These are all kind of pointless abstract arguments. I think we know the deal with SkyDome: It was built as a multi-purpose facility and so it has noticeable shortfalls when it comes to baseball, particularly in the face of how stadium architecture immediately went into another direction. Apparently it has some behind-the-scenes issues but despite its deficiencies, it's not decrepit and it's not a dump. It's in a perfect location and the concessions have gradually been getting better and better (a craft beer corner is WAY overdue but let's not forget: this building opended with McDonald's doing all the concessions!).
For all the romance of Wrigley and Fenway, I'm pretty sure the player faciltiies are rather better here, especially with the upgrades made over the past few years under Shapiro.
It looks perfectly fine on TV (though much better with the roof open), which is more than can be said for Tropicana Field, which just looks like a ghastly place to play or watch a game. In short, given when and how it was built, it's not so bad at all but the bar has been raised, so it falls short in comparison to other places. You know what - all of us used to be cooler than we are now and young people are cooler than us. That's how it goes.The planned renos will probably do as much as you can within what's permissible, especially if they are gutting the lower bowl, re-orienting the seats etc.
Cleveland has a nicer atmosphere? Maybe. Camden Yards sets a higher standard of what a stadium should be? Probably. But our stadium will look better on TV come October, because neither of those two will be on TV at all. That counts for something too. For all this talk about grass and whatnot, they've signed major, A-class free agents in the past few years and maybe George Springer and Kevin Gausman really like grass, but they like a shot at a championship even more.
