Article: The Weekly: The End is Near for American Family Field

[Brent Sirvio]

I first noticed it moving back to Wisconsin from the middle of the country about ten years ago. Actually, before that. The rust stains from rain rolling off the roof panels on the outer stadium facade appeared only a few years after Miller Park opened. And with every trip to the ballpark, gameday or otherwise, I've noticed something else every time I've visited.

The fading green paint on the roof panels. Outdated signage. The bracing placed in spots along the inner facade along the tracks for the roof. Visiting the clubhouse last fall, it's clear those facilities were built at the turn of the century with the turn of the century in mind. 

The Weekly is a column on the Brewers. 'On' may do heavier lifting on some weeks than others.

Put bluntly, what is now American Family Field is not aging well, and with the Brewers' lease expiring in 2030 at the soonest, it's not too soon to wonder what comes next. In fact, thinking about updates -- or even a replacement -- for the ballpark should have already been on the radar since before the five-county sales tax that amortized Miller Park's debt expired in 2020.

In 2030, American Family Field will be approaching 30 years old. Mark Attanasio will be 73 years old. By way of comparison, Bud Selig sold the Brewers to Attanasio's investment group in 2004 at age 70.

Failure by all stakeholders involved to get out in front of the stadium issue brings us back to the mid-90s, when Selig threatened to move the team to the Carolinas if the public wouldn't help with stadium financing. Or, worse yet, potentially to the early 1960s, when Milwaukee County's bumbling and bombastic leadership all but chased the Braves to Atlanta.

Failure by Attanasio and the Brewers to be forthright about the need for significant structural updates sooner than later will tell more than anyone might be comfortable admitting about what current ownership's next chapters and/or exit strategy might be. 

To be fair, it's understandable that there may not be much public appetite for this kind of talk. And, generally speaking, this writer does not believe it appropriate for government to subsidize or otherwise bankroll the construction or renovation of sports stadiums without either a clear, real return on investment or otherwise not being left on the hook.

In other words, if a deal is to be struck by partial way of public financing, it needs to be less Foxconn and more Fiserv Forum.

And even if a renovation of American Family Field is agreed to, there is no guarantee that won't be a bandage on a bullet wound: Kansas City's Kauffman Stadium underwent a $250m renovation between 2007 and 2009, and the Royals, once quietly, are now openly looking at buying property either downtown or near the 18th and Vine historic district to build a new stadium. The Kansas City Star led with that story just last weekend. They also just changed hands in 2019, from David Glass to Kansas City energy magnate John Sherman.

(By the way, if you haven't been to the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum at 18th and Vine, you are missing out on an incredible experience. And a new ballpark there would be pretty cool, if it weren't for the fact that The K is one of the best baseball experiences in America.)

Let's take Kauffman as a baseline: $250m in 2009 is roughly $310m today. If renovations were to start later this decade, that puts us at a minimum of $330m, and that's not considering any major work to the bespoke retractable roof system.

If Kauffman Stadium is any bellwether, saying nothing of Atlanta or Arlington, we should be clear-eyed about the fact that we can sink upwards of $400m (or more) into American Family Field in a project around 2028 or 2030 only for the team to have eyes on something somewhere else within a decade, or we should be looking at something somewhere else. Because if we're not, the Brewers will, and that somewhere won't be in the state of Wisconsin. Fiserv Forum may have been a Pyrrhic victory this way.

In reality, American Family Field was not built to be timeless in the way that Camden Yards, Oracle Park or PNC Park were. That element of design was sacrificed for the roof, rightly, to guarantee 81 home games a year. (An indirectly-related aside: Fans to the west of Wisconsin too-conveniently forget that Target Field was supposed to and should have a roof, but dithering and heel-dragging among public officials and Twins leadership alike allowed the cost to build the stadium to spiral to the point where a roof was no longer affordable.)

The Brewers are expected to present a report in 'early summer', according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Tom Daykin, and we'll all have a clearer sense of where things might be headed. 

In the meantime, we are left with a disquieting fact: that without a proactive and assertive response by the region and the state, and a shared willingness by all parties to engage in good faith, the Brewers might be headed the way of the Braves. I honestly don't think anyone wants that to happen, but without a clear and active want for that to not happen, what other option is there? To dare history to not repeat itself?

It's not the conversation anyone wants to have. I get that. It's much more fun to talk about dominant pitching and walk-off dingers and the most frustrating, incredible and frustratingly incredible Brewers team we've seen in some time. But we can't root, root, root for the home team unless that team has a home. And the time to talk about what home looks like and what it should be is now.

