New Yankee Stadium construction [Archive]

brooklyndodger14

10-01-2006, 09:01 PM

In more ways than one, its going to be like "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers": An alien form gradually takes the shape and personality of the entity next to it until it completely becomes the entity, but is heartless and remote, while leaving the original to wither and die.....

For a ballpark equivalent of the above analogy, just look at the 1989-1990 construction pictures of the New Comiskey (US Cell Block 2) rising next to the original Comiskey :

-First, they destroy the personal neigborhood ameneties that were the focal point of the area. In the Bronx, it's McCoombs Dam Park. In Chicago, it was McCuddy's Bar.

-Second, they substitute a structure that at its best only APPEARS to be like the original its replacing:

-The Bronx: An exterior wall with arched window portals that recall the original Stadium but, as all of the drawings have shown so far, have no real connection to the ballpark as the grandstand levels don't even seem close enough to allow any fans to actually look out of those windows.

-Chicago: The signature arched window pattern of Comiskey is echoed in the New Comiskey but serves as nothing more than a useless ornamental function in that you cannot even see in or out of them.

-As already noted and discussed elsewhere, the Upper Deck of the "New" Yankee will be pushed back much farther than the original, and quite possibly suffer the same malady of New Comiskey of having the FRONT ROW of the NEWER ballpark farther away from the field than the BACK ROW of the CURRENT Stadium.

:eek: Let's Hear It For HOK! Like Michael Brown, formerly of FEMA, they are doing a hell of a job!

Dennis
BrooklynDodger14

ChrisLDuncan

10-01-2006, 09:49 PM

This makes me mad, Yankee Stadium was is my favorite place in the whole world (seeing the Yankees play there doesn't hurt ;) ). Babe Ruth, Yogi Berra, Mickey Mantle, Joe Dimaggio, Lou Gehrig, and a number of other greats played there. It saddens me that they're replacing such a gem. That place was a momument of baseball. Just about every alltime great at somepoint in their career has had the privelage of playing on those hallowed grounds. I hope the least they will do is bring back the old dimensions for Yankee Stadium.

RichardLillard1

10-02-2006, 12:02 AM

This is like a bad twilight zone. I keep hoping its just a dream or something and that no one would be that stupid to tear down a place that historical.

This would be like going to Rome to rip down the Colosseum for a brand new soccer stadium. Or going to London to shred Big Ben for a digital clock.

Our country is young, we can't hold a candle to some of the historical places in Europe and the rest of the world, so what does it say about us when we let money fuel the fire for demolishing our Bronx Colosseum?

ChrisLDuncan

10-02-2006, 12:33 AM

RichardLillard1

10-02-2006, 01:02 AM

Yankee Stadium - Home of the New York Giants NFL team and site of the "Win one for the Gipper" speech.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a286/RichardLillard1/yankee100.jpg

sportslovingwife

10-02-2006, 04:58 AM

Why in the world would anyone be happy to see this new crappy stadium going up:rolleyes:

My comment was to be read with much sadness- not happiness

Karen

mrow1927

10-02-2006, 10:29 AM

Well hell froze over and I see pigs flying. No one never thought this day will come but it has. One of the saddest moments in baseball history. The building of It. Well, the Yankees better win the World Series this year, next year and 08, because they will be the only wins that will have any meaning. Any World Series not played in this Yankee Stadium would be meaningless. Any significant moment in history that doesn't happen in this Stadium would be meaningless.

The destroying of the most magical, revered, and hallowed place in baseball history for luxury boxes is the Steinbrenner way.

spiderico

10-02-2006, 10:31 AM

I agree with you all. This is my 12 year with season tickets. I sit in the front of the upper deck, directly behind the plate. No better place to watch a game (with the exception maybe of the upper deck behind the plate at old Tiger Stadium - those seats were dangerously close to the action!). I love when people ask me if I want to "upgrade" to seats lower down. My response is that if watching a game from behind the dugout is the best place to see the game, why isn't the pressbox there? People just don't get it. Especially the designers of the new Stadium.

Don't feed me this crap about looking more like the old stadium than the current one does. I'm not old enough to have gone to the old stadium, but that classic shot of the 3 decked stadium hovering over the field (with or without the poles) is what Yankee Stadium is all about. I can even bring myself to accept a new one going up, if they really tried to replicate this design. But as someone said above, the fake outer wall just doesn't cut it. From the pictures I've seen, the inside might as well be Turner Field. This is the most expensive stadium ever built. I wish they could have done something special. The inside of this place looks so generic. When you see Yankee Stadium now from a blimp, you know instantly its Yankee Stadium. Now I'm going to feel like I'm in Cincinnati. Or Atlanta. Or anywhere but Yankee Stadium. (no offense to Cin. or Atl)

I know all about catering to the box seats. And making the fact that there will be more lower seats than upper seats a selling point. But I wish I could have been in these meetings and saw what went down. You would think Steinbrenner and Co. would have demanded something special and unique.

It's just sad.

ChrisLDuncan

10-02-2006, 10:41 AM

Padday

10-02-2006, 10:48 AM

Also someone needs to make sure the Hallowed Grouds of Yankee Stadium do not get torn down.
Unfortunely that just won't be economical.

Selling the land = big bucks.

mrow1927

10-02-2006, 11:00 AM

They should go back to the original Yankee Stadium dimensions, than I wouldn't have so much of a problem with it. Also someone needs to make sure the Hallowed Grouds of Yankee Stadium do not get torn down.

I think it's going to be torn down because it's not a historical landmark. At least not anymore. The renovation in the 70s changed its status. I like the dimensions of the stadium of the 1930s but I alsolike the dimensions of the 70s too. Either or will be good for the new stadium. Unfortunately the people with the money don't care about the history or the meaning of Yankee Stadium just how much more money they can make from the new stadium. That is just flat out wrong.

brooklyndodger14

10-02-2006, 04:23 PM

The destroying of the most magical, revered, and hallowed place in baseball history for luxury boxes is the Steinbrenner way.

It is sad to note that after 2008 (2 seasons from now...) "The House That Ruth Built" will give way to "The House That 'Jack' (aka $$$$) Built."

sfgiants29

10-02-2006, 05:24 PM

I've lost A LOT of respect for Steinbrenner.

ChrisLDuncan

10-02-2006, 05:34 PM

I think it's going to be torn down because it's not a historical landmark. At least not anymore. The renovation in the 70s changed its status. I like the dimensions of the stadium of the 1930s but I alsolike the dimensions of the 70s too. Either or will be good for the new stadium. Unfortunately the people with the money don't care about the history or the meaning of Yankee Stadium just how much more money they can make from the new stadium. That is just flat out wrong.

They could make it a museum, I know I'd pay 20 to go in there take pitures and play catch on those hallowed grounds.

mrow1927

10-02-2006, 05:44 PM

:eek: Let's Hear It For HOK! Like Michael Brown, formerly of FEMA, they are doing a hell of a job!-
by BrooklynDodger14.

Sorry I still don't know how to quote sections of posts, bear with me on that.

You can't blame HOK. They only know how to build one stadium and make little changes here and there. Like car companies that use the same parts for different models. You have to blame the team owners for using talentless designers. If George thinks that making the outside of the new Yankee Stadium
look like the one in the 1920s is going to make people happy, his turtlenecks are cutting oxygen to his brain. You can not remake a classic. Even though he says that the team will build a new tradition and new memories with this stadium, he and his camp have failed to realize that the Yankees history and tradition are forever connected to this stadium.

Jeter, Mo, Posada, Williams and all the rest, their greatest moments have happened in this stadium. As did Mantle, Maris and Yogi before them and Ruth, Gehrig and DiMaggio before them. All memories and moments that will happen in the new stadium will be empty in comparison.

Maybe if George used a different designer and build something completely different, maybe it would be a easier pill to swallow. But he is using the cookie cutter factory and making a souless clone and trying to pass it off as Yankee Stadium. All of this for the almighty dollar.

Money talks and History walks- according to George

Knick9

10-02-2006, 06:42 PM

bigredmachine#1

10-02-2006, 09:05 PM

I feel like I just had the wind knocked out of me after seeing those pictures. I can't believe it's really happening. Very sad...

Richmond Hill Phoenix

10-05-2006, 11:40 PM

Any chance that Yankee Stadium becomes a historical landmark in the next two years? Could we make that happen?

RichardLillard1

10-06-2006, 12:25 AM

Any chance that Yankee Stadium becomes a historical landmark in the next two years? Could we make that happen?

Absolutely... got a billion dollars?

Seattle1

10-06-2006, 07:34 AM

Is there anything wrong with the current Yankee Stadium (failing infrastructure, chronic plumbing issues, too run-down in general, whatever) that would dictate moving to a new stadium?

:confused:

Random observation: for some reason the location of the new stadium doesn't look as big as you think it would look. At least from those pictures of the construction site.

ChrisLDuncan

10-06-2006, 12:30 PM

Williamsburg2599

10-06-2006, 01:01 PM

No Yankee's in good condition. I dunno why they're building a new one...plus at Wrigley there were far bigger problems there and they didn't tear it down.
CA$H.......

Seattle1

10-06-2006, 01:57 PM

CA$H.......

Is George Steinbrenner paying for the whole thing? Probably not, right.

PJ-34

10-06-2006, 04:44 PM

i would imagine not:laugh just kidding i would think he would have something to do with the whole thing

Richmond Hill Phoenix

10-06-2006, 11:05 PM

CA$H.......

A truer "word" was never spoken. It pretty much sums up the state of the world. (And baseball to0.)

POLO GROUNDS 1957

10-07-2006, 12:07 AM

Seattle1

10-07-2006, 06:31 AM

This will be a sad day for baseball when this new dump is opened in a couple of years and yankee stadium is torn down.you would have thought that the city of new york would have learned there lession after the polo grounds and ebbets field were torn down.

I've never been to Yankee Stadium myself, but I have seen a number of games at Tiger Stadium. It was really quite an experience to see a baseball game at Tiger Stadium in person.

bigtime39

10-07-2006, 07:39 AM

Can't you people see the pure genius behind all this? George III gets his monument, gets the rest of the league to pay for it (watch the Yankee$ revenue sharing numbers plummet over, say the next couple of decades!), jack his seating revenue even higher than it already is, and then sell the old place off to people like you...one chunk at a time...
Bet now you're wishing the "lifetime ban" baseball slapped on George III in the early 90s had lasted more than a couple of years, huh?

Richmond Hill Phoenix

10-07-2006, 09:13 AM

the "lifetime ban" baseball slapped on George III

I'm not familiar with this...

RichardLillard1

10-07-2006, 11:09 AM

He paid someone for dirt on one of his outfielders and when Fay Vincent (I feel the last true commissioner of baseball) found out he banned the Boss from the game for life. He was not allowed to deal with the team in any way and could only sit back and receive his paychecks. When fans at a Yankee game heard the news there was a standing ovation accross Yankee Stadium in favor of his banishment (I don't think the fans have ever liked Steinbrenner and I for one can't stand him). Too bad it didn't last too long, a sort time after Bud Selig came into the commissioner's office he reinstated George and the rest as they say is history.

On a side note, I whole heartedly agree with Vincent in his saying that the Major Leagues made a huge mistake by not appointing Steve Greenberg (Hank's son) into the comish position. Now it seems money is power in baseball.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Steinbrenner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fay_Vincent

Its interesting to look at who was one of the top forces in having Vincent removed from baseball.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

10-07-2006, 06:24 PM

Is there anything wrong with the current Yankee Stadium

The lack of luxury suites? :laugh

And on the note of Selig, who are the candidates for the job after Selig's term is up?

riverfrontier

10-09-2006, 06:11 AM

When I first set foot in the upper deck of the new 'Comiskey', It was my first experience in one of the 'new generation' parks. It was ridiculous. It remains ridiculous, faux facade included. If you've ever been in the upper deck of a cookie-cutter, you'll know there is no need for a new stadium in these places. The retros are worse. More expensive, worse sight lines, and funded by tax payers who can't afford an upper reserved ticket. Welcome, Yankees fans. This is the best that money can buy, regardless of the outcome.

mrow1927

10-11-2006, 07:47 PM

Since the Yankees stunk up the Division Series with an embarrasing loss to the Tigers, maybe the new stadium isn't such a bad idea since they are desecrating hallowed ground now with their lack of emotion and drive that made them champions. This is their second year in a row that they didn't make it out of the first round of the playoffs. Unacceptable. Especially for a 200 million dollar team. Hopefully they'll give Yankee Stadium the proper send off it deserves with World Series championships in 2007 and 2008.

My thoughts and prayers go out to Cory Lidel's family on this tragic day.

RichardLillard1

10-11-2006, 10:14 PM

The lack of luxury suites? :laugh

And on the note of Selig, who are the candidates for the job after Selig's term is up?

Candidates? Term? Up? He took office "temporarily" in '92 and hasn't left yet. Next one will probably be someone just like Selig. Power and greed rule baseball now, we are powerless to stop it.

By the way, very well put Dennis I couldn't have done any better myself.

thegame4219

10-14-2006, 10:22 PM

No Yankee's in good condition. I dunno why they're building a new one...plus at Wrigley there were far bigger problems there and they didn't tear it down.
Yankee stadium hasnt been in good condition for many years. Its takes the city of NY a ton of money to keep the stadium up to code. George's plan in 2000 was to refubish yankee stadium over 5 years but the city of ny shot that plan down because they would have to pay for it and the cost would of been in the half billion range. Since then George has taken steps to build his own stadium.

