ebbets Field led a stadium revolution, where MLB went from mostly small, single-decked wooden stadiums to multi-tiered concrete and steel parks. Much like the 1990s and 2000s, within a relatively short period most of the teams built new parks that were far better than what came before. That revolution was probably more of a change than the more recent one - from 1900 to 1920 the average MLB team went from a park that looked like a poor-man's PG County Stadium (BaySox) to something like Wrigley or Fenway or old Yankee. And most of those parks are gone 100 years later, Wrigley and Fenway being the exceptions. And although Wrigley and Fenway are classics, a lot of their infrastructure and amenities are quite dated.

[Groundhog]

I think it will still be here--at least longer than that godawful eyesore the city-owned Hilton! I just hope in the next 100 years they tear that building down or build up the skyline around OPACY.

[atomic]

I have attended games at Wrigley field while the seating and playing field are great the bathrooms and concessions are terrible. So there is a trade off. Who is to know whether people in 50 years decide it is time to build a more modern stadium or to keep for the sake of history and charm.

[weams]

PEDs of the 2080's

Oriole Park At Camden Space Station

[mdbdotcom]

By 2093, you might be able to dock your boat at Dempsey's.

[DrungoHazewood]

Here's another way to look at it. 2092 is as far away as 1937. In 1937 there were 16 MLB teams, two sharing a park in St. Louis, and the Indians splitting time between League Park and Municipal Stadium. Six of those teams moved away. And only the Red Sox and Cubs are still playing in their same parks. The MLBs have added 14 teams since then. You could surmise that many of today's parks are better built and will be longer lasting. But only 10 teams today were active and in the same city in 1937 (33%), and only two parks (6.7%).

In 1937 at least several parks in use were what you might describe as ramshackle. League Park in Cleveland and Baker Bowl in Philly, maybe a few other places were kind of squeezed into city blocks, with odd, often really short dimensions in one field or another. They probably resembled a poorly-built Fenway more than anything else today. You can't really describe any modern MLB park as ramshackle. Maybe ill-suited to modern major league baseball, like in Oakland, but still objectively a far better ballpark than many of the parks from 1937. It's hard to envision a place like OPACY being as dated in 75 years as a Baker Bowl would be today.

[DrungoHazewood]

I suppose another consideration is whether or not cities will be as willing to foot the bill for new stadiums in the future. Almost all of the 1910-era stadium boom was privately financed. Almost all of the 1990s-today boom has had very significant public financing. I think it's possible that governments and taxpayers will become less willing to pay $billions for sports teams to have better revenue streams when they already have rather great places to play that were largely provided at public expense.

[jjnono]

Well, if the demographics about the average fan's age (55) are true, they won't be playing baseball in 100 years.... so no.

[El Gordo]

In 2092 will there be cities as we know them today? Will there be civilization as we know it today?

[LA2]

Well, if the demographics about the average fan's age (55) are true, they won't be playing baseball in 100 years.... so no.

"According to Nielsen ratings, 50 percent of baseball viewers are 55 or older, up from 41 percent 10 years ago. ESPN, which airs baseball, football and basketball games, says its data show the average age of baseball viewers rising well above that of other sports: 53 for baseball, 47 for the NFL (also rising fast) and 37 for the NBA, which has kept its audience age flat."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/baseballs-trouble-with-the-youth-curve--and-what-that-means-for-the-game/2015/04/05/2da36dca-d7e8-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

[Redskins Rick]

"According to Nielsen ratings, 50 percent of baseball viewers are 55 or older, up from 41 percent 10 years ago. ESPN, which airs baseball, football and basketball games, says its data show the average age of baseball viewers rising well above that of other sports: 53 for baseball, 47 for the NFL (also rising fast) and 37 for the NBA, which has kept its audience age flat."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/nationals/baseballs-trouble-with-the-youth-curve--and-what-that-means-for-the-game/2015/04/05/2da36dca-d7e8-11e4-8103-fa84725dbf9d_story.html

Thats true of the TV ratings.

I wonder what the demographics are, for the fans who pay to attend the games at the park.