Detroit Tigers

Comerica Park

Detroit , MI

Year Opened: 2000

Capacity: 41,083

Grade: 90 Ranking: #4/27*

Underrated Gem in Detroit

Confident in its classic yet understated design, well-rounded Comerica does about everything right, except not be Tiger Stadium

Number of games seen: 6
First game: July 19, 2010
Most recent game: May 15, 2019


PHOTO GALLERY at bottom of page


By: Cole Shoemaker
Written in 2011, ratings updated yearly when necessary

*Classic parks Wrigley FieldFenway Park, and Dodger Stadium are not ranked or rated for reasons previously outlined in those reviews 


Straight up: I love Comerica Park.


I came into this park with no pre-existing biases, but I’ve talked to so many Tiger fans who are deeply steeped in their belief that Comerica Park is an inherently inferior ballpark, especially in comparison to Tiger Stadium. If you are going to play the Tiger Stadium card, I’m never going to convince you.  But you need to finally hear it: in comparison to the other new ballparks, Comerica Park isn’t just a good ballpark, but one of the best parks in all of baseball.


I think it’s clear that out of all the ballparks built in the last 25 years, Detroit’s palace is easily the most overlooked.


At first glance, Comerica Park appears to be another HOK (Populous) assembly line ballpark, but there’s more to it than meets the eye.  It should be noted that some parks require a multi-game exploration to appreciate, while others such as AT&T Park in San Francisco and PNC Park in Pittsburgh automatically command attention with their views.


The bottom line is Comerica Park’s superior contextual integration creating prominent downtown views, along with ample space and incomparable amenities, make Comerica one of the best in baseball.  Critics and fans have been slow to realize it, because it’s not Tiger Stadium. It’s not just me, as the folks from Baseball Fever and other ballpark websites to the New York Times have been claiming Comerica Park is extremely underrated for years.


But even I didn’t expect it to rate this highly.


I love the way Comerica physically integrates the team’s name and city into the structure unlike any other, spending so much time and money on the outside while showcasing one of baseball’s best skyline views outside.  I love how it’s more objectively outstanding than many parks of the era, a fact no one seems to recognize. I love how it doesn’t try to divide fans along hierarchical lines, but still provides all the requisite high-end amenities.  I love how the Tigers made the concourse a walking museum, weaving in a sense of history into the main areas of the ballpark.  At the same time, I love how Comerica includes some of the best over-the-top family-friendly amenities, but most importantly, tastefully relegates them (Ferris Wheel and Carousel) off the main concourse.  So many parks get this backward: they stash the awesome memorabilia in an obscure area, while intrusively placing kids playgrounds on the main concourse, creating a mall-like atmosphere.  I love the simplicity of the interior design, which completely avoids loud quirks without being boring and bland, a very difficult balance to achieve. No fake rocks, sand boxes, or choo-choo trains here. It’s beautiful without a distinguishing feature.


Most of all, I’m fascinated by the irrational hatred the ballpark gets for not being like Tiger Stadium.


Comerica Park skyline view

With superior contextual integration and graceful interior lines, Comerica Park is good enough aesthetically, despite not surpassing PNC Park or AT&T Park. But Detroit is also unusually well rounded in all objective categories like amenities and functionality, meaning it will compete for the best ballpark in baseball.

This baby was never given a chance, and not just because it was following Tiger Stadium.  Nationally, maybe it had to do with the other two ballparks that opened in 2000, AT&T Park and Minute Maid Park. Both received much more fanfare for obvious reasons.


AT&T Park was the most scenic facility ever seen, and Minute Maid Park was one of the loudest parks ever seen, with its innovative interior design, numerous quirks, and home runs.  Comerica was also strongly derided for its ridiculously cavernous dimensions. We can all agree they were originally absurd.


What’s most striking is the outcry from the locals. As much as it pains me to say, Tiger Stadium simply can’t be mentioned in the same breath as Fenway or Wrigley in terms of 21st century viability, fan support, or aesthetic appeal.


Fenway and Wrigley will last well into the century because their design allowed for the integration of 21st century amenities, along with strong fan support. And let’s be honest: I’m not questioning the fans sentimental attachment to the old gal, but Tiger Stadium just wasn’t as pretty.


Detroit’s Cochrane Plan wasn’t on the same level as the Fenway renovations in extent or support. And when the Sox called for a new ballpark, it was modeled after Fenway. New Yankee Stadium is modeled after Yankee Stadium.