- the current plans for old yankee stadium are

a) tear down most of grandstands and make the main area (behind homeplate) into a shopping area and offices

b) tear down second and upper decks and all outfield seating and turn it into a minor league ballpark

rmedelson

10-16-2006, 01:21 PM

An interesting thought. I was listening to 770am the other day and someone was on the air talking about the possibility of a new Penn Station project in Manhattan. During the broadcast, they were speaking about the horrible mistake NYC made when it agreed to tear down the original Penn Station - a mistake which reverberates throughout the city even today...40+ years later. Now, ladies and gentlemen, fast-forward to October/November 2008. The site will be as follows: Getting off the subway at 161st street, you will see the new and old yankee stadiums sitting side-by-side as the new stadium gets it's finishing touches while the old stadium looks on in utter disbelief. As the "de-construction" crew arrives with the wrecking ball, the people gather 'round to witness the murder of their life-long friend and most famous NYC structure. My only fear is that crushing feeling everyone will have as the wrecking ball goes through the wall for the first time..."what have we done?" This is a one-way deal people. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. Yankee stadium will now be just another fancy shopping mall/ballpark....no history...no familiarity...no 'butterflies in your stomach' feeling when you walk in. Perhaps we'll be able to recapture that feeling in about 80 or 90 years.

I know I'm just whining but I really think an enormous mistake is in the works. I can see leveling the outer structure...however I'd love to see the field kept in the same spot. I know it isn't the original field, but it's a matter of what's inside the walls of yankee stadium. I think Steinbrenner should have kept the location, and made the new stadium look a lot more like the old one...complete with 'death valley'.

riverfrontier

10-16-2006, 02:39 PM

Hey, I agree. Not frequently, and not with Yankee fans, as a personal panorama on the half full glass, but we agree this time. You see the empty half. Bud Selig will be the most detested commisioner/owner, conflict of interest management type guy in baseball history for allowing this. He may already be, but I'll check the annals. As for Steinbrenner, New Yorkers may have affection for him, but I'm pretty sure it stops there. Maybe Donald Trump could help him host an auction or two, get the history flowing. I can feel it.

rmedelson

10-17-2006, 06:41 AM

Yes this is definitely going to seal the deal for Yankee fans. Again, talking about it now is exciting and controversial - but when that day comes it is going to hurt and I think a lot of sports fans are going to take it personally. Perhaps some Yankee-hating sports fans will enjoy seeing this happen, but after the fact, even they will think to themselves, 'this is just not right'. Baseball in New York will never be the same.

Of all buildings in NYC, they'll destroy the most famous one (save for the Empire State Building)? Where is the city in all this? I read one of the posts where they say that Yankee Stadium is no longer a historic landmark because of the 1970's renovations. I cannot believe what I read sometimes. How does the city make that determination?

Anyway, I'm just another fan from Jersey - all of our posts fall on deaf ears. My suggestion???? Rebuild the existing ballpark and make it look like it did 50 years ago. The drab-green colored facade, the stacked-square lighting sections, the extended roof, the scoreboards on the outfield wall, death valley, and maybe, just maybe, a historic GEM RAZOR BLADES and/or BALLANTINE ALE advertisement just for good measure. :) (Ok, you don't have to put the view-blocking poles back...lol)

....Come on Mr. Steinbrenner, think of how many Yankee fans would welcome back historic Yankee Stadium.

Williamsburg2599

10-18-2006, 03:17 PM

Perhaps some Yankee-hating sports fans will enjoy seeing this happen, but after the fact, even they will think to themselves, 'this is just not right'.
I hate the Yankees with a passion but I never ever want to see another stadium demolished or team moved again! Yankee's included!:grouchy. The Red Sox have a lot of history in Yankee Stadium too, you know.

bigtime39

10-18-2006, 08:56 PM

hellborn

10-18-2006, 09:45 PM

Fenway would have come down if the Red Sox could have pulled off a favorable land deal. As it is, they'll just redo the park one section at a time, but they may have lucked out by not moving...seating capacity would almost certainly have gone up. Scarcity of tickets is working really well for them right now. From old Yankee to new Yankee $tadium, seating capacity is going to go down...as ticket prices go up.
Wrigley is going to have to fall down before the Cubs move...after all, it's really all they have...
I appreciate baseball history and am fond of Fenway in many ways, but I would be ecstatic if the Bosox built a new stadium with more and better seating that was more accessible than Fenway. Nostalgia only takes me so far.
But, you are quite right about Wrigley...it will only be replaced when absolutely necessary. It is a gem, it will be most sad to lose it.

TJH1923

01-07-2007, 08:06 AM

It amazes me that the original stadium was completed in 284 days.

TJH1923

01-07-2007, 08:07 AM

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TJH1923

01-07-2007, 08:09 AM

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooo

spiderico

01-18-2007, 09:52 PM

As RichardLillard1 pointed out in the Yankee Stadium 20's-50's thread, new computer shots of the new Yankee Stadium are up on yankees.com. They also have some updated construction shots.

I'm disgusted by what I see. Instead of building something unique and special, we get not a replica of original Yankees Stadium, but a replica of original-new-Comisky. And by original-new, I mean before they had the sense to make some well needed improvements to that place.

All we can do is enjoy these last two seasons as much as possible.

Elvis

01-18-2007, 09:59 PM

Wow, what a genuine piece of crap. Replacing the most famous and historic stadium in the world with that!

I think I actually like new Comiskey better. The new YS upper deck looks like it will actually be higher than the Cell (and of course 70 ft further back from the field as the current stadium), especially since they put the new roof on and added the "obstructive" supporting posts.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-18-2007, 10:17 PM

Best seats in the house... Right here.

17857

You'd better bring a telescope. And some blankets (it's gonna get cold at that altitude). And a TV so you can actually watch the game.

Elvis

01-18-2007, 10:25 PM

Best seats in the house... Right here.

17857

You'd better bring a telescope. And some blankets (it's gonna get cold at that altitude). And a TV so you can actually watch the game.

Those seats will probably sell for $30. No joke.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-18-2007, 10:29 PM

They would honestly be $4 anywhere else (maybe not Boston...).

Elvis

01-18-2007, 10:39 PM

They would honestly be $4 anywhere else (maybe not Boston...).

Those (equivilent) seats in new Busch are $27. No joke. At Dodger Stadium you can sit in seats the same height but right behind home plate for $8 ($4 if they're season tickets). It pays to have a big well-designed ballpark instead of an HOK monstrosity.

I recently saw the models of the new Nationals ballpark. They don't even HAVE seats behind home plate, except for luxury and club seats. Can you believe that? What the $^%$@ is with these ballpark "designers"?!

RichardLillard1

01-18-2007, 10:54 PM

I have a new idea for a ballpark...

Its basically an office building for the bottom bowl. No seats anywhere, just luxury boxes. Then after about 6 stories of them I throw on an ultra steep deck with like 80 rows almost all on top of each other. The best part is I am going to lease out each and every single square foot of the place to corporate sponsors to maximize profits. I will also put ads up everywhere. I will even pay a player 5% more if he tattoos a logo on a part of his body that will be seen often.

I won't even name the team something good, I will give them a name like the "Wal-Marts" and then I will also have a panel look into how many company names I can fit onto the entire building so I can have more than one place paying me the $125 million for a five year naming deal.

I'll also build the whole stadium out of titanium so I can be super stingy on maintaining the place.

How does it sound? Good right?

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-18-2007, 10:57 PM

I'd sell the field too. Paint a massive logo in CF, and charge $5 million a game to get your logo on the ball.

Maybe pay a player $10 mil to get a tatoo on his face...

Knick9

01-18-2007, 10:57 PM

Absolutely horrible. I think this could be (not saying "will", though) the defining symbol of how bad HOK's designs have gotten over the years. I mean, it is hard for me to even talk about something like this. HOK has no innovative design first of all, and obviously you can never justify replacing old classic ballparks with something that they claim to be "all the rage." Yeah, after you do it like 10 to 20 times that bad joke starts wearing thin, doesn't it? Pretty much every new ballpark has HOK's influence and well, where's the individuality? Is there something different in all of them such as different ballpark dimensions, different colors of seats, any centilever seating areas and the all important views of the game? Not really if you ask me. Someone call HNTB quick! :eek:

mrow1927

01-18-2007, 10:59 PM

hok (they're are not worthy enough to have capital letters) does it again. Manufacturering crap. Somebody has to teach them there is more than one way to build a stadium. I am trying to find ways to like it but just can't. It's going to be one of those parks that you either love, hate or it'll grow on you over time. It's just a shame. The only good that came out of this is that it's still in The Bronx.

Elvis

01-18-2007, 11:15 PM

Someone call HNTB quick! :eek:

Please! They did a fantastic job with the new Galen Center...

http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/usc/graphics/facilities/galen-interior-lg.jpg

Cantilevered upper deck... Club seats and suites ABOVE the upper deck... A HUGE picture window at the north end framing the downtown Los Angeles skyline... Just a beautiful job. This rendering doesn't do it justice. I saw an actual photo of a shot through the picture window in the LA Times today - just stunning. HNTB is quickly becoming my favorite stadium designer. :clapping

http://graphics.fansonly.com/schools/usc/graphics/facilities/galen-exterior-jefferson-lg.jpg

http://www-scf.usc.edu/~uscagc/galen19.jpg

brooklyndodger14

01-19-2007, 06:08 AM

RE: The computer animation of the "New" Yankee Stadium featured on the YES Network:

(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6893385670356557404&q=new+yankee+stadium+video&hl=en)

To me, the most amazing display of unadulterated, fawning bull$#!+ was to hear the YES man-commentator (how APPROPRIATE a moniker is THAT??) gush while the computer animation ran its point-of-view along the #4 train of what a THRILL it would be to see that little "peek-through" of the field over the gap in right-center!

THIS "NEW YANKEE STADIUM" DESIGN IS COMPLETE CRAP!

Notice how you can almost hear a hint of desperation when they say for the umpteenth time of how there will be more seats in the "lower bowl" as if that is a really GOOD thing.

Just look at the model!!

To have more seats in the field level, PLUS the MANDATE of no obstructing pillars, PLUS having luxury boxes immediately above the field level means THE UPPER LEVEL IS DOOMED TO BE PUSHED BACK. And do you actually have any computer model views from that newly distant Upper Deck?

For those keeping score at home, Old Stadium Upper Deck = Level 3. "New" Stadium Upper Deck = Level 5 or more.

TRANSLATION: Using the front of the Old Stadium Upper deck as a guide: the level and distance from the field that you sat and enjoyed baseball in for 86 years will now be taken up by a level (or possibly 2) of luxury boxes.

And where will your "New" Upper Deck front row be? I cannot gauge the distance from the field, but take up any seat past the present Stadium's Upper Deck portals and THAT will be your most likely "New" Upper Deck FRONT ROW. Let's hope that one of the first 2009 give-aways is Hubble Telescope Day. It'll be bigger than Bat Day I'll betcha!

But wait! Theres MORE:

Because there are no support pillars, there is little or no overhang between each level and as such it seems almost everyone's seats (with the obvious exception of the luxury box holders) will be exposed to the elements. Now, that sounds all fine and dandy during a brilliant spring or summer day game, but just think about that little detail when you are forced to endure a rain delay or even worse, a postseason nightgame with a rain-delay which would have the game end at least by midnight to satisfy our West Coast audience.

Even the facade appears to be reduced to as minimal as possible. In the original Stadium, it was a powerful presence. In the renovated Stadium, though it was replicated in pre-cast, its size and symbolism was still strong.

In the new design, as it presently looks, it gets lost. The sunroof on which it hangs, because there are no pillars and there is only so far you can cantilver the roof without requiring pillar support means it WILL NOT overhang the Upper (Stratosphere) Deck. In addition, as presently designed, it does not look any taller in height than the lighting system that will crown most of it, which translates to how well will it be visible in night games if it is to be made in that transluscent desgin that was spoken of??

As I have feared, the exterior wall will serve only as an outer membrane whose windows will not provide any connection for the fan to see outside. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "It's Comiskey II all over again!!"

ALL HAIL HOK Design! or rather:

Hellbent
on
Krap
Design

This design is not worthy of Yankee fans, baseball fans, or New York City. (And don't even BEGIN to argue about the dubious backroom politics that amounted to a landgrab to displace the 2 public parks that compose the New Stadium site!)

This "New" Yankee Stadium is more fitting to be thrown in that "New York New York" Hotel & Casino in Las Vegas than to be the successor to the House That Ruth Built. (See attached below)

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17858&stc=1&d=1169215024

The Yankees and HoK are taking the greatest historical ballpark and replacing it with an ORDINARY and oh so TIRED design.

I am open to any dogpile of disagreement.

PS: I love the baggage carousel in the lobby posted elsewhere by KeyMan7 (See: Yankee Stadium 1920s thru 1950s Thread, Post #430). Now THAT is finally putting the average fan's comfort in mind! LOL :p :p :p

Dennis
BrooklynDodger14

riverfrontier

01-19-2007, 09:24 AM

Nostalgia and history are basically what keeps MLB from being usurped in popularity by the NWBA or MLS in a lot of cities. When that history has been completely erased, and every single player in the league comes from another country, I'll finally have the time to finish those Dostoevsky novels.
Your friend, Ivanov.

spiderico

01-19-2007, 02:43 PM

Look at this nugget I found on the NYC parks dept. website. Breaks your heart.

JordanDL3891

01-19-2007, 03:09 PM

at least the nationals park is different compared to other parks.

If you could re-desgin yankee stadium, what would it look like?

spiderico

01-19-2007, 03:37 PM

Something more like this.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-19-2007, 03:56 PM

Something more like this.No press box???:eek:

brooklyndodger14

01-19-2007, 04:02 PM

No press box???:eek:

That is an effort to capture the nostalgic feel and intimacy of the original Ebbets Field.... :D :D :D :crazy :crazy :crazy

Dennis
BrooklynDodger14

RichardLillard1

01-19-2007, 06:37 PM

Hopefully Elvis doesn't get too mad that I posted this from his site....

