You must pick one or the other. You can replace the stadium with a new, fair park 11 years from now, if you would prefer a fair park, but in the meantime you must pick one of these two options.

If it makes a difference, the hitters' park is located in Colorado Springs, some 2000 feet of elevation above Denver. It has the dimensions of Shea Stadium, with as little foul territory as Fenway, a pitch-black batter's eye and a jet stream that blows out to right center field at night.

The pitchers' park is located in Providence. Its dimensions are bigger than Petco Park's, with all the foul territory of the Oakland Coliseum. There is often a steady mist during games, and the wind usually blows in hard from left center field. There is a totem pole in the batter's eye area which casts a nasty glare toward hitters during day games.

Fan support will be absolutely identical, but will vary depending on how the team does.

GREAT question.

I went with pitchers, which you did not, I see. (It's 1-1 right now.) I think the team built for the hitters park loses a lot more 15-10 games than the other team does 3-1 games. I have no evidence to back this up and may be saying so just because, given the choice between a 1-0 18-inning classic and a 22-17, 2-homer epic, I will prefer watching the former EVERY time.

I voted "extreme hitters' park" to take advantage of marketplace inefficiencies.  We run tandem starters from the outset, and spend any extra cash on middle infielders and a centerfielder in the first few years.  If we draft well, we hopefully end up with one or two top-flight pitchers who throw 6 innings every 4 games, so that we are ready for the playoffs. 

I prefer a pitchers park. Those pitchers who also have good road numbers will be a premium for me. I would have batters with very good OPS+ on my team, but if they don't have pop in hitter's parks, they're gone.

I voted "pitcher's park", for this reason: the easier it is for pitchers to get outs, the fewer pitches they'll have to throw to get those outs. Therefore it ought to make those pitchers just a little bit less likely to get hurt, for one thing, and it will also make it less likely for those pitchers to be overworked. But I don't pay a corresponding penalty with the hitters; they aren't going to get tired or hurt in trying to cope with the extreme environment, and I'm not going to have to keep finding more of them, any more than usual.

Pitchers for me. You can short the pen as the park will enable all pitchers to go deeper into games on fewer pitches. Plus those benefits go onto the road as your bullpen will be more rested thus for the first 2 or 3 games on the road they will be more effective, plus on the last couple of games you can push the pen more before coming home.

Hitters parks are fun, but also can wear down the staff and cause you to need a 13 or 14 man pen. The benefits to the hitters (increased confidence) will not be as big a help on the road as the costs will be a feeling that if they hit it into the air it will go out but it won't leading to worse road numbers (see Colorado in the 90's for many great examples - and yes, I know there were exceptions).

Expansion teams aren't very good, so talent will be thin. However poor hitting flycatchers in the outfield can be acquired more easily than good hitting/poor fielding types. As mentioned earlier, the bigger the park, the easier it will be on the pitching staff, and the fewer times you would have to go to the 6th and 7th guys in the pen (who will probably be pretty god awful, at least the first few years), at least for home games.

I say pitchers park only because of the difficutly it is to attract free-agent pitchers to a hitters park. I think pitcher's are typically more valuable than a hitter of the caliber so I think it would be easier to replace a hitter not wanting to play in a pitcher's park than it would be to replace a pitcher not wanting to pitch in a hitter's park.

Recent Expansion teams:

Colorado, Arizona, Florida, Tampa Bay. Colorado, in a clear hitters park, had immediate success without having to invest in top-tier players. Arizona and Florida also had quick success (hitters park , neutral?), but got there by bringing in players with money. Tampa in a neutral/pitching park, had no success, at all, until recently.

I'll take the hitters park - it's easier to identify decent hitters than pitchers, and as the new GM, I'm shooting for relative success pretty quickly. I'm not showing up with a good minor league system, since I have to build it from scratch, I don't like my chances of developing pitchers, as compared to hitters, in that sort of setup.

I went with hitters. Chicks - and most casual fans for that matter - wanna see homers. It's HARD to get pitchers in their prime - as a new team it would be cheaper and easier to buy old(ish) slightly over the hill hitters to DH play 1st and LF than to get older old(ish) slightly over the hill pitchers - who would most likely not be as effective - for their age - as the old power hitters in a bandbox.

I would then draft pitcher like crazy.

I would then draft pitcher like crazy

You can make a verb out of just about anything these days.  That dude over in the corner was draft pitchering when these two guys from LA came over and asked if they could join him...

But you, ML, were, I thought, more inclined to go for a single malt.

I'm with MyLegacy. A new expansion team is building a franchise, not just a team. I can always move the fences out later. But if excitement dies in the 1st couple years, I'm screwed long term.