Tiger Stadium Cochrane Plan

Detroit’s Cochrane Plan to renovate Tiger Stadium. It was never taken seriously by management.

There’s a reason Comerica Park is not Tiger Stadium II. Sure it was fashionable to support Tiger Stadium, but the attendance numbers painted a different picture. The fans didn’t want to sit behind support columns and use dark 17 feet wide concourses. Yes, of course they should have cantilevered the upper deck of Comerica more for better field proximity, but it’s not too much worse than PNC Park. They needed a new ballpark to generate revenue. You think Tiger fans would have paid the prices Sox fans are paying now to compensate?


What’s most ironic is that Tiger management took noticeable steps to ensure that the fans were still close to the action, despite the “spread out” feel. A two deck design with no separate club level was requested early and a higher than usual percentage of seats are on the first level. In fact, the top row of the upper deck is only slightly higher than PNC Park.


But fans didn’t particularly care about any of that. They didn’t care about the gorgeous skyline view.  They didn’t care that more time, money, and effort was spent on the exterior design than just about any other ballpark.  They didn’t care that Comerica has more amenities than parks that opened more than 10 years later. They didn’t care about the unique yet subtle classic touches, such as the old fashioned moveable box seats. They didn’t care that Comerica had the highest proportion of comfortable seats. They didn’t care that Comerica brought an important seating innovation down the right field line. They didn’t care that officials took bold steps to maintain the egalitarian feel of Tiger Stadium.   They didn’t care that Comerica Park is a shrine to Tigers history in a way that Tiger Stadium never was.  So the national media didn’t really care to look either.


Built during the “gimmick boom” of the early 2000s, when understated ballparks were forgotten, Comerica went unrecognized for a while. But it provides a great ballpark experience. It opts for the quieter retro touches and packs a surplus of amenities into the park without being ostentatious.


Comerica Park rendering 2000

While it certainly excels in design, Comerica Park was built for comfort.

And 12 years later, people are beginning to realize it’s one of the more underrated in baseball. It really belongs in same category as the authentic retro parks like Camden, Progressive, and Coors. I talk ad nauseam about visually letting your city into the ballpark, and Comerica does that as well as any. It’s pretty simple, people. The truth is Comerica Park is intentionally understated to emulate the simple feel of Tiger Stadium, just with a 21st century sensibility. The problem is, with such an open and spacious feel, it lacks the cozy enclosure or intimacy of the Tigers’ former palace, and it is often labeled the anti-Tiger Stadium.


Perhaps the main point you should take away is, objectively, Comerica is unusually well-rounded in terms of amenities and functionality, succeeding in almost all aspects you could want. The concourses, restaurants, bars, social spaces, egalitarian premium seating model, more comfortable seats, new videoboard (2012), entertainment options, references to team history, and other amenities are all executed to perfection.


Comerica Park brushfire grill

Comerica Park has attractive concourses. The understated simplicity of the interior design is nicely juxtaposed with the extravagant features on the concourse.

When asked what’s the best ballpark in the majors, I used to say (before Petco got better across the board) there’s really no perfect ballpark objectively. You can point out flaws in each. But Comerica Park is perhaps the least flawed ballpark in the majors under the 14 categories of objective criteria.  Who knew?  It’s fun to see how Comerica Park’s perception has evolved.


Looking at everything in the aggregate, Comerica does indeed complete for the top spot, which is sure to create a lot of controversy. I’ll talk more about this in the conclusion. With superior contextual integration and graceful interior lines, Comerica Park is good enough aesthetically, despite not surpassing PNC Park or AT&T Park. But Comerica is also unusually well rounded in all objective categories, unlike the aforementioned consensus jewels, meaning it will annually compete for the best ballpark in baseball.

NEXT - Setting



Setting: 8.5/10

Location/Access: 4/5

Local Scene: 4.5/5

Architecture & Aesthetics: 27/33

Exterior Design: 7/10

Interior Aesthetics: 12.5/15

Panoramic View: 5/5

Concourses: 2.5/3

Functionality: 21/25

Sightlines: 8/10

Seat Comfort: 4.5/5

Concourses: 6/7

Scoreboard: 2.5/3

Amenities: 21/25

Concessions: 3.5/5

Signature Food: 1/2

Restaurants: 5/5

Premium Services: 3.5/5

Historic References: 5/5

Entertainment: 3/3

Miscellaneous: 12.5

Atmosphere/Fans: 3.5/5

Ballpark Policies: 2/2

Bonus: 7


Final Score: 90