RichardLillard1

01-19-2007, 06:56 PM

I have posted this before, but I'll do it again to show my ideal Yankee Stadium. First of all I would love to keep the original stadium.

However if I had to design a new one I would use the same idea as my ideal renovation for the Stadium.

It would have the same shape as far as the grandstands(you would see no difference between how far close the upper deck is in the new and old). But I would add things like this new Great Hall and the Grand Staircase outside.

There would also be a roof now supported by columns much like US Cellular and with some posts going all the way through to the lower bowl.

I would also bring back Death Valley.

RichardLillard1

01-19-2007, 09:51 PM

I thought this was interesting when I saw it online. Not even the field will remain completely intact.

RichardLillard1

01-19-2007, 09:53 PM

Another interesting one... five bucks says that eventually there is just a home plate with a marker just like the PARKING LOT next door to US Cellular.

Elvis

01-19-2007, 10:54 PM

No press box???:eek:

Put it above the upper deck like in PNC Park. Nobody seems to mind. :)

Ceannsaich

01-21-2007, 12:12 AM

I would gladly wait to see the Cubs not win the World Series until 2009, in order for the true Yankee Stadium to have a fitting send off. I hope the allstar game is held there in 2008. Opening day 09 will be a sad day indeed.
I cant believe it. I dont want to accept it. Thats where Batista pitched the 8 shut out innings, thats where Kim gave up 2 of the most famous (or infamous) homeruns in Dbacks history. I think every Major League team has at least one connection with the history of Yankee Stadium.

To add another thing...I hope they dont name the new park like "alltell stadium" or "stopn shop park" or something like that. That would be the ultimate insult to any baseball fan imo.

RichardLillard1

01-21-2007, 01:47 PM

They have already announced that it will not have a name like that. However there will be sections leased out to companies.

So you will be able to sit in the Pizza Hut Pavillion in the McDonald's Lodge Level.

They do that here in Arizona too. Chase Field has a "Diamond Infinity Level" Its subtle and if the Yankees keep it like that it won't be so bad.

ElHalo

01-21-2007, 02:12 PM

TJH1923

01-21-2007, 02:24 PM

I could live with the new stadium with the following modifications: 1) Extend the lower part of the upper deck by 15 rows so some upper seats are closer to the field and it will create an overhang. An upper deck home run is a great thing to see and with the current design, it will be a thing of the past. I'm certain it will pay off in gate receipts as well as moving to a closer feel to the original stadium. 2) Next, they need to have a trademark death valley. There was a reason it took longer to reach 500 home runs. While MLB loves to see the scoring, they have cheapened those milestones by creating these bandbox stadiums. 3) The roof needs to be a little wider and the facade or frieze must be as prominent as the old stadium.

RichardLillard1

01-21-2007, 03:44 PM

I agree, I could sort of live with the new place if it wasn't such a rip off. Of course it also upsets me a great deal that they swept right in under the radar and never gave it a public hearing. They never even found out what the fans and locals had to say about it.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-21-2007, 04:46 PM

I could live with the new stadium with the following modifications: 1) Extend the lower part of the upper deck by 15 rows so some upper seats are closer to the field and it will create an overhang. An upper deck home run is a great thing to see and with the current design, it will be a thing of the past. I'm certain it will pay off in gate receipts as well as moving to a closer feel to the original stadium. I don't think the gate reciepts are going to differ no matter what you do. They are going to sell out every game for a long time in that stadium, IMO.

RichardLillard1

01-21-2007, 05:28 PM

Oh I don't doubt they will sell out but I bet if you ask a lot of Yankee fans they will say that something won't feel right.

TJH1923

01-21-2007, 07:29 PM

I don't think the gate reciepts are going to differ no matter what you do. They are going to sell out every game for a long time in that stadium, IMO.

I was referring to a higher seating capacity by adding 15 rows around the bowl. I do agree that they will sell out most of the time for years to come.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-21-2007, 09:27 PM

I was referring to a higher seating capacity by adding 15 rows around the bowl. I do agree that they will sell out most of the time for years to come.That's true. I thought you meant just push it forward...

In case anyone was wondering about the diagram in post # 77. Assuming it's to scale, Old Yankee stadium's upper deck was 41 pixels high off the field, and 36 pixels far away from the field. The new stadium's upper deck is 44 pixels high away, and 77 pixels away from the field. Twice as far from the field.

Elvis

01-21-2007, 09:48 PM

The new stadium's upper deck is 44 pixels high away, and 77 pixels away from the field. Twice as far from the field.

That's progress for ya. Thank God for HOK and their "Innovations in ballpark design." (Their actual slogan) :rolleyes:

RichardLillard1

01-21-2007, 10:58 PM

Well innovative can mean so many things... like finding new ways to crap on the working class people who sit in the upper deck.

JordanDL3891

01-22-2007, 02:33 PM

Although I've heard rumors that the new field is to be named Steinbrenner Stadium... I personally wouldn't mind that.

I think the new ballpark would be called "The House that Steinbrenner built" or "The House that Greed Built"

jrh31584

01-22-2007, 04:12 PM

I took the comparison between the stadia and flipped things around a bit:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v607/jrh31584/yankee.png

JordanDL3891

01-22-2007, 05:30 PM

are you 100% sure this is going to be the case? why would they move you away from the field and make noseblead seats. isn't this the HOK that desgined PNC?

the way the seating is can still change right? they are still just doing the fundation.

winningtheweapon

01-30-2007, 11:26 AM

HOK is pathetic. They are incapable of creating any different seating templates than the generic one they have been installing for years. It's ridiculous. It's as if Yankee fans are being forced to experience a taste of what the "cookie cutter-like" feeling is all about...

Yankee Stadium is already a cookie-cutter stadium. I went there this past season to watch the Red Sox play, and besides its history the current Stadium is unimpressive to me. Maybe this new one will be somewhat unique.

RichardLillard1

01-30-2007, 12:58 PM

Yankee Stadium is already a cookie-cutter stadium. I went there this past season to watch the Red Sox play, and besides its history the current Stadium is unimpressive to me. Maybe this new one will be somewhat unique.

I don't want to start a fight on here but I am curious as to how you see the current Yankee Stadium as a cookie cutter?

Knick9

01-30-2007, 04:17 PM

Yankee Stadium is already a cookie-cutter stadium. I went there this past season to watch the Red Sox play, and besides its history the current Stadium is unimpressive to me. Maybe this new one will be somewhat unique.

To put it in the kindest way that I can...your case has no leverage at all. Even so when Yankee Stadium was renovated in the 1970's, I don't think that it was ever a cookie cutter.

bigtime39

01-30-2007, 08:00 PM

New Yankee $tadium will only be complete when they have the Jeffrey Mayer/Hamburger Helper giant glove overhanging the field from the right field bleachers. Balls hit into it by the home team are dingers...balls hit into it by the road team are outs! :mad:

TJH1923

01-30-2007, 09:00 PM

To put it in the kindest way that I can...your case has no leverage at all. Even so when Yankee Stadium was renovated in the 1970's, I don't think that it was ever a cookie cutter.

I don't think I would call it a cookie cutter, but the idea was to modernize and streamline the stadium. In some ways, it did have that cookie cutter look to it. Just the roof with the lighting is the first thing that comes to mind. When the Stadium re-opened, and you can look at the pictures, it had minimal advertising, no left field bleachers and no out of town scoreboard. In my opinion, it did have a generic look to it. Remember, I am comparing it to the original Yankee Stadium. To me, they are two different ballparks, old and new.

When the plans were drawn up for the renovation in the early 70's, many teams were moving out of the old ball parks for more modern (cookie cutter) stadiums. Just to name a few: Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati. Ballparks like Shea, Busch and RFK were only a few years old. Also, there was no movement yet for the "classic" look until Camden Yards came along. All of those stadiums mentioned above have been knocked down or are on the way to being knocked down.

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 09:44 AM

I don't want to start a fight on here but I am curious as to how you see the current Yankee Stadium as a cookie cutter?

There's nothing that stands out. I can go to a ballpark like Fenway and see the green monster, see the brick wall facade, walk on Yawkey way. Or Wrigley with the busch wall. Hell even the Rogers Centre has that hotel, but I'm not implying that Rogers Centre > Yankee Stadium because Yankee Stadium is definately much more mystique than Rogers Centre, plus Yankee Stadium doesn't have a stupid retractable roof. But anyways, my point is I go to the New York stadiums, which I have been to both and all I see is either an orange or a blue bowl. Yes, the mystique of Yankee Stadium makes it what it is, but aren't we overrating the overall uniqueness of the place because of that? I just think so judging by seeing it in person, watching a ballgame. To be honest, even as a Red Sox fan, I was rather disappointed about it. I just hope the new one isn't a cookie cutter either.

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 09:47 AM

To put it in the kindest way that I can...your case has no leverage at all. Even so when Yankee Stadium was renovated in the 1970's, I don't think that it was ever a cookie cutter.

Prove your statement and just because the majority of the public thinks Yankee Stadium isn't a cookie cutter stadium doesn't mean that it's true. You shouldn't appeal to popularity when you prove your case is all I'm saying.

Elvis

01-31-2007, 10:58 AM

Prove your statement and just because the majority of the public thinks Yankee Stadium isn't a cookie cutter stadium doesn't mean that it's true. You shouldn't appeal to popularity when you prove your case is all I'm saying.

The term cookie-cutter was given to the multi-purpose stadium of the 60s and 70s because of their identical circular shape and very similar exterior and interior designs. Yankee Stadium's shape, layout and tri-deck design were revolutionary when constructed, and its overhead profile is among the most unique and recognizable of any stadium in the world. The fact is that it was and is the very antithesis of the term cookie-cutter.

To call Yankee Stadium a cookie-cutter is like calling Rosie O'Donnell anorexic, or calling the Tampa Bay Devil Rays the most successful franchise in pro-sports history - it makes absolutely no sense. :crazy

cadam

01-31-2007, 11:02 AM

I'm looking forward to the new stadium. The "historic" part of Yankee stadium was gutted in the remodelling. The new one will be closer to historic yankee stadium then what is used now. Happy to see the roof w/ the facade back. Wish they had the upper deck closer to the playing field (i.e., cantilevered) but all things considered, this is a good move. Plus, some elbow room when you go get a hot dog will be a welcome change.

cadam

01-31-2007, 11:03 AM

The term cookie-cutter was given to the multi-purpose stadium of the 60s and 70s because of their identical circular shape and very similar exterior and interior designs. Yankee Stadium's shape, layout and tri-deck design were revolutionary when constructed, and its overhead profile is among the most unique and recognizable of any stadium in the world. The fact is that it was and is the very antithesis of the term cookie-cutter.

To call Yankee Stadium a cookie-cutter is like calling Rosie O'Donnell anorexic, or calling the Tampa Bay Devil Rays the most successful franchise in pro-sports history - it makes absolutely no sense. :crazy

They took a non-cookie cutter layout and tried their hardest ot make it into one.

cadam

01-31-2007, 11:09 AM

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 11:36 AM

The term cookie-cutter was given to the multi-purpose stadium of the 60s and 70s because of their identical circular shape and very similar exterior and interior designs. Yankee Stadium's shape, layout and tri-deck design were revolutionary when constructed, and its overhead profile is among the most unique and recognizable of any stadium in the world. The fact is that it was and is the very antithesis of the term cookie-cutter.

To call Yankee Stadium a cookie-cutter is like calling Rosie O'Donnell anorexic, or calling the Tampa Bay Devil Rays the most successful franchise in pro-sports history - it makes absolutely no sense. :crazy

Yeah, people recognize it because it says "YANKEE STADIUM" on the outside. Give me one thing that makes Yankee Stadium unique in its own right? It looks like an ordinary blue bowl to me. Again, as I've stated before I do think people use the stadium's history as a way to overrate the overall uniqueness of the actual stadium design itself.

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 11:37 AM

Elvis

01-31-2007, 12:18 PM

Yeah, people recognize it because it says "YANKEE STADIUM" on the outside. Give me one thing that makes Yankee Stadium unique in its own right? It looks like an ordinary blue bowl to me.

I already explained it. No other stadium in the world, past or present has the shape, layout, profile and design of Yankee Stadium. What part of that don't you get? :confused: The term "cookie-cutter" refers to the generic shape/layout of a stadium. If a stadium is unique, as Yankee Stadium is, than it is the antithesis of generic. What other stadium's profile looks like this?

http://www.usasportstours.com/images/New%20York%20Yankee%20Stadium.jpg

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 01:05 PM

I already explained it. No other stadium in the world, past or present has the shape, layout, profile and design of Yankee Stadium. What part of that don't you get? :confused: The term "cookie-cutter" refers to the generic shape/layout of a stadium. If a stadium is unique, as Yankee Stadium is, than it is the antithesis of generic. What other stadium's profile looks like this?

http://www.usasportstours.com/images/New%20York%20Yankee%20Stadium.jpg

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/illinois/chicago_comiskey1.jpg

U.S. Cellular Field has a few characteristics it's sharing with Yankee Stadium.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/new_york/new_york_shea1.jpg

Shea Stadium, not as much, but it does remind me of the blue bowl layout of Yankee Stadium with its orange bowl design.

JordanDL3891

01-31-2007, 03:37 PM

not even close, shea which looks nothing like a seating bowl, can be compared more to tropicana than yankee stadium!

and CHW's seating behind homeplate reminds me of SEA's

spiderico

01-31-2007, 05:36 PM

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/illinois/chicago_comiskey1.jpg

U.S. Cellular Field has a few characteristics it's sharing with Yankee Stadium.

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/new_york/new_york_shea1.jpg

Shea Stadium, not as much, but it does remind me of the blue bowl layout of Yankee Stadium with its orange bowl design.