View full article

[Brock Beauchamp]

Quote

(An indirectly-related aside: Fans to the west of Wisconsin too-conveniently forget that Target Field was supposed to and should have a roof, but dithering and heel-dragging among public officials and Twins leadership alike allowed the cost to build the stadium to spiral to the point where a roof was no longer affordable.)

While partially true, a big component of no roof on Target Field was that they would have needed to build the park elsewhere, as the current location of Target Field did not have a footprint large enough for a roofed stadium.

I personally believe baseball parks should not have roofs so I believe this was the correct decision.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Quote

(An indirectly-related aside: Fans to the west of Wisconsin too-conveniently forget that Target Field was supposed to and should have a roof, but dithering and heel-dragging among public officials and Twins leadership alike allowed the cost to build the stadium to spiral to the point where a roof was no longer affordable.)

While partially true, a big component of no roof on Target Field was that they would have needed to build the park elsewhere, as the current location of Target Field did not have a footprint large enough for a roofed stadium.

I personally believe baseball parks should not have roofs so I believe this was the correct decision.

[sveumrules]

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

[sveumrules]

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

[Brent Sirvio]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

While partially true, a big component of no roof on Target Field was that they would have needed to build the park elsewhere, as the current location of Target Field did not have a footprint large enough for a roofed stadium.

I personally believe baseball parks should not have roofs so I believe this was the correct decision.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/04/12/stadiumdesign

It is strongly implied here -- and there are renderings out there of what would be TF that include one -- that a roof could have been added to the current site, footprint and all. Again, cost -- for better or worse -- was the precluding factor.

[Brent Sirvio]

1 hour ago, Brock Beauchamp said:

While partially true, a big component of no roof on Target Field was that they would have needed to build the park elsewhere, as the current location of Target Field did not have a footprint large enough for a roofed stadium.

I personally believe baseball parks should not have roofs so I believe this was the correct decision.

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/04/12/stadiumdesign

It is strongly implied here -- and there are renderings out there of what would be TF that include one -- that a roof could have been added to the current site, footprint and all. Again, cost -- for better or worse -- was the precluding factor.

[Brent Sirvio]

43 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

I stand by what I said.

[Brent Sirvio]

43 minutes ago, sveumrules said:

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

I stand by what I said.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Brent Sirvio said:

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/04/12/stadiumdesign

It is strongly implied here -- and there are renderings out there of what would be TF that include one -- that a roof could have been added to the current site, footprint and all. Again, cost -- for better or worse -- was the precluding factor.

I'd have to do some digging but I'm relatively confident they couldn't put a roof in that location. Either way, it doesn't really matter that much to me, as my extreme preference is no roof so however they got there is fine with me. Target Field's views would have really suffered with a roof over the stadium, particularly right field.

[Brock Beauchamp]

1 hour ago, Brent Sirvio said:

https://www.mprnews.org/story/2007/04/12/stadiumdesign

It is strongly implied here -- and there are renderings out there of what would be TF that include one -- that a roof could have been added to the current site, footprint and all. Again, cost -- for better or worse -- was the precluding factor.

I'd have to do some digging but I'm relatively confident they couldn't put a roof in that location. Either way, it doesn't really matter that much to me, as my extreme preference is no roof so however they got there is fine with me. Target Field's views would have really suffered with a roof over the stadium, particularly right field.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

I think the point is that these kinds of decisions are best made 5-ish years ahead of time to see it all done by the expiration of the contract/agreement.

That doesn't leave a ton of time to hash out which direction is the best path forward.

[Brock Beauchamp]

2 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

I think the point is that these kinds of decisions are best made 5-ish years ahead of time to see it all done by the expiration of the contract/agreement.

That doesn't leave a ton of time to hash out which direction is the best path forward.

[LouisEly]

3 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

Given the typical political bickering and budget bumbling and time it takes to get things done, the answer is yes.

[LouisEly]

3 hours ago, sveumrules said:

Is the end near or is the end maybe like 8 years away at soonest?

Given the typical political bickering and budget bumbling and time it takes to get things done, the answer is yes.

[Brewcrew82]

Let me just say that, unlike what the author seems to be hinting at, I don't see the Brewers moving anytime soon (if ever). If the Bucks, who are much less of an attraction in the state, can get a brand new state-of-the-art arena funded in part by taxpayers, I think there will be more than enough of a political and public will to get something done for the Brewers. Of course, I am not a huge fan of the concept of taxpayers subsidizing billion dollar corporations (which is what the Brewers are), but that is just the reality of the professional sports scene in 2022. The Brewers mean way too much to the state and to the city for any serious movement toward relocation to occur. Milwaukee and Wisconsin are nothing like Oakland and California or Tampa and Florida.

