OUT WITH THE NEW, IN WITH THE OLD Tickled by charm and success of Camden Yards in 1992, Major League baseball clubs have spent last decade demolishing their old, modern stadiums and constructing new, old-fashioned ballparks for their teams. Some of these old stadiums were multipurpose mammoths, ill-fitted for any of several sports and events they hosted. Other stadiums were simply too old. Structural problems, often with dubious technical substantiation, were cited as cause for their inevitable demise. Certainly, Olympic Stadium in Montreal, with its falling concrete and cosmic vastness, exemplifies both of these architectural justifications--but, unlike Expos, it is not slated for demolition. By contrast St. Louis Cardinals are already lining up wrecking balls for Busch Stadium. Opened in 1966 it was called by architect Harris Armstrong the first American sports stadium that looks like architecture. Harris added: It has three essentials: clarity, simplicity, and honesty, and it is in these three that its beauty lies. (1) Built in an era of Epcot visions of future, Busch Stadium resembles a circular wedding cake with an arched fringe along its roofline (to evoke and complement Gateway Arch). Aesthetically, it belongs to bygone era of modernist architecture, but it is recognized as one of best stadiums of its time. Over years Busch has been well-maintained, and it currently has no serious structural issues. Cardinals consistently draw over 3 million fans a year to stadium, so team owners cannot employ argument that a trendy, new stadium will attract more fans--fan loyalty and attendance figures are not a problem in St. Louis. Busch Stadium is not an eyesore, nor is it dilapidated in any way. Why, then, is it being replaced? PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE AND THE NEED FOR RHETORICAL INVENTION Interestingly, as noted by St. Louis Post-Dispatch sports columnist Bernie Miklasz, no case ever was made that a new stadium was needed. (2) Cardinals never made an issue of Busch Stadium's structural inadequacy, aesthetics, seating capacity, or poor location--in fact, from this list, aesthetics are only aspect of stadium that will change significantly. main difference between Busch Stadium and new ballpark will be luxuriousness of luxury boxes. new ballpark will actually have ten fewer luxury boxes than Busch Stadium's seventy, but owners claim that boxes will be much nicer and, therefore, command a steeper price than current boxes. With characteristic obtuseness, Cardinals president Mark Lamping asserted: The economics of staying in an aging Busch Stadium demand that we act now. (3) Claims that stadium was becoming obsolete were sometimes tied to need to generate extra revenue and help team compete with richer rivals. (4) Associating luxury boxes and extra revenue to competitiveness, however, became a rhetorical liability for owners when matter of financing new ballpark inevitably arose. Public resentment was stoked by groups such as Coalition Against Public Funding for Stadiums, and public opinion polls showed strong disfavor for public financing of a new ballpark that would stereotypically amount to taxpayer subsidies for wealthy. Since standard stadium-building arguments rang hollow, Cardinals management and their political supporters had to develop a new argument. BALLPARK VILLAGE Modeled after similar efforts in San Diego and ultimately mimicking Wrigleyville neighborhood in Chicago, architects, developers, and Cardinals' owners developed idea of Ballpark Village: a development adjacent to new ballpark consisting of mixed-use retail, office, and residential space. With advent of Ballpark Village concept, center of discourse shifted from a spotlight on revenues and luxury boxes--inside stadium--to contribution new ballpark would make toward overall revitalization of downtown St. …