US Cellular looks a lot like NEW yankee stadium. That seems to be what the complaints are about. Besides the seats being blue (which most are not anymore at US Cell), what else does it have in common with current YS? US Cell has almost no overhang. No 3 distinctive decks. The term seating "bowl" shouldn't even be used when talking about Yankee Stadium. A seating "bowl" is when there is one basic slope of seats from front to back. Like LA Coliseum. New Yankee has more of a "Bowl" shape than current YS. And comparing it to Shea? I don't get that at all.

As has been discussed, the current YS was not "torn down and rebuilt" as a lot of people say. To oversimplify, the work that was done in the '70s renovation was to lower the field 8 feet, add some rows to the front of the box seats, remove the facade, shorten the roof, add 15 rows to the back of the upper deck and remove the poles. The internal structure is EXACTLY the same as it was in 1923. As are the external walls. Painted, but the same walls. Compare old pictures.

So if you say current YS looks like a cookie cutter, than you're saying old YS was a cookie cutter.

Knick9

01-31-2007, 08:04 PM

Prove your statement and just because the majority of the public thinks Yankee Stadium isn't a cookie cutter stadium doesn't mean that it's true. You shouldn't appeal to popularity when you prove your case is all I'm saying.

That's pretty harsh, don't you think?

The term cookie-cutter didn't come out until after the ballparks of the 60's or 70's were made. Come on now.

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 08:53 PM

not even close, shea which looks nothing like a seating bowl, can be compared more to tropicana than yankee stadium!

and CHW's seating behind homeplate reminds me of SEA's

No?

http://www.worldstadiums.com/stadium_pictures/north_america/united_states/florida/st_petersburg_tropicana2.jpg

How does this look anything like Shea?

The Cell's blue seating does remind me of Yankee Stadium.

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 08:57 PM

US Cellular looks a lot like NEW yankee stadium. That seems to be what the complaints are about. Besides the seats being blue (which most are not anymore at US Cell), what else does it have in common with current YS? US Cell has almost no overhang. No 3 distinctive decks. The term seating "bowl" shouldn't even be used when talking about Yankee Stadium. A seating "bowl" is when there is one basic slope of seats from front to back. Like LA Coliseum. New Yankee has more of a "Bowl" shape than current YS. And comparing it to Shea? I don't get that at all.

As has been discussed, the current YS was not "torn down and rebuilt" as a lot of people say. To oversimplify, the work that was done in the '70s renovation was to lower the field 8 feet, add some rows to the front of the box seats, remove the facade, shorten the roof, add 15 rows to the back of the upper deck and remove the poles. The internal structure is EXACTLY the same as it was in 1923. As are the external walls. Painted, but the same walls. Compare old pictures.

So if you say current YS looks like a cookie cutter, than you're saying old YS was a cookie cutter.

Yeah, those changes destroyed any uniqueness that place had. I can't believe they got rid of "death valley."

winningtheweapon

01-31-2007, 08:59 PM

That's pretty harsh, don't you think?

The term cookie-cutter didn't come out until after the ballparks of the 60's or 70's were made. Come on now.

And when were the renovations done to Yankee Stadium? Exactly.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-31-2007, 09:36 PM

Hell even the Rogers Centre has that hotel, but I'm not implying that Rogers Centre > Yankee Stadium because Yankee Stadium is definately much more mystique than Rogers Centre, plus Yankee Stadium doesn't have a stupid retractable roof.First of all, I would just like to throw in that I'd rather watch a game under the roof than watch a game wearing my winter jasket. And in the summer, when the roof is open, Skydome is a great place to watch a game. Just had to put in a few good words for the Dome.

When it comes to Yankee Stadium, I kind of see where winningtheweapon is coming from. The renovations, as we (most) all will agree, took alot away from the Stadium. The upper deck does kind of look like the upper deck of a cookie-cutter-style stadium. However, I would never go as far as to call the entire Stadium a cookie-cutter. It's shape and design are still one of a kind, and I only wish that the new stadium looked more like the old pre-renovation Stadium.

W_Marone

01-31-2007, 09:46 PM

So, are they imploding old yankees stadium or keeping it as an artifact kind of thing?

Richmond Hill Phoenix

01-31-2007, 09:49 PM

I thought this was interesting when I saw it online. Not even the field will remain completely intact.
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/nyy_stadium/img/project_map.jpgThis diagram shows what they're leaving behind... Not too much.

(That's the new stadium at the top.)

winningtheweapon

02-01-2007, 09:10 AM

First of all, I would just like to throw in that I'd rather watch a game under the roof than watch a game wearing my winter jasket. And in the summer, when the roof is open, Skydome is a great place to watch a game. Just had to put in a few good words for the Dome.

When it comes to Yankee Stadium, I kind of see where winningtheweapon is coming from. The renovations, as we (most) all will agree, took alot away from the Stadium. The upper deck does kind of look like the upper deck of a cookie-cutter-style stadium. However, I would never go as far as to call the entire Stadium a cookie-cutter. It's shape and design are still one of a kind, and I only wish that the new stadium looked more like the old pre-renovation Stadium.

Well I hope the roof is open when I go there because I may be taking part in another Red Sox road trip up to Toronto this time, and thanks for seeing where I'm coming from.

And I still think retractable roofs are a bad thing for baseball unless it's in Florida or Arizona where there are extreme weather conditions.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

02-01-2007, 11:53 AM

And I still think retractable roofs are a bad thing for baseball unless it's in Florida or Arizona where there are extreme weather conditions.I assume you rate snow, sleet, and freezing rain as extreme weather as well?

winningtheweapon

02-01-2007, 11:59 AM

I assume you rate snow, sleet, and freezing rain as extreme weather as well?

But how often does Toronto get snow, sleet or freezing rain in April? I'm talking about extreme weather conditions throughout the entirety of the baseball season which is what places like Florida and Arizona get.

Richmond Hill Phoenix

02-01-2007, 12:09 PM

It's happened. Not saying that it happens frequently, but it has. It can also be pretty cold on an April night. I'm thankful for the roof.

bigtime39

02-01-2007, 02:51 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words. Opening Day, 2003, Baltimore.

hellborn

02-01-2007, 03:05 PM

Although I've heard rumors that the new field is to be named Steinbrenner Stadium... I personally wouldn't mind that.

How about The Boss Bowl??
King George's Castle??
The Emperor's Command Ship??

winningtheweapon

02-01-2007, 04:47 PM

A picture is worth a thousand words. Opening Day, 2003, Baltimore.

So why not build a retractable roof on Fenway Park or Shea? If the basis of the argument for retractable roofs is the chance of snow in April then that's a pretty weak justification if you ask me.

bigtime39

02-01-2007, 05:45 PM

So why not build a retractable roof on Fenway Park or Shea? If the basis of the argument for retractable roofs is the chance of snow in April then that's a pretty weak justification if you ask me.

I'm not calling for retrofits, but if I was building a new ballpark, I'd do everything I could to get a retractable roof on it.
No, it doesn't snow much in Baltimore in April, rain is a possibility all season long, and it seems that actual cats and dogs have to be falling out of the sky before MLB will cancel a game, so, yeah, I believe all new ballparks should get retractable roofs.

KazmirFan228

02-03-2007, 08:09 AM

I've only been to the Old Stadium once, i don't see why in the world they need to build another one

Mariano_Rivera

02-03-2007, 09:49 AM

I find the building of the new satdium very unnecesary. I went on a tour over Christmas break and we went through the box seats, the best restraunt their, etc. It is outdated compared to what I saw when I got club seats in Camden Yards. Would it be possible to create decks above the bleachers in the OF? I read somewhere that when it was first built they considered doing that but opted not to because of cost concerns. Is that possible? Wouldn`t the greater number of seats create enough money to account for the lack of box seats? If I could choose than I`d do that and also increase death valley to close to it's previous size (not quite but close). I guess they're doing the best possible thing with the field for Old Yankee Stadium.

blslivewire

02-09-2007, 05:10 PM

When I first saw the designs for the new park my first thought was a more expensive Arlington Stadium. It has no character or personality at all and they could have at least designed the outside to resemble the Old Yankee Stadium.

Mariano_Rivera

02-09-2007, 06:00 PM

If only baseball historians were rich...

The world would be a better place :D

old school delaware

02-14-2007, 06:39 AM

Ditto a sad situation, loss of tradition.
Baseball is the last bastion of sport that has some semblance of tradition.
Football and basketball bare little resemblance to the original game format.

Junior Bull

02-17-2007, 05:54 AM

Not the biggest Yankee fan, but I am sad to Yankee Stadium go. I have never been up there, but I will make it a point to get to a game before 2009.

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:30 PM

Hello everybody. I had the pleasure today to take my six year old to the north side of the southbound platform of the #4 IRT "Yankee Stadium - 161st Street" station. There, I passed on one of the greatest gifts in our country. The love of baseball, the true national pastime, and everthing attached to it ......good or bad. It was a warm February day for my family.
Thirty plus years ago, my Dad took me to the same platform several times to watch the renovation of the "old" Stadium. While my emotions are mixed in regards to the new stadium, one thing is for certain: this is the stadium my daughter will have her fondest memories of the Yanks in, like it or not. The best part of all, was my Dad was also there to share the moment. I am so glad spring training is here.

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:32 PM

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooo

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:34 PM

tttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:34 PM

################################################## #

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:36 PM

************************************************** ********

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:37 PM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:38 PM

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:39 PM

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllllllllllllllllllll

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:40 PM

================================================== =======

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:41 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:42 PM

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;; ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:43 PM

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:44 PM

.................................................. ..............................................

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:46 PM

11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:47 PM

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:49 PM

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
I thought this was an interesting vantage point.

TJH1923

02-21-2007, 07:51 PM

One more from a similar angle. I hope everyone appreciates (enjoyed) the progress. It is being built whether we like it or not.

winningtheweapon

02-21-2007, 08:25 PM

Thanks for the updates TJH! :clapping

Richmond Hill Phoenix

02-21-2007, 08:28 PM

Great pics TJ!

I was wondering, when building a stadium, how much stuff do they do to the are under the field? Like, how much work do they do on the earth below the field? I can imagine that they put the necessary irrigation pipes etc.. But what else?

Are there tunnels below the field at all? Storage?

voodoochile

02-24-2007, 10:16 PM

I very much doubt that there are tunnels under the playing field at Yankee Stadium, but according to a copy of the original blueprints that I have there is a provision for a basement under the field level seats. It is drawn up on the plans, but is marked as tentative. Whether they went through with it is unknown to me.

Regarding a roof on the new stadium, retractable or otherwise, has anyone considered an alternative? A roof would automatically convert the place into an indoor stadium, whereas a simple covering, much like a carport has would still render it an outdoor stadium, but keep out the rain and snow. The problem, of course, would be limiting the amount of snow build-up, which could be aleviated by heating elements, a far less expense than a retractable roof. I seriuosly doubt that the builders or planners hadn't thought of this.

If George wants to give back to the community, and the old stadium is coming down, build a resivor there and capture the rain and melting snow run-off. It would no doubt be welcome in the summer months. The resivors in Southern California, which supplies water to San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange Counties, obtains their water by that very same principle, except the run-off is from the mountains. You'd be surprised how quickly they fill up from one or two good rains or snowfalls.

voodoochile

02-24-2007, 10:37 PM

Your photos are fantastic. I was hoping that someone would post the progress of the construction. In your last couple of them you said "it's being built whether we like it or not." Sounds as if you rejected this as I did, but like you said. . .whether we like it or not.

I have finally come to grips with it, but what bothered me more than the new stadium going up was the old one coming down, and the unthinkable decision of destroying what I consider to be a "working" baseball museum.

Steinbrenner bought his way into the Yankee organization midway through the 1973 season, and quickly scheduled the doors shut for the next two years. He then proceeded to gut the stadium like a fish, and the mere fact that the facade was ordered removed should have prompted someone to get a horse while another got a rope. He took the soul from the stadium, now he's removing the heart. I don't believe much in the supernatural, but if it is at all possible I hope that the slap of the wrecking ball against those walls conjurs up the ghosts of Ruth, Gehrig and Mantle, and George winds up at Bellview. . . . . in a luxury box. He's no baseball man. He's about the money. If it was profitable to finish in last place, he'd see to it. He'd rather have the doe than the trophy.

jimmyjimjimz

02-26-2007, 01:30 PM

Hopefully, one of these days I'm gonna get a ride down to the stadium and take pics of the construction. I really wanna go down there and see how far they got.

cinco64

03-13-2007, 03:00 PM

I am old enough to remember the "original" Yankee Stadium (pre-1973). I realize that many fans have grown attached to the renovated Yankee Stadium (1976 - ) and I agree that it is a beautiful park....and its nice to say that home plate is where Babe Ruth stood, etc, etc. But to be quite honest with you, there were many details and qualities of the original ballpark that were lost when the Stadium was renovated from '73-'75 that really hurt the character of the ballpark, and were never really captured in the renovated park. Now I understand that relocating the park means you will not be able to see the players stand at the same home plate anymore, but I have to be honest and say that from the plans and renderings of the proposed ballpark that I've seen, people very much in touch with what made the original ballpark a special atmosphere have been involved with the redesign. I am an architect by trade, and I think the new design is much more compatible and historically tied to the original ballpark than the renovated park ever was. I am excited at the prospect of the new park.

cinco64

03-13-2007, 03:10 PM

elmer

03-15-2007, 10:23 AM

Xxxxxxxxxx

PeteU

03-15-2007, 04:53 PM

The new ballpark design resembles more New Comiskey Park/US Cellular Field than pre-renovation Yankee Stadium. I hate to say it, but it will be grossly disappointing. It will likely attract much of the same negative sentiment New Comiskey got after it opened, as well.