[Brewcrew82]

Let me just say that, unlike what the author seems to be hinting at, I don't see the Brewers moving anytime soon (if ever). If the Bucks, who are much less of an attraction in the state, can get a brand new state-of-the-art arena funded in part by taxpayers, I think there will be more than enough of a political and public will to get something done for the Brewers. Of course, I am not a huge fan of the concept of taxpayers subsidizing billion dollar corporations (which is what the Brewers are), but that is just the reality of the professional sports scene in 2022. The Brewers mean way too much to the state and to the city for any serious movement toward relocation to occur. Milwaukee and Wisconsin are nothing like Oakland and California or Tampa and Florida.

[Brent Sirvio]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Let me just say that, unlike what the author seems to be hinting at, I don't see the Brewers moving anytime soon (if ever). If the Bucks, who are much less of an attraction in the state, can get a brand new state-of-the-art arena funded in part by taxpayers, I think there will be more than enough of a political and public will to get something done for the Brewers. Of course, I am not a huge fan of the concept of taxpayers subsidizing billion dollar corporations (which is what the Brewers are), but that is just the reality of the professional sports scene in 2022. The Brewers mean way too much to the state and to the city for any serious movement toward relocation to occur. Milwaukee and Wisconsin are nothing like Oakland and California or Tampa and Florida.

There is no hinting here. If the team goes up for sale and the buyer is not locally-tied in some way or otherwise enjoined from moving, the Brewers' future in Milwaukee is absolutely uncertain. Portland, Nashville and Montreal are all openly seeking a MLB franchise, and Oakland has one foot out the door en route to Las Vegas. The Bradley Center opened practically obsolete, and it took an overwhelming commitment from ownership past and present to secure Fiserv Forum. We have to be clear-eyed about the fact that when the club goes up for sale, so too is the future of baseball in Milwaukee.

[Brent Sirvio]

1 hour ago, Brewcrew82 said:

Let me just say that, unlike what the author seems to be hinting at, I don't see the Brewers moving anytime soon (if ever). If the Bucks, who are much less of an attraction in the state, can get a brand new state-of-the-art arena funded in part by taxpayers, I think there will be more than enough of a political and public will to get something done for the Brewers. Of course, I am not a huge fan of the concept of taxpayers subsidizing billion dollar corporations (which is what the Brewers are), but that is just the reality of the professional sports scene in 2022. The Brewers mean way too much to the state and to the city for any serious movement toward relocation to occur. Milwaukee and Wisconsin are nothing like Oakland and California or Tampa and Florida.

There is no hinting here. If the team goes up for sale and the buyer is not locally-tied in some way or otherwise enjoined from moving, the Brewers' future in Milwaukee is absolutely uncertain. Portland, Nashville and Montreal are all openly seeking a MLB franchise, and Oakland has one foot out the door en route to Las Vegas. The Bradley Center opened practically obsolete, and it took an overwhelming commitment from ownership past and present to secure Fiserv Forum. We have to be clear-eyed about the fact that when the club goes up for sale, so too is the future of baseball in Milwaukee.

[Brewcrew82]

58 minutes ago, Brent Sirvio said:

There is no hinting here. If the team goes up for sale and the buyer is not locally-tied in some way or otherwise enjoined from moving, the Brewers' future in Milwaukee is absolutely uncertain. Portland, Nashville and Montreal are all openly seeking a MLB franchise, and Oakland has one foot out the door en route to Las Vegas. The Bradley Center opened practically obsolete, and it took an overwhelming commitment from ownership past and present to secure Fiserv Forum. We have to be clear-eyed about the fact that when the club goes up for sale, so too is the future of baseball in Milwaukee.

And has Attanasio given any indication whatsoever that he will be putting the team up for sale? All signs have been that he intends to keep the team within the family for the foreseeable future. So, I don't quite understand where you are getting that from, and why you are treating it as a matter of fact. 

Second, despite the constant relocation threats used in coaxing public financing for professional sports stadiums/arenas, they rarely actually end up coming to fruition. The A's and Ray's sagas have been going on for two decades now (virtually as long as Am Fam Field/Miller Park has been in existence), and yet both teams remain in their trash heap of stadiums (which AmFam field is currently not), with no resolution in immediate sight. The fact of the matter is that sports leagues such as MLB are loathe to relocate their teams, particularly where strong fan support for such team exists. That is clearly the case with the Brewers in Milwaukee. 

Third, the Brewers are far more of an engrained institution in the city and the state than the Bucks were at the time they secured public funding for Fiserv Forum. Obviously, the Packers will always remain king, but the Brewers are right there after them. When the time arrives for these discussions, there will be strong headwinds in favor of getting a deal done. 

