Braves release more renderings of new Cobb stadium that still don’t show promised cantilevering

Hey, it’s a new rendering of the Atlanta Braves‘ new stadium, everybody!

As one Twitter commenter already noted, there is still no sign of the promised cantilevering that was supposed to “push seats closer to the field.” The middle deck might overhang the lower deck by a smidge, and the upper over the middle by a couple of rows, but that’s hardly anything to write home about when compared to the cantilevering of yore.

The rest of the Twitter thread is fun to read as well, including these highlights so far:

The consensus opinion, though, appears to be “meh,” which is a fair take. The Braves are in a tough situation, really, replacing a run-of-the-mill modern stadium with another stadium that doesn’t have any interesting features around it to make it less run-of-the-mill. (Maybe Cobb County could build a suspension bridge across one of its highways?) Actual cantilevering would certainly make a new park stand out, and get fans excited about closer views, but OH NO THE WELL HEELED MIGHT BE CAST INTO SHADOW INSTEAD OF BATHING IN THE GLORY OF THE SUN’S RAYS AS IS THEIR BIRTHRIGHT, so forget that.

14 comments on “Braves release more renderings of new Cobb stadium that still don’t show promised cantilevering


  2. Got to love cantilevering. Petco Park has some of the best in the game, and as a result fans get to enjoy some shade rather than cooking all day in the sun. It’s really quite nice. And it makes for bigger concourses too which is always a plus.

    Shame the Braves didn’t follow through on that promise. This park looks as uninspired and “meh” as the supposedly “old” park they’re moving out of at Turner Field.

  3. The only big difference between the Braves’ future stadium and their current one is the location. Otherwise, it’s pretty much the same thing. They might as well transport the big center field scoreboard over to the new digs, based on the renderings.

    Still don’t see why the Ted needs replacing, btw.

  4. So, let me ask this…

    Do you supposed that well heeled fans are willing to pay more for seats in new facilities not because the experience is necessarily that much better (I suspect things were pretty good for club/suite level fans in the last generation of stadia too), but because the great unwashed have now been moved further back?

    In other words, are they paying more for the benefits they personally get? Or because the (relatively) poor fans have been pushed back and no longer have the great views they once did (in many buildings, the best views were from the 2nd or 3rd tier)?

    Since the truly poor can no longer afford professional sport as entertainment, maybe this is off the mark… but it struck me as an interesting sociological question nonetheless.

  5. As Neil has pointed out, never many cars in these drawings. Like the planet of the apes, the crowds are going to emerge from the woods.

  6. John Bladen, my visit to AT&T Stadium in Dallas last year led me down a different version of the same idea. I sat in the upper deck and braved awful views, awful access getting up to the upper deck (I lost count of how many escalators I had to get on to get up there), awful concessions, awful everything. It seemed as though rather than making the new stadium nicer for everyone, they made the unwashed masses’ sections crappier to entice those that can afford it into the club areas.

  7. The Braves still maintain that “SunTrust Park” will have more fans, closer to the field than any other ball park. How they’re doing that is anyone’s guess.

    It looks like from this image there some cantilevering near the left field seats.

  8. Cantilevering for outfield seats is common — see Mets, Rangers, Twins, etc.

    And if the Braves sell few enough tickets, that would certainly bring the average fan closer to the field…

  9. @John Bladen: I do get the impression that the 21st century gameday experience is being catered almost exclusively for those who can afford club seats and luxury suites, at the expense of everyone else.

    The greatest example of this might be the giveaways and raffles at NBA and NHL games. It’s not a coincidence that blimps carrying coupons and vouchers only fly over the lower bowl seats; nor is it happenstance that t-shirt launchers haven’t evolved to the point where they can reach the upper deck of most arenas.

    Working class fans, many of whom have been shoved out to the upper reaches of the venue (if not out of the building altogether) are no longer part of the in-game atmosphere. It doesn’t help that most of the new indoor venues are more cavernous than their predecessors — the result of rows of luxury suites basically pushing the “worst” seats in the building out to the pastures.

  10. Just moved to Atlanta 6 months ago from Mass. Still surviving my frst summer here, though everyone tells me how mild it has been. I don’t understand how anyone could willingly pay so much*** for the good seats to a Braves’ game while melting in the sunlight. Cantilevering makes sense for the expensive seats AND the cheap seats in this heat.

    ***Incredibly cheap compared to Fenway, except when the Sawx are out of it and the Pink Hats bail on the team and StubHub has great deals.

  11. MP: Not just a standard… as the arms of the less well heeled fans grow longer due to overwork and ever increasing tax burdern, taxpayers will have to pay to expand the moats (and probably also pay for the seats that have to be taken out to allow same) lest the poor actually be able to touch the rich as opposed to just look at them with frank admiration…

  12. Kei: I think so too. In fairness, in cases where 10,000 wealthy fans have each ponied up $15k (on avg) for club seats and thus generated $150m toward the facility’s cost, I can understand why clubs feel the need to dote on their wealthiest clients. I guess the question is, can they do this while still catering to the needs and wants of the rest of us?

    RE: mere mortal fans… I find myself wondering when the facilities will not only disadvantage them but not bother to build seats for them at all. Clubs already admit that they don’t really make any money out of the last 2-3,000 ‘cheap’ seats, so why build them? (Ignoring, of course, the fact that tax dollars are paying for the majority of the construction in most casest).