Elvis

03-15-2007, 05:17 PM

I would also add that those who own the Yankees and those hired to design the new park are very much aware that this new building will be under a very powerful microscope.....the world understands that Yankee Stadium is perhaps the most famous modern sporting area in the world, and they know that they have to do it right or they will face a tremendous backlash.

They already haven't done it right, the backlash is already there, and they're not changing it. It's HOK. What do you expect? Inovation? :noidea

...I think the end result of all of this is that Yankee fans will end up with a fantastic park....40 years from now, fans will revere the "new" park the way fans of today revere the old.

Not a chance. Fans revere old parks because of the intimacy and uniquness of design, history, and upper decks with great close sightlines. the new "yankee stadium" will have none of that, so why will fans revere it? It's a generic, tired and flawed design. The only winning aspect is the exterior. The inside is a travesty.

mrow1927

03-15-2007, 05:20 PM

The outline of the outfield fence is what largely defines a ball park, the old version with the deeper CF and LCF made YS what it was, It was far from current dimensions. This is what has makes current and the new version of YS less than what it used to be. IE the playing field configuration.
While the new park and current try to give the "impression" of the older shapes they really fail miserably. The current stadium outline is still there but less noticeable inside. Monument park etc. is nice but it is the shape of the playing field that gave old YS its character and the newer versions but barely resemble the two older versions

I'm hearing conflicting statements that the dimensions are going to be the same as YS now. Then I'm hearing that they are to be determined. If it's the latter, maybe CF and LCF will be deeper (hopefully).

I did not like this stadium with a passion (understatement) but the more I'm looking at the artist renderings on Yankees.com, it's growing on me. I only know the renovated stadium and by looking at the pictures of the classic stadium, I like that one much better. I agree with you Cinco64, atleast they are trying to evoke the old stadium but there has to be an incredible amount of pressure to make sure they capture the essence of old YS. I'm glad I'm not in their shoes. Since they're replacing such a historical stadium, they have to go beyond their capabilities to make sure they get it right. Like if they replace Fenway or Wrigley. It has to be an incredible stadium. Either you love it or hate it. No in-between. Lets hope we love it.

Elvis

03-15-2007, 05:37 PM

...atleast they are trying to evoke the old stadium but there has to be an incredible amount of pressure to make sure they capture the essence of old YS.

What is the "essence" of a stadium? Of Yankee Stadium? Is it in the cosmetics or the structure? HOK is banking on it being the cosmetics. There is nothing - let me repeat that - NOTHING structurally reminiscent of Yankee Stadium pre or post renovation. ALL the things they're counting on are cosmetics to remind people that this generic stadium is "yankee stadium".

I suppose if I slapped some Mustang taillights, door handles and grille on a Toyota, I could say, "Look it's a Mustang!", and some people would buy it.

Or maybe if I put a mole and blond wig on a skinny flat-chested girl I can get people to believe it's really Marylin Monroe. It's the shape that makes it Marylin, and the same it true for yankee stadium. They replaced yankee Stadium's iconic shape with the same generic shape used in all HOKs parks. Brilliant!

mrow1927

03-15-2007, 08:57 PM

What is the "essence" of a stadium? Of Yankee Stadium? Is it in the cosmetics or the structure? HOK is banking on it being the cosmetics. There is nothing - let me repeat that - NOTHING structurally reminiscent of Yankee Stadium pre or post renovation. ALL the things they're counting on are cosmetics to remind people that this generic stadium is "yankee stadium".

I suppose if I slapped some Mustang taillights, door handles and grille on a Toyota, I could say, "Look it's a Mustang!", and some people would buy it.

Or maybe if I put a mole and blond wig on a skinny flat-chested girl I can get people to believe it's really Marylin Monroe. It's the shape that makes it Marylin, and the same it true for yankee stadium. They replaced yankee Stadium's iconic shape with the same generic shape used in all HOKs parks. Brilliant!

Yes I mean the structure. I wasn't old enough to see the classic YS and I know alot of people that wasn't even born of the time of CYS (Classic Yankee Stadium) but love the way it looked will like to see it even if it will it is a "generic stadium". A lot of people say that they ruined YS when they renovated it in the 70s but that is all I remember and know. This stadium. Even though on the outside its somewhat of a replica, the new YS will have the look that we (meaning people that weren't around for CYS) would like to see.

I know hok builds derivatives of one stadium because of their severe lack of talent, but their designing this so we just have to accept that fact. As I said before because of what YS means to the city, to use the phrase "they must hit this out the park" in the worse way. Their reputation if there is one could be riding on this stadium. If people hate it, Steinbrenner and HOK can become the biggest disapointments in baseball history. On the other hand if people love it, people will be singing their praises. This is a huge gamble replacing YS. A big hit or miss.

And yes, bringing back the facade to its original place is reminiscent of CYS because they took it off in the renovation years. I rather see the facade crowning the upper deck like the old one than having a cheap so called respecting the past imitation facade on the wall behind the bleachers. Atleast they got one aspect right on the stadium and just hope they do a good job at that. In my opinion.

Knick9

03-15-2007, 11:52 PM

I would also add that those who own the Yankees and those hired to design the new park are very much aware that this new building will be under a very powerful microscope.....the world understands that Yankee Stadium is perhaps the most famous modern sporting area in the world, and they know that they have to do it right or they will face a tremendous backlash....I think the end result of all of this is that Yankee fans will end up with a fantastic park....40 years from now, fans will revere the "new" park the way fans of today revere the old.

You have your expectations way too high, sir. No chance of that happening, ever. This is the feeling I get sometimes, "Whatever HOK gives, people have to just accept it and call it good?" Absolutely bogus. I don't have to call it good if I really don't think it is. You know HOK has hit rock bottom if simple bums like me and others can easily come up with more inovative stuff than what HOK has pulled off. This is already a disapointment in my opinion. Whatever the case, Yankee Stadium II will not match Yankee stadium I. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being a bases loaded, full count strikeout, and not a homerun. I'm not saying that because I'm not Yankee fan. We have evidence throughout the country. Compare each and every HOK ballpark seating alignment/structure with each other. It doesn't look incredibly different, if at all.

PeteU

03-16-2007, 05:21 AM

The thing is, Oriole Park at Camden Yards was and still is a great ballpark in my opinion, arguably in the top 5. And as an Orioles fan, I'm plenty proud that its my ballpark. In 1992, no one had ever seen anything like it, and people were righfully impressed. The only problem is HOK used the layout a little too much and we got clones of the original original. So what we've seen over the past decade and a half is a lack of creativity.

But this new Yankee Stadium isn't even that. From all the plans I've seen of the place, there isn't anything close which anyone would want to copy and imitate, a la OPACY. It is the most bland, souless, uninspired design I've seen in a long time, and that includes all the other HOK clones. Other than the outer shell which pays some homage to the old park, there is nothing about it that would make it a top tier ballpark that Yankees fans (*shudders*, sorry I'm an O's fan, can't help myself :D ) can be rightfully proud of.

elmer

03-16-2007, 06:48 AM

Xxxxxxxxxx

cinco64

03-22-2007, 09:28 AM

You have your expectations way too high, sir. No chance of that happening, ever. This is the feeling I get sometimes, "Whatever HOK gives, people have to just accept it and call it good?" Absolutely bogus. I don't have to call it good if I really don't think it is. You know HOK has hit rock bottom if simple bums like me and others can easily come up with more inovative stuff than what HOK has pulled off. This is already a disapointment in my opinion. Whatever the case, Yankee Stadium II will not match Yankee stadium I. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being a bases loaded, full count strikeout, and not a homerun. I'm not saying that because I'm not Yankee fan. We have evidence throughout the country. Compare each and every HOK ballpark seating alignment/structure with each other. It doesn't look incredibly different, if at all.

Please don't misunderstand...I don't think my expectations are too high, nor do I think I have any illusions that the new park will be perfect, or even without major flaws. I just haven't drawn the same automatic conclusions that you seem to have: that the designers are not capable of designing a decent ballpark and its already a disappointment (even though its not built yet). And contrary to another post, I do think that so-called "cosmetic" improvements do make a big difference in how the ballpark will be received, especially if some of those iconic elements can help older fans to remember the "real" Yankee Stadium (ie: pre-1976). Don't get me wrong - I love the current Yankee Stadium, but a lot of the "cosmetic" elements that existed in the original ballpark that were removed during the 73-75 renovation really had a profound impact on the allure and character of the Stadium and have been truly missed by those who remember.

nymdan

03-23-2007, 07:53 PM

Hey guys,

I've been lurking here for a few months and finally decided to reigster.

My question to you all is this: With all the complaints about the new stadium... what would you all do differently?

I don't see where they went wrong... the stadium looks like the old one inside and out and has all the modern amenities, which is what you would expect. In a perfect world they would be able to knock down the current stadium and build around the existing field like they did in the 70's renovation, but that's not realistic these days. So, short of doing that... what would you have included in your plans for a new Yankee Stadium?

spiderico

03-23-2007, 08:47 PM

In my mind, the one thing that makes Yankee Stadium really Yankee Stadium is the 3 distinct decks. I wasn't around for the original, but have been going to the current since the early 80's and have had season tickets for the past 12 years. Even with the renovations, the one thing that remained constant is the how the upper deck overhangs the lower deck, with the middle deck sandwiched in between. Unless you go to a lot of games there this isn't something that you can appreciate. You're right on top of the field. During a big game, I really feel it has an affect on the game. Plus it makes for great sight lines.

I know all about the need for suites, and no one wants to cover the box seats, but there is nothing unique about the inside of the new stadium. From what I've seen it could be any number of new stadiums build over the last 10 years.

I can live with a new stadium, but since money is never an issue, why not design and build something special and unique. The outside remotely resembles the old stadium. But from what I've seen, the inside is a disgrace.

Elvis

03-23-2007, 10:32 PM

nymdan

03-24-2007, 08:13 AM

Why would you think it resembles the old stadium inside? :noidea It's completely different. As far as what we would do different, if Richard would post his design, you'd see what we mean.
I'm not sure if you're saying it doesn't look like the pre-renovation stadium or doesn't look like Yankee Stadium period, but my point is if you stepped foot in that stadium or looked at a picture, you know right away it's Yankee Stadium, because it looks like Yankee Stadium. That's why I don't understand these comments that it looks the same as the other HOK parks... if you look at a picture of it, there's no way you would confuse it with Great American or CBP.

And... has this Richard posted his design in another thread?

spiderico, as far as the overhang goes... you're right that it would have been nice to keep that, though the Tier now does have its flaws... there are certain seats in the corners where you can't see the entire playing field... if there is a ball hit to the wall by the foul pole, you can't see it at all. I had that problem sitting in these seats:

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/2199/metsvsyankees04003gi2.jpg

Ironically, though, while Yankee Stadium will be missing the overhang, Citi Field will actually have an upper deck in right field that hangs out a few feet over the playing field.

wickedcurve093

03-24-2007, 08:22 AM

I'm guessing Yankees are still in the Bronx after the next stadium is built. Hmmmm. Okey Dokey.

elmer

03-24-2007, 08:22 AM

Xxxxxxxxxxx

spiderico

03-24-2007, 09:27 AM

That's why I don't understand these comments that it looks the same as the other HOK parks... if you look at a picture of it, there's no way you would confuse it with Great American or CBP.

This is what I mean:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=799314&postcount=57

And if you look at the profile of the new Yankee Stadium vs a lot of the new places, you'll see a lot of similarities:
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=799743&postcount=71

spiderico, as far as the overhang goes... you're right that it would have been nice to keep that, though the Tier now does have its flaws... there are certain seats in the corners where you can't see the entire playing field... if there is a ball hit to the wall by the foul pole, you can't see it at all. I had that problem sitting in these seats

You're right about the blind spots, but for what its worth, missing part of a play or two is worth it to be right on top of the action. I'm not a designer, but I'm sure they can still make a decent overhang and fix the blind spot problem in the new place if they wanted to. Its all about the suites.

Elvis

03-24-2007, 12:48 PM

I'm not sure if you're saying it doesn't look like the pre-renovation stadium or doesn't look like Yankee Stadium period, but my point is if you stepped foot in that stadium or looked at a picture, you know right away it's Yankee Stadium, because it looks like Yankee Stadium.

The shape of the grandstand is not anywhere near the Yankee Stadium shape; the seating deck design is not anywhere near the Yankee Stadium design; the bleachers are not anywhere near the Yankee Stadium design. The only thing like Yankee Stadium is a few cosmetic touches here and there, however, the building itself is not similar an any way to either pre or post renovation Yankee Stadium. If they slapped the Yankee Stadium facade on US Cellular Field, it would look as much like Yankee Stadium as theis new imposter will, possibly more so.

nymdan

03-24-2007, 04:12 PM

Its all about the suites.
For what it's worth...

"Most current stadiums have over a hundred luxury box seats. The Yankees will only have sixty in their new park, which Levine said is because they want all the seats to be closer to the field."--Michael Morrisey, The Pride and the Pressure

nymdan

03-24-2007, 04:29 PM

The shape of the grandstand is not anywhere near the Yankee Stadium shape; the seating deck design is not anywhere near the Yankee Stadium design; the bleachers are not anywhere near the Yankee Stadium design. The only thing like Yankee Stadium is a few cosmetic touches here and there, however, the building itself is not similar an any way to either pre or post renovation Yankee Stadium. If they slapped the Yankee Stadium facade on US Cellular Field, it would look as much like Yankee Stadium as theis new imposter will, possibly more so.
Well... you're right that the seating deck looks different (not having the unique Yankee stadium footprint), but you can probably chalk that up to superior sight lines... not having blind spots, etc.

As far as the bleachers go... the only reason they are how they currently are rather than being directly behind the wall like the new stadium and Comiskey is because of the old dimensions. And again in that case, they decided to move the seats closer to the field rather than using the existing design where they're further back.

