Anaheim Stadium Is Sadly Out of Date : City, Angels Should Think About a Replacement

Fashions change in architecture as surely as in clothing. When Anaheim Stadium opened in 1966 as the home of the California Angels, it seemed a magnificent ballpark. All that new paint, that glistening concrete, that open space beyond the outfield.

Today the stadium is mocked as an example of the “concrete doughnut” style of stadium architecture. It is still clean, still well-run, but somehow dowdy, especially when compared with the new ballparks that opened in Baltimore, Cleveland and Arlington, Tex., in recent years.

City-owned Anaheim Stadium lost a lot of its charm when the spaces beyond the outfield were filled in to create more seats for the Rams, the football team that moved to the stadium in 1980. Now the ballpark has 69,000 seats. With the Angels drawing about 20,000 per home game, the acres of empty seats become a depressing sight. Those at the game find it more difficult to be enthusiastic when their nearest neighbors are several aisles away.

Now the Rams are considering moving, and Anaheim city officials have devoted time to the not-so-promising cause of seeing what it would take to get the team to stay. Their concern has worried Angels’ executives, who feel slighted and can make a persuasive argument for improving the terms of their lease.

There are no discussions yet, and even the floating of ideas is at a preliminary stage. Of course, were the Angels a better team, the crowds would be bigger and the complaints fewer. But even then, both sides would be right to consider a major renovation of the current stadium. Perhaps better, should the Rams decide to stay, would be to let them use the current stadium and to build a new one for the Angels.

A new stadium would be an asset for the region, and is at least worth thinking about. There is room next to Anaheim Stadium for another ballpark, but the problem is how to pay a bill estimated at $100 million or more. Private funds might be required, with the Angels or other investors kicking in some money. In the case of a public-private partnership, there are ways for the city to find funds. One would be a sale of bonds, paid off by revenues generated by a new stadium. Surcharges on parking or tickets could be another money-raiser. A third source of funds could be rents from luxury boxes, those pricey private clubs where more business than baseball is discussed. Such fund-raising has proved successful at other major league ballparks.

Another potential source of money would be increases in tax revenue from any new development on or around the stadium property, since the City Council this month declared the stadium and parking lot a redevelopment project. That designation, the result of the January earthquake’s damage to the stadium scoreboard, could provide more tax money for stadium improvements or construction.

Also worth consideration is creation of a sports and entertainment center to link Anaheim Stadium, The Pond of Anaheim and a football stadium with Disneyland and the convention center, and perhaps adding a retail center similar to CityWalk in Universal City.

The Angels have a long history in Orange County and have worked hard to become a part of the community--certainly harder than the Rams have. Anaheim is right to explore ways to keep the team happy while being careful not to break the city’s budget.

The Angels’ lease with Anaheim expires in seven years, but given the long time needed to renovate or build stadiums, the team and the city should start talking soon about their plans and how to finance them.