If you ask me, while I appreciate the effort, this article is way too apocalyptic. The ballpark situation will sort itself out over time, and will almost certainly end with the Brewers staying put with either a renovated or brand new venue.

[Brewcrew82]

58 minutes ago, Brent Sirvio said:

There is no hinting here. If the team goes up for sale and the buyer is not locally-tied in some way or otherwise enjoined from moving, the Brewers' future in Milwaukee is absolutely uncertain. Portland, Nashville and Montreal are all openly seeking a MLB franchise, and Oakland has one foot out the door en route to Las Vegas. The Bradley Center opened practically obsolete, and it took an overwhelming commitment from ownership past and present to secure Fiserv Forum. We have to be clear-eyed about the fact that when the club goes up for sale, so too is the future of baseball in Milwaukee.

And has Attanasio given any indication whatsoever that he will be putting the team up for sale? All signs have been that he intends to keep the team within the family for the foreseeable future. So, I don't quite understand where you are getting that from, and why you are treating it as a matter of fact. 

Second, despite the constant relocation threats used in coaxing public financing for professional sports stadiums/arenas, they rarely actually end up coming to fruition. The A's and Ray's sagas have been going on for two decades now (virtually as long as Am Fam Field/Miller Park has been in existence), and yet both teams remain in their trash heap of stadiums (which AmFam field is currently not), with no resolution in immediate sight. The fact of the matter is that sports leagues such as MLB are loathe to relocate their teams, particularly where strong fan support for such team exists. That is clearly the case with the Brewers in Milwaukee. 

Third, the Brewers are far more of an engrained institution in the city and the state than the Bucks were at the time they secured public funding for Fiserv Forum. Obviously, the Packers will always remain king, but the Brewers are right there after them. When the time arrives for these discussions, there will be strong headwinds in favor of getting a deal done. 

If you ask me, while I appreciate the effort, this article is way too apocalyptic. The ballpark situation will sort itself out over time, and will almost certainly end with the Brewers staying put with either a renovated or brand new venue.

[Ulice Payne]

I remember the fight to build Miller Park.  That was such a contentious time.  Tommy Thompson and of course, George Petak took severe political hits.  I stayed up late to listen to the Senate vote on the radio, and when it was voted down, I immediately turned the radio off & went to bed thinking the team would leave.  I've seldom been more shocked as I was the next morning, learning the stadium tax had passed overnight.

Milwaukee & Wisconsin can't possibly have the stomach to go through that again.  There would have to be another way to address the stadium in order to have a positive outcome for the Brewers.  I'd always thought that the stadium tax would just never go away, constantly being kept on the books to finance endless renovations.

Hopefully this is being worked out ahead of time, behind the scenes this time.  They can't do it the same way; it's not going to work again.  It almost didn't work the first time. 

 

 

[Ulice Payne]

I remember the fight to build Miller Park.  That was such a contentious time.  Tommy Thompson and of course, George Petak took severe political hits.  I stayed up late to listen to the Senate vote on the radio, and when it was voted down, I immediately turned the radio off & went to bed thinking the team would leave.  I've seldom been more shocked as I was the next morning, learning the stadium tax had passed overnight.

Milwaukee & Wisconsin can't possibly have the stomach to go through that again.  There would have to be another way to address the stadium in order to have a positive outcome for the Brewers.  I'd always thought that the stadium tax would just never go away, constantly being kept on the books to finance endless renovations.

Hopefully this is being worked out ahead of time, behind the scenes this time.  They can't do it the same way; it's not going to work again.  It almost didn't work the first time. 

 

 

[smcmac321]

The comparison to use Kaufmann (opened in 1973) as a comparison to AmFam Field makes this article lose complete credibility. Miller Park opened 28 years later than Kaufmann. The Ballpark at Arlington has multiple studies showing fans were deterred due to underdeveloped shading design. Turner Field was nothing more than a stop gap stadium for the Braves to keep them from leaving Atlanta for a permanent facility as the proliferation of new stadiums occurred. We’re currently not in that phase of history 

[smcmac321]

The comparison to use Kaufmann (opened in 1973) as a comparison to AmFam Field makes this article lose complete credibility. Miller Park opened 28 years later than Kaufmann. The Ballpark at Arlington has multiple studies showing fans were deterred due to underdeveloped shading design. Turner Field was nothing more than a stop gap stadium for the Braves to keep them from leaving Atlanta for a permanent facility as the proliferation of new stadiums occurred. We’re currently not in that phase of history