RichardLillard1

03-24-2007, 10:33 PM

I think he was referring to the general shape of the outfield bleachers and wall. They could have done something like what's there now. It could have been drawn up close to the wall but still had that general shape to give it more of a "homey touch". Instead we got these rounded off ones that too many other HOK ballyards have nowadays.

Richard

PeteU

03-25-2007, 08:58 AM

So, short of doing that... what would you have included in your plans for a new Yankee Stadium?

I would have put individual light standards as opposed to the ones that ring around the roof (as in both the renovated stadium and the new stadium).

The new stadium is going to bring back the distinctive freize trimming the roof, yes, but it also sticks the lights right above the freize, so you really can't enjoy it because of the glare of the lights. Kinda kills the point of the whole thing, don't you think?

spiderico

03-25-2007, 10:19 AM

For what it's worth...

"Most current stadiums have over a hundred luxury box seats. The Yankees will only have sixty in their new park, which Levine said is because they want all the seats to be closer to the field."--Michael Morrisey, The Pride and the Pressure

Regardless of what Randy Levine says, the new stadium's upper deck will be significantly further back than the current:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=325628&postcount=9

The new stadium may have fewer suites than other stadiums, but they are going to treat the entire lower bowl and club level as "super premium" seating, as opposed to most clubs that only set aside small sections or the first few rows for this. I'll bet you can't get a ticket less for than $100 anywhere in the lower deck. Why do you think they are so proud of the fact that the new stadium will have more lower seats then upper seats?

Elvis

03-25-2007, 12:06 PM

Regardless of what Randy Levine says, the new stadium's upper deck will be significantly further back than the current:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=325628&postcount=9

The new stadium may have fewer suites than other stadiums, but they are going to treat the entire lower bowl and club level as "super premium" seating, as opposed to most clubs that only set aside small sections or the first few rows for this. I'll bet you can't get a ticket less for than $100 anywhere in the lower deck. Why do you think they are so proud of the fact that the new stadium will have more lower seats then upper seats?

Exactly. And thanks for using my diagram. :D Levine must think people are idiots.

nymdan

03-31-2007, 09:00 AM

A few aerial construction shots from WCBS 880 (http://www.wcbs880.com/) via Stadium Page (http://www.stadiumpage.com/)
http://www.stadiumpage.com/newyankee/YS321_1.jpg

http://www.stadiumpage.com/newyankee/YS321_2.jpg

http://www.stadiumpage.com/newyankee/YS321_3.jpg

http://www.stadiumpage.com/newyankee/YS321_4.jpg

RichardLillard1

03-31-2007, 10:48 AM

Great shots, those really show the gigantic size of this new ballyard. Its frightening to think that this huge new stadium will have a capacity of almost 9,000 less people.

Yankee Stadium has always been looked at as a pretty big staidum but it will be dwarfed by this new monster next door.

Elvis

03-31-2007, 11:02 AM

Great shots, those really show the gigantic size of this new ballyard. Its frightening to think that this huge new stadium will have a capacity of almost 9,000 less people.,

Yankee Stadium has always been looked at as a pretty big staidum but it will be dwarfed by this new monster next door.

And of course that new footprint you see pretty much represents the distance the new upper deck will be from the field,:thumbsdown: compared to the intimate sight lines of the REAL Yankee Stadium. Ah, progress. :shrug:

Knick9

03-31-2007, 07:53 PM

Regardless of what Randy Levine says, the new stadium's upper deck will be significantly further back than the current:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/showpost.php?p=325628&postcount=9

I am hoping people will acknowledge the link. The picture is pretty telling about what level HOK is going to take architecture, it will have a negative impact even though it may not look that way now.

Teams are willing to scarifice upper deck seating for extra space for suites and more corporate space. That's not good no matter what the case. The fact that 1 billion dollars is being spent for this ballpark will be a huge waste of money if unsuccessful. The same goes for CitiField with the Mets, 800 million is almost the same amount, and yet they still go for the same tired HOK seating formation and intentionally (yes, intentionally, there are other options out there) rule out any other company is also telling.

I hope I don't have to say this too much, but further back isn't better, why do you think people love the ballparks of the past? One of the reasons is because of the excellent views they present. Look, I'm not going to sit 100 miles (it seems) behind the playing field just so I can barely see the infielders. That is not progress, that's regressing. HOK should get a clue.

I suggest you read this article on Yahoo! News.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_nyc_stadiums

"The rest of the country's now going to be looking at New York and saying 'Wow, look at what they did.'"

:disbelief: Nope, I don't see it like that.

nymdan

04-01-2007, 09:30 PM

The same goes for CitiField with the Mets, 800 million is almost the same amount, and yet they still go for the same tired HOK seating formation and intentionally (yes, intentionally, there are other options out there) rule out any other company is also telling.
Well... the sightlines at Citi Field will definitely be better than those at Shea, that's for sure.

Elvis

04-01-2007, 09:36 PM

Well... the sightlines at Citi Field will definitely be better than those at Shea, that's for sure.

That isn't saying much. :happy:

Knick9

04-01-2007, 11:17 PM

That isn't saying much... :happy:

...if at all. That's what owners always say when the ballpark is taking shape. I've seen many new ballpark designs backfire on the owners and as a result, they have a mess on their hands. :rolleyes:

winningtheweapon

04-02-2007, 06:47 AM

Are they planning to demolish the old one?

PeteU

04-02-2007, 06:51 AM

Are they planning to demolish the old one?

The grandstands, yes; although they may preserve the footprint of the field for recreational purposes.

nymdan

04-02-2007, 08:31 AM

That isn't saying much. :happy:

What's the general consensus around here about Citi Field anyway? Improvement over Shea (obviously) but nothing too unique?

PadreHomer

04-02-2007, 12:00 PM

I do have to acknowledge HOK being part of the Petco Park design team responsible for using extended cantilevers which are laterally 20 feet closer to the field than most cantilevered decks.

RichardLillard1

04-02-2007, 04:25 PM

For what it's worth...

"Most current stadiums have over a hundred luxury box seats. The Yankees will only have sixty in their new park, which Levine said is because they want all the seats to be closer to the field."--Michael Morrisey, The Pride and the Pressure

Luxury boxes provide one main thing for all ball clubs. Ultra high priced "seating" and amazing profits. Putting in 60 is more than enough to make a great deal of money and even though it is not as many as other parks now have the Yankees have put in one thing that most clubs don't have. A gigantic hall for stores and other shops. In looking at the side elevation plans for the new stadium, this area is very close, if not, twice as wide as it is in other parks. This gives more than enough room to install something like a mall within a stadium. The Yankees team will make up for the money being lost on not having over a hundred suites with this hall.

Also look at how its a single tier of suites. This is the same as many ballparks so they obviously opted to simply not include as many. I also remember reading something about there being close to 87 in the new stadium.

spiderico

04-03-2007, 08:32 AM

Even if they have fewer than other parks, they are going to charge A LOT more for their suites than other clubs and they will be all sold. The yankees can charge a premium already just for being the yankees, and by having fewer they keep the demand (ie cost) high. Also a of the other clubs don't have all of their suites sold out for the entire season. Some sell them on a game by game basis.

Yankees are already taking deposits from their biggest "clients".

The Thomas J.

04-03-2007, 08:09 PM

Wow- I still can't believe it is actually happening

Thanks for sharing the pictures

Karen

My thoughts exactly,

Anyone have any pics of the new Citifield out there?

nymdan

04-04-2007, 09:54 AM

My thoughts exactly,

Anyone have any pics of the new Citifield out there?

http://www.stadiumpage.com/ has a bunch.

Also I took some pictures over there this past weekend and put them up at http://community.webshots.com/user/citi_field/

Shotgun Shuba

04-04-2007, 05:13 PM

PeteU

04-04-2007, 05:25 PM

I don't understand all this grandstanding and gnashing of teeth. All this sentiment is well over 30 years too late. Yankee Stadium hasn't stood since the early 70's! While many wonderful moments have taken place in the new park, it's just that, a new park. It has no more historical place than Royals Stadium.

While the renovated version of the stadium may have well detracted from the pre-renovated version, the shell and much of the seating structure remain--it wasn't as though it was a total rebuild. So there's still a lot of history to claim from the place. Don't forget, Wrigley and Fenway have likewise had a lot of changes over the years--maybe not as extensive as Yankee, but nonetheless their 2000s version is far different than, say, the 1910s and 1920s version.

I think people would be a lot less upset if the new Yankee Stadium was actually architectually impresive beyond just the outer facade--maybe a return to the pre-renovation dimensions and features of the old stadium. But the main problem is, the new stadium lacks any character or charm on the inside. It looks exactly like U.S. Cellular Field and almost nothing like the House that Ruth Built.

jimmyjimjimz

04-10-2007, 08:45 AM

no one has any more new pictures?
:cry:

nymdan

04-10-2007, 09:12 AM

no one has any more new pictures?
:cry:

Check http://community.webshots.com/user/squidpix

That guy takes pictures every so often and posts them, the latest ones being from Opening Day.

bryanspellman

04-10-2007, 11:12 AM

Well we just got back from Yankee Stadium. I grew up in Flushing and my grandfather would take me on the 4 and we would go to Yankee games in the 70's. Last week we drove 12 hours from Indy to take my boy to Yankee stadium before it is gone. Our first game was rained out but we got tickets to Thursday night.

It was awesome. We sat up top (which I never did as a kid, my grandfather has great seats behind the dugout) behind home plate and had a great view of the game. My son was amazed (he's 14). We went as soon as the gates opened and watched BP and stood in RF to shag flies or have a fielder toss us a ball (never happened), we toured Monument Park and just soaked it in.

During the game my son looks down right field and says, that is where that guy broke Babe Ruth's record, some kid sat right here and watched Babe Ruth hit home runs and Yogi Berra and Thurman Munson both played right there (He is a catcher in Little League so knows the greats).

How can one say there is no history there because they changes some stuff in the 70's. The outfield my be shorter, but Mantle still knocked them out there and Joe D still ran those bases.....

jimmyjimjimz

04-10-2007, 12:13 PM

pauliedanger

04-10-2007, 12:28 PM

Hey guys, first post. And what a doozie of a thread.

First of all, I'm a baseball purist, (ie: everytime I hear "Wild Card hunt", I cry on the inside). So I'm all for keeping the current Yankee Stadium. It's a decent place to see a game. I haven't been there in probably a decade or so. But I remember it being a good place to see a game.

Personally, for whatever reason, I enjoyed Shea better. It gave me a more blue collar, heart warming feel. Can't really explain it. But it almost reminded me of being at a 1/4 mile local race track. Don't ask me what that means, but it's what the memory equates to.

Here are a couple things to keep in mind.
1. Hey, at least they're not building the retractable dome.
2. I really don't care what the outside of a stadium looks like. I worry about three things. How good is the home team, how comfortable are the seats on the third base side, and how much is a dog and a Coke?

Be glad you're not getting a Camden Yards clone. I live in Philly, and that's what we have. I'm tired of seeing new stadiums with asymmetrical dimensions, crazy wall heights, brick office buildings in the outfield.

But aren't you guys obsessing? I can appreciate the sight lines and distance concerns. But I'd be more worried about ticket prices. I go to more minor league games than Phillies games (not that there's much difference this year). And it's mostly because I can do the game, parking and food for the price of a single Phillies ticket.

Just as an aside. I'd be real curious to see a comparison to height and distance to home plate from the 'cheap seats' at NYS to the roof top seats at Wrigley. Just wondering how friendly the confines really are.

jp_nys

04-11-2007, 08:52 AM

Why are they using wood for the floor? What if someone really heavy walks into the stadium and the wood isn't strong enough to hold them up?

Actually the wood are platforms for the workers to work on. Once the cement is laid out on one floor, they remove them and move on to the next one, and then the next one, until they reach the top. Basically they work their way up. Oh yeah, lets not forget about the steel work that will reinforce everything.

PadreHomer

04-11-2007, 11:58 AM

Actually the wood are platforms for the workers to work on. Once the cement is laid out on one floor, they remove them and move on to the next one, and then the next one, until they reach the top. Basically they work their way up. Oh yeah, lets not forget about the steel work that will reinforce everything.
I thought the wood was used as forms for the concrete and once the concrete sets they remove the wood. Either way, its not like they are using wood in the structure, its steel reinforced concrete.

jimmyjimjimz

04-11-2007, 03:00 PM

Actually the wood are platforms for the workers to work on. Once the cement is laid out on one floor, they remove them and move on to the next one, and then the next one, until they reach the top. Basically they work their way up. Oh yeah, lets not forget about the steel work that will reinforce everything.

I thought the wood was used as forms for the concrete and once the concrete sets they remove the wood. Either way, its not like they are using wood in the structure, its steel reinforced concrete.

oh, ok. I just can't wait to go and see them build it. It just takes forever to take the train there from where I live. It takes like 3 hrs.

jp_nys

04-11-2007, 05:22 PM

I thought the wood was used as forms for the concrete and once the concrete sets they remove the wood. Either way, its not like they are using wood in the structure, its steel reinforced concrete.

yeah. they set the rebar and pour the cement on the wood, once dry they remove the wood.. but they do need to stand on it to work.

TJH1923

04-26-2007, 07:08 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Smirkman
It's because most fans (including myself) have the belief that the 1923 Yankee Stadium is 95% gone already thanks to the 1970's rebuilding. Only the shell exists as before and they even screwed that up by placing those ugly escalator ramps @ the entrances. The original facade, which was the signature of the park, was destroyed and recreated in concrete in the outfield. Ugggh.

I tired of hearing of how the Babe and Joe D etc. played on that field. They didn't as the field was lowered 6' or so. New Yankee Stadium's history is a facsimile of a great stadium at an historic location.

The outrage that you seek should have existed in 1974.

BTW - Great story & post. I had no idea, although the Yankees may have had more cash on hand if they hadn't bought all the Red Sox players.

