Which of the following MLB teams do you think will build a new ballpark within the next 30 years?

Question

Boston Red Sox- Fenway Park, opened in 1912

Chicago Cubs- Wrigley Field, opened in 1914, Cubs home since 1916

Los Angeles Dodgers- Dodger Stadium, opened in 1962

Los Angeles Angels- Angel Stadium of Anaheim, opened in 1966

Kansas City Royals- Kauffman Stadium, opened in 1973

Toronto Blue Jays- Rogers Centre (formerly SkyDome), opened in 1989

Answer 1

Given how much it's going to cost 30 years from now to pay even mediocre talent, both Fenway and Wrigley will have to be replaced or extensively redone.

Answer 2

Dodgers & Angels.  Sox & Cubs won't b/c those fields have become a type of museum of ball parks.  If they did that would be really sad b/c those parks are too good to lose.

Answer 3

the LA Dodgers

Answer 4

Dodgers

Answer 5

they re-did fenway a few years back so that will stay up for a long time

im gonna say the angels will build a new one first because they have been talking a little about it

Answer 6

I would say the Dodgers and Angels, but getting a publicly funded stadium built in California is always a huge challenge.  Lets just say sports aren't a top priority for West Coasters when it comes to tax revenue allocation.

Kansas City should get one, but their owner is a cheap b*****d so don't hold your breath on that one.

Answer 7

All of them except maybe Boston and Chicago.

Fenway and Wrigley have so much history behind them (good and bad) that I don't think there will be enough public support/funding to justify tearing them down to build modern stadiums in their places.

The other stadiums you mentioned remind me of cars built in the late 1970s - they're fairly old but they're not really classics.....there's nothing inherently old or great about them to keep people from wanting to tear them down and build better ones to replace them IMO.    

Answer 8

The Cubs after they win the world series this year, they will start planing for a new upgraded Wrigley field.

Answer 9

Angels or Royals

Boston's and Chicago's are to historic, the Dodgers will not want one, and Toronto doesn't care enough about baseball to build a new one any time soon.

Answer 10

Cubs should b/c it is a disaster . Wrigley Field ( complete dump) no parking lot, no big screen, no escalators, if you sit in the bleechers you cant walk around the park, bathrooms are garbage and urine everywhere, all they play is the organ so it sounds like you're in church. Safety nets holding falling bricks from the crumbling stadium. All they have is some cool ivy which doesnt constitute as a stadium, just a plant.

Answer 11

Won't be Fenway or Wrigley.  Those are the most historic baseball parks and they keep adding on to Fenway so their would be no point on tearing it down.

My guess is probably the Dodgers or Angels.

Answer 12

Dodgers are already discussing the possibilities.  Cubs will need one, Boston will need one (history does not keep buildings standing, the laws of physics will require new stadiums!) In the next 30 years all of the ones that you listed will try for new stadiums I am sure of that, they will realize how much in revenue they are losing from not having the new stadium (luxury boxes...)  Even thought the Angels and Royals have gone through renovations they still will want a new stadium to make their brand more marketable.  

Answer 13

Cubs

Red Sox

Dodgers