I agree with this post. In my opinion, the renovation of the early '70's removed the look and feel of the original stadium. I had the pleasure of walking out of the runway to the stands and seeing all the wonderful array of colors that came into view in the "old" stadium, in particular, the majestic facade (frieze).. It was a great site and and a great moment that I still get when I am at a game at the "new" stadium.

With that said, I will concede that there has been an awful lot of history added since the re-opening of the stadium in '76. Do I wish they were building on the same site? Yes I do. Would I prefer a more classic design closer to the original stadium? Again, yes I would. Will I be sad to see the stadium torn down? You bet I will be.

I believe it is time for a new venue. The business of baseball has evolved to the point where this move is necessary to maintain the financial dominance the Yankee organization now enjoys. Just like it was necessary to get the stadium built in the '20's regardless of the obstacles that were encountered. The building of the original stadium was a business decision the same as today. True fans will always have sentimental memories of teams, stadiums and eras. The owners have always been in it for the money, whether it was to turn a profit or write off the losses against a more profitable business they owned. The last twenty years the players have joined the owners in the chase for the money. Combined, they have generated revenue streams that seem to keep going up. New, modern stadiums are an important part of the business model.

jrach_62

04-27-2007, 03:01 PM

What's wrong with you people? Get your heads out of your A$$! Of course there are great memories we all have of Yankee Stadium. I was in the bleachers the night of Game Six of the 77 series when Reggie hit three consecutive homers on three pitches and propelled the Yankee's the their first World Championship in 15 years,
but the old Stadium is a shell of itself! The Stadium is now a dilapidated, old, outdated, structure that now has the charm of American Idol's Simon Cowell! Few restrooms, small concession stands, no place to walk!
They can't bring the wrecking ball to it fast enough. The
only good thing I can say right now about Yankee Stadium is it ain't SHEA!

Knick9

04-27-2007, 04:49 PM

What's wrong with you people? Get your heads out of your A**! Of course there are great memories we all have of Yankee Stadium. I was in the bleachers the night of Game Six of the 77 series when Reggie hit three consecutive homers on three pitches and propelled the Yankee's the their first World Championship in 15 years,
but the old Stadium is a shell of itself! The Stadium is now a dilapidated, old, outdated, structure that now has the charm of American Idol's Simon Cowell! Few restrooms, small concession stands, no place to walk!
They can't bring the wrecking ball to it fast enough. The
only good thing I can say right now about Yankee Stadium is it ain't SHEA!

Yes, personally I am pretty serious about my opinions about Yankee Stadium II and no matter how hard you try to make the new stadium sound like the best thing since sliced bread, it will never come anywhere close to Yankee Stadium, unrenovated and renovated. Never. I guarantee that. Whatever is handed out, people call it extraordinary. It will be the biggest disapointment in stadium development, mark my words. HOK has been taking leaps back recently, and clearly they don't care because they don't want anything to do with supporting posts in the lower deck, and by pushing back the upper deck, they are missing the point badly and are really ruining the way some people look at a good ballpark.

nymdan

04-27-2007, 07:56 PM

The
only good thing I can say right now about Yankee Stadium is it ain't SHEA!
I think the concourses, bathrooms, concession stands, etc are worse at Yankee Stadium than they are at Shea.

jimmyjimjimz

04-28-2007, 07:54 PM

I think the concourses, bathrooms, concession stands, etc are worse at Yankee Stadium than they are at Shea.

didn't Shea Stadium ban alcoholic beverages?

mwb

04-29-2007, 12:20 AM

Hi everyone. I was looking at pictures of new Yankee Stadium & found this forum. I love baseball so I hope to stick around.

I made my only visit to Yankee Stadium two years ago. I thought it was a cool place. If I were a regular visitor, I guess I might feel differently.

Anyway, I was searching for (overhead) pictures of the neighborhood before construction began on the new stadium. I wanted to compare before & after pictures. I thought I'd seen some a year ago online but now I can't find them.

Thanks

nymdan

04-29-2007, 08:10 AM

didn't Shea Stadium ban alcoholic beverages?

No, they didn't.

jimmyjimjimz

04-29-2007, 08:36 PM

No, they didn't.

I heard they did cause some drunk fat dude fell on an old lady on opening day and he killed her

Elvis

04-29-2007, 09:41 PM

I heard they did cause some drunk fat dude fell on an old lady on opening day and he killed her

He didn't kill her, he just broke her back. There's a thread on it somewhere in CE.

TJH1923

04-30-2007, 04:35 PM

I went to the Yankee Game yesterday and I took some updated photos of the construction progress.

TJH1923

04-30-2007, 04:36 PM

It is getting more difficult to take photos from the "L" platform.

TJH1923

04-30-2007, 04:37 PM

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

TJH1923

04-30-2007, 04:39 PM

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

TJH1923

04-30-2007, 04:41 PM

.................................................. .................................................. .

TJH1923

04-30-2007, 04:43 PM

I'll post some more later.............

Elysian Fields

05-01-2007, 12:02 AM

Elvis

05-01-2007, 01:02 AM

Ah... this isn't HOKs fault. It is Mr. Steinbrenner's fault. HOK can build anything. That's not what they get paid to do. The get paid to build what someone wants.

George Steinbrenner wants this abomination built, not HOK.

I don't know who to blame. I'm sure George himself didn't engineer the design of the new disaster, but the buck stops with him. HOK has at least collaberated on one of the best-designed ballparks recently built, PETCO, with its soaring cantilever decks. But HOK didn't design PETCO, they only finalized what the other designers gave them. When left to design the whole project themselves, as they did here, you get a flaming piece of crap.

TJH1923

05-01-2007, 09:30 AM

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TJH1923

05-01-2007, 09:31 AM

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ ++++

TJH1923

05-01-2007, 09:32 AM

#################################################

Elysian Fields

05-01-2007, 09:36 AM

I don't know who to blame. I'm sure George himself didn't engineer the design of the new disaster, but the buck stops with him. HOK has at least collaberated on one of the best-designed ballparks recently built, PETCO, with its soaring cantilever decks. But HOK didn't design PETCO, they only finalized what the other designers gave them. When left to design the whole project themselves, as they did here, you get a flaming piece of crap.

All you have to do is go and look at all the stadiums that HOK has built or collaborated on... and not just those in America. They've built some radical structures. Some of them are just okay, and some are wonderful. Some of this has to do with the amount of money the person had to give them, and some of it had to do with what the owner wanted in the stadium.

George Steinbrenner has told them to build a modern version of the current Yankee stadium (bland) and that is what they're giving him.

mrow1927

05-01-2007, 12:53 PM

All you have to do is go and look at all the stadiums that HOK has built or collaborated on... and not just those in America. They've built some radical structures. Some of them are just okay, and some are wonderful. Some of this has to do with the amount of money the person had to give them, and some of it had to do with what the owner wanted in the stadium.

George Steinbrenner has told them to build a modern version of the current Yankee stadium (bland) and that is what they're giving him.

I agree and disagree. I agree that some of the stadiums they built are very nice and some are so-so. But they are not building the current YS because of the renovations in the 70s. They are replicating the original YS. You can keep it modern by using elements of the past. The original Yankee Stadium to the best of my knowlege and the current one has more seats in the upper deck than in the lower deck. Keep that same seating pattern, push the fences back, not as drastic but closer to dimensions of the 70s renovation and put the three monuments and the flag pole back in their original spot in centerfield in play.

They're keeping the same dimensions of this stadium which is a drastic change even of the original dimensions from the renovation. They are also reversing the seating bowl, 20,000 on top and 30,000 on the bottom which is typical HOK but is very wrong for YS. The only things that they're bringing back is the look of the outside and the frieze. That is it.

Any good architect will go outside his or her comfort zone to build a memorable building whether its an office building or a sports arena. Unfortunately I haven't seen HOK stray from their comfort zone yet. Yankee Stadium would have been the best stadium for them to really break out their zone and build something great. Hopefully the real product will look much better than the artist renderings.

I bet when its finally built most of us will like it right away or grow to like it over time.

We'll see.

IPO

05-01-2007, 01:15 PM

Really sad to see this happening and to me only because the Mets got a new stadium so Steinbrenner has to have one also. I know he talked renovation a few times in the past.

Yankees Stadium is a very nice ballpark today, you don't go in there and feel like your in a place that's falling apart or outdated like Shea.

Considering Edison Field (Angles Stadium built in the 60's) has undergone many transformations over the years including enclosing the entire stadium at one time and now looks like a modern ballpark like the newest ones why was this necessary? Why couldn't Shea and Yankee stadium have done likewise, Anaheim did not even relocate to have such a massive renovation as the Yankees did in the 70's. They renovated in sections and kept playing.

I don't understand why they could not make the middle deck mostly luxury boxes, raise the outfield bleachers and incorporate restaurants and raise it higher while keeping the facade or enclose the park entirely? Why couldn't they just put light towers around the park again and put the facade back where the lights are now.

This seems completely un-necessary, even forgetting any sentimental aspect for a moment, granted 1923 YS is gone and this is the 76 version but even today it's still a modern ballpark, things can always be done to expand corridors inside.

b1011r

05-02-2007, 01:52 AM

Economically it is no longer worth it to renovate the current yankee stadium. Studies showed that it would cost nearly the same to renovate YS as it would to build a new one. Secondly I would not want the Yankees playing in Shea like they did the last time its just not something that seems right.
Secondly the Yankees have been very vague about the design of the interior parts of the stadium in terms of the "great hall" and the concourses. We can not pass judgement on them until we've actually seen them. It may be like something we haven't seen.
Thirdly, the latest artist impressions seem to me like they were thrown together on a computer program and not much detail or effort was put into them. Yes we see the general layout of things but they do seem hurried to me.
Also what did you expect them to design. Honeslty if a revolutionary risk taking stadium had been designed there would be a much larger outcry from the public. The general concensus was to design something with features of the original stadium. The fact that there isnt brick being used makes me happy because at least its not just another camden yards cookie cutter.
Do i wish the decks were tiered? Of course. Do i wish the dimensions were closer to the prerenovation designs? yes But baseball has become an offense game and home runs is what puts people in the seats. If center field was 430 feet offense would drop drastically.
I wish there we're some new renderings that were either a computer animated flythrough or more detailed versions of the orginal hand drawn artist impressions. That may give us a better idea than these rushed detailess computer drawings. We'll see though opening day 2009 I know ill be there to get a first look at this place.

Elvis

05-02-2007, 12:14 PM

Secondly the Yankees have been very vague about the design of the interior parts of the stadium in terms of the "great hall" and the concourses. We can not pass judgement on them until we've actually seen them.

Ah yes, the concourses might make up for it.

Yes we see the general layout of things...

The general layout is enough for me.

Also what did you expect them to design.

This haas been disgused and explained ad nauseum.

Honeslty if a revolutionary risk taking stadium had been designed there would be a much larger outcry from the public.

Camden Yards was revolutionary. Perhaps you're right - that was a disaster.

The general concensus was to design something with features of the original stadium.

And it turned out like slapping a 1970 Dodge Challenger RT grille and taillights on a 1999 Hyndai Excel body.

The fact that there isnt brick being used makes me happy because at least its not just another camden yards cookie cutter.

Camden Yards was at least a revolutionary design and concept. This piece of crap is a tired design with some fake facades slapped on here and there. It's a mutated turd.

Do i wish the decks were tiered? Of course. Do i wish the dimensions were closer to the prerenovation designs? yes

Oh, then you DO agree. Oh well. At least it will have pretty concourses where you can buy a $14 Michelob in a Yankee souvenier cup.

akaminimattm07

05-04-2007, 12:06 PM

Its not replacing history its putting a new spin on history in the making they're leaving the old yankee stadium there not knocking it down.

http://thefeed.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/yankeestadium.jpg

sportslovingwife

05-04-2007, 08:46 PM

I still can't believe the Yankees are building a new stadium. It breaks my heart. But this summer I will be doing a tour of the current Yankee stadium and will take tons of pics and will post them here for you to see.

I have to see Thurman Munson's locker in its original place. Anyone know what will happen with the new stadium- will Munson's locker be moved to there? Or will it be forgotten?

Elysian Fields

05-11-2007, 08:38 PM

I agree and disagree. I agree that some of the stadiums they built are very nice and some are so-so. But they are not building the current YS because of the renovations in the 70s. They are replicating the original YS. You can keep it modern by using elements of the past. The original Yankee Stadium to the best of my knowlege and the current one has more seats in the upper deck than in the lower deck. Keep that same seating pattern, push the fences back, not as drastic but closer to dimensions of the 70s renovation and put the three monuments and the flag pole back in their original spot in centerfield in play.

They're keeping the same dimensions of this stadium which is a drastic change even of the original dimensions from the renovation. They are also reversing the seating bowl, 20,000 on top and 30,000 on the bottom which is typical HOK but is very wrong for YS. The only things that they're bringing back is the look of the outside and the frieze. That is it.

Any good architect will go outside his or her comfort zone to build a memorable building whether its an office building or a sports arena. Unfortunately I haven't seen HOK stray from their comfort zone yet. Yankee Stadium would have been the best stadium for them to really break out their zone and build something great. Hopefully the real product will look much better than the artist renderings.

I bet when its finally built most of us will like it right away or grow to like it over time.

We'll see.

It isn't up to them to break out of their "comfort zone". Steinbrenner is paying to build what he wants, not what they would like to do. Architects simply do not have free reign in all of their buildings. People actually pay architects to build what they want.

Money is another issue.

mrow1927

05-12-2007, 04:15 PM

It isn't up to them to break out of their "comfort zone". Steinbrenner is paying to build what he wants, not what they would like to do. Architects simply do not have free reign in all of their buildings. People actually pay architects to build what they want.

Money is another issue.

I know Steinbrenner has the final say of his stadium, but HOK had an influence on what it should look like. Steinbrenner could have told them to keep the seating bowl the same while adding the luxury boxes, maybe change the dimensions to more replicate the stadium from after the renovation before they scaled it do to current. Something.

Old YS and current YS always had the upper deck hang over the loge seating, and now that will soon be gone. Now the upper deck will be further away from the field (to promote better sight lines: yeah right:rolleyes: ) and almost cut in half and grafted to the lower deck. Typical HOK design. May work on other stadiums but not Yankee Stadium.

He probably like the other stadiums that they did and and told them to make it look like the old stadium and they designed it convincing him its the best way and he accepted it.

The outside wall and the frieze were two of the great aspects of YS but also seating arangement. The upper deck is one of the best places to watch a game at YS. Your right on top of the action. HOK could have gone out of the confrort zone and keep the bowl the same while having the luxury boxes and amenities Steinbrenner wanted. They're just staying true to their bland selves.

Knick9

05-12-2007, 04:43 PM

The general layout is enough for me.

Camden Yards was at least a revolutionary design and concept. This piece of crap is a tired design with some fake facades slapped on here and there. It's a mutated turd.

:rofl: That is by far the funniest reply I've heard from you yet, Elvis.

Seriously, adding onto this, Camden Yards at the time (early 1990's) was revolutionary. Today is 2007, and it's not revolutionary anymore, it's a washed up liability, HOK's methods of design. At the time, people may have absolutely loved HOK's first new ballparks. Today, some people just cringe. What else is there to offer if it's the same idea taken from other HOK-made ballparks?, and if it's the same tiered and un-centilevered decks? I'm just going to say that you can't like it just because of the name that this ballpark bares or by what the outsides of the stadium looks like. Overall, there are plenty of HOK ballparks that lack identity and creativity, especially inside the park with the seating formation.

HOK is like a very flawed pitcher. The pitcher shows his fastball, but hardly ever shows his curveball or changeup. Pitchers who do this get in trouble...just trying to throw an analogy out there.

nymdan

05-12-2007, 05:57 PM

Seriously, adding onto this, Camden Yards at the time (early 1990's) was revolutionary. Today is 2007, and it's not revolutionary anymore, it's a washed up liability, HOK's methods of design. At the time, people may have absolutely loved HOK's first new ballparks. Today, some people just cringe. What else is there to offer if it's the same idea taken from other HOK-made ballparks?, and if it's the same tiered and un-centilevered decks? I'm just going to say that you can't like it just because of the name that this ballpark bares or by what the outsides of the stadium looks like. Overall, there are plenty of HOK ballparks that lack identity and creativity, especially inside the park with the seating formation.

HOK is like a very flawed pitcher. The pitcher shows his fastball, but hardly ever shows his curveball or changeup. Pitchers who do this get in trouble...just trying to throw an analogy out there.

Let me ask this though... HOK obviously has a very bad rap over here, but do you think the views here are the same as the general public?

I think the way the public views these ballparks depends on the park they're replacing. Tiger Stadium and Comiskey were beloved ballparks with cantilevered decks, and when Comerica and new Comiskey were opened, many people were unhappy with the new parks. But I'm sure there are very few Phillies fans who have complaints about Citizens Bank Park after going to games at the Vet. I've been to four games there, and while it's not very unique, it's a nice place to watch a game.

Same thing with Citi Field... I'm thrilled that in two years I'll be watching games in a place where I can go to the bathroom between innings and not miss a pitch, and I won't get stuck in pedestrian traffic jams walking around the park. It's defintiely not unique or revolutionary, but it's sure an upgrade over Shea.

I'm not defending HOK's lack of inspiring designs, etc... I'm just saying that these parks are definitely an improvement over the previous generation of cookie cutters and the general public, myself included, is generally happy watching games in them.

Sean O

05-12-2007, 07:01 PM

I'm not defending HOK's lack of inspiring designs, etc... I'm just saying that these parks are definitely an improvement over the previous generation of cookie cutters and the general public, myself included, is generally happy watching games in them.

That's fine, but it's also the difference between a park that gets bulldozed in 30 years, and a park that will last 50,60, even 80 years after construction. Do you really think anyone will fight for PETCO in 2040 when people start saying it looks run down?

One of the great shames is not only the public financing in building all these parks, but the very fact that the shoddy design will require more public financing in just a few decades to replace. In the 60s cities built the exact same type of design ad infinitum, requiring a tremendous outlay of cash in the 90s-present. If we simply build something worth building, something unique and beautiful, it becomes a part of the city, instead of a vulgar temporary pockmark on the land.

The parks that have less to do with their surroundings and aren't unique will be the first razed.

nymdan

05-12-2007, 08:18 PM

That's fine, but it's also the difference between a park that gets bulldozed in 30 years, and a park that will last 50,60, even 80 years after construction. Do you really think anyone will fight for PETCO in 2040 when people start saying it looks run down?

Now that's an interesting thought. What parks that are around now do you think will still be around in 50, 60, 70 or 80 years?

Elvis

05-12-2007, 11:48 PM

Let me ask this though... HOK obviously has a very bad rap over here, but do you think the views here are the same as the general public?

The "general public" would've been perfectly satisfied with HOK's original plan for Camden Yards, which was a sister design of their reecently designed New Comiskey Park. Instead, Eli Jacobs insisted on a revolutionary design--and designing much of the park himself. Pretty much everything that was great about Camden Yards was designed in spite of HOK's lack of vision.

So yes, the general public really doesn't give a rip about having a truly great and unique "landmark" ballpark.

Same old crap from HOK is "good enough".

PeteU

05-13-2007, 09:01 AM

Now that's an interesting thought. What parks that are around now do you think will still be around in 50, 60, 70 or 80 years?

I think Dodger Stadium will probably be around for a long time. I'd like to say Kaufmann Stadium would last as an example of a bright spot in the otherwise awful "cookie cutter" era of the 1960s-1970s, but who knows. Oriole Park at Camden Yards for the fact it was the first and the original of the new breed of parks in the 1990s, and the originality it used in incorporating the warehouse into the park. Maybe "Giants" Park (or whatever corporate name it might have) and PNC Park as two other "retro" standouts.

And so long as the structural integrity is maintained, maybe Wrigley and Fenway, given that the longer they are around, the greater the "legend" and historical value of the two places increases and the less willing people are willing to part with them.

Then again, Yankee Stadium, in both its pre- and post-renovation forms, contains arguably the most history of any ballpark in baseball history, and that didn't stop them from planning to knock the place down and replace it with a U.S. Cellular Field look-alike.

YankeeHater

05-13-2007, 08:34 PM

PeteU

05-14-2007, 05:46 PM

I don't have any talent that I know of to design a stadium, nor do I pretend to. I will say that HOK has this problem that you all have discussed. it is called repetition, repetitiveness, cookie cutter, copy cat, duplicate, any other name that applies.

It sucks.

Having said that, I am glad that Yankee Stadium is gonna be gone. True that I am from the Bronx originally (Co Op city) and live in Texas now, but as a Mets fan I am glad not only to see Yankee Stadium go, but that awful Shea Stadium as well.

My dislike for Shea involves tha fact that it has no personality. The park is too fair. Fenway on the other hand has the personality of the Monster.

My dislike for Yankee Stadium is connected to the Mets. I get tired of the quotes applied to that place: "the house that Ruth built" for one. We don't like hearing that. We can't hang our hats on "the house that Agee built", or "the house that Zimmer built".

Now this is all a bit silly I admit, but both teams need a ball park. I am sure we will all forget everything once we are in our cozy new park.

As an Orioles fan, I share in your disgust for the Yankees, moreso for their loud and obnoxious fanbase than anything else (well, that and the member of their pitching staff who wears Number 35 on his back...)

But as a pure baseball fan, I cannot deny Yankee Stadium is unparalleled in terms of baseball history. Watch any old baseball newsreel and you are bound to see the place in there somewhere. And it truly is the House that Ruth Built (even if the man himself was a native Baltimorian :) ).

So despite the names George Steinbrenner and Jeffrey Maier, and that sick feeling whenever some schlub starts barking out "Let's Go Yankees" or blabbers on about 24 world series or something like that, I will nonetheless shed a good tear for baseball's sake when the wrecking ball swings on the place.

COLTS7

05-17-2007, 09:20 PM

Go out on the web and pull in some overhead pics of the “Current Yankee Stadium” and US Cellular and if your honest you’ll see in fact that US Cellular is similar to the “Current Yankee Stadium”. Also view some empty stadium pic’s from behind home plate of the current Yankee Stadium and US Cellular and you’ll notice similarities. So why is it so outrageous to see similarities between the New Yankee Stadium and the Cell when in fact the Current Yankee Stadium and the Cell have similarities?

Secondly you people who carry on about the great upper deck seating at Yankee Stadium and how the new stadium will take away the so called great low cost seating the current Yankee Stadium offers need to get a grip. Currently the Tier MVP Boxes are $60 to $65, and all other Tier boxes are $40 to $42. I don’t think too many families of four are shelling out the cash for these seats. All other tier seating runs about $18 to $20 a shot and those seats stink since they are so steep you feel like your going to fall out of the upper deck, not to mention how narrow the rows are to walk up to your seats. I’ve been to Camden Yards in Baltimore and the upper deck seating there which is equivalent to the $18 to $20 tier seating at Yankee stadium is far better. In fact there is no comparison.

Those (average fan) $40, $42, $60, and $65 Tier box seats you are all crying about are being moved a full level down at the new stadium. With 30,000 seats in the lower bowl and 20,000 in the upper bowl; the exact opposite of how it is now. As for the current $18 to $20 tier seating it will be greatly improved in the new stadium since it will be no where near as steep or cramped as the current stadium is.

Lastly the outside of this new stadium which will incorporate brown limestone and granite is going to blow away the old stadium which was concrete and is now concrete painted with thick gray paint, thanks to the butcher job done during the 74-75 renovation.

Elvis

05-18-2007, 01:44 AM

RichardLillard1

05-18-2007, 03:35 AM

What fascinates me is that this argument keeps coming up. Yes the MODERNIZED Yankee Stadium has a lot of aspects that many stadiums to come from the mid 70's to early 90's have or had.

The main difference is sightlines.

Just as Elvis said we are more interested in being on top of the action than anything like price. This new stadium wouldn't be near as much of a slap in the face were it not for the fact that the seating arrangement is the same tired design that has been in too many HOK stadiums in the past.

You referenced US Cellular Field. One thing to think about there is that stadium used to have the ultra high, steep deck that Yankee Stadium somewhat has at present. In looking at side elevations of both modern stadiums and Yankee Stadium the deck is only about 90% as steep as most modern stadiums. Also keep in mind that US Cell had quite a few rows stripped out of that ultra steep upper deck because there were too many complaints about said seating area. Also if you do look at overhead shots of both stadiums as I did on Google Earth just a short time ago you will see how much further everything is from the field. Also in looking at the side elevations again you will see that even with the upper rows stripped off of US Cell the stadium is much higher than Yankee Stadium.

Then there is the biggest beef that I know Elvis and I share. Above all we are upset about the destruction of a true piece of American history. People claim that when the stadium was modernized in the 70's that the true building and its history was lost. The problem with this is that if you go and look at the builders plans from the 70's modernization (a few are even posted on this site) you can see that more than 75% of the structure that was built from 1922 to 1946 (the stadium's last major refit with modifications to the structure itself) remain to this day. Wouldn't you say that a few coats of paint and some additional material don't count in making it a different place altogether? And don't give me any of that lowering the playing field crap its still the same rotunda that the Babe's coffin sat in so that the fans could pay their respects. This is just one instance to name quite a few.

The Roman Colosseum which is probably Yankee Stadium's only rival as far as sporting history (meaning the sport it was built for) goes, does not have its original floor but rather a modern one and that does not stop people from embracing the history behind the building. While on the subject of the Colosseum we can look at that fact that even though the building is no longer used for sports it is still a respected landmark and probably only 50% of the original structure remains there.

The most insulting part of this whole ordeal is the lack of respect to the history of our young country. What type of example does it set for generations to come if we go around destroying our past? It is no wonder to me sometimes that our nation is 44th in education when we can't even keep around a physical example of our history. Its not just baseball there have been many many other things there. Papal visits, Jehovah's Whitnesses, Billy Graham and football are some things that happened here without mentioning baseball. Then when you bring the sport it was built for into the eqation you can look at things that shaped out country through its pastime. Just stop and think about how things can be explained through something like baseball.

The fact that the new stadium will be a $1 billion knock off is all the more kick in the face.

The fact of the matter is that it is coming and we can't do anything to stop it. We can only find solice in the fact that we hope some of the Stadium will remain as a landmark to the once mighty cathedral of American history.

TJH1923

05-18-2007, 07:28 AM

People claim that when the stadium was modernized in the 70's that the true building and its history was lost. The problem with this is that if you go and look at the builders plans from the 70's modernization (a few are even posted on this site) you can see that more than 75% of the structure that was built from 1922 to 1946 (the stadium's last major refit with modifications to the structure itself) remain to this day. Wouldn't you say that a few coats of paint and some additional material don't count in making it a different place altogether?

Richard, I enjoy reading you insights and opinions regarding Yankee Stadium. I believe you said in an earlier post that you were in your twenties. I admire your passion for the history of baseball and our country. I think many of the younger generation (damn I must be getting old:ughh ) ignore a lot of our heritage. There is no doubt that the Old Stadium and the Renovated Stadium have had some great history take place there.
I still believe that the renovation desecrated the baseball cathedral. Arguments are valid for cramped seating, narrow aisles and concourses etc. Considering Steinbrenner has been threatening to move the Yankees out of the Bronx since he purchased the team, I think it is amazing that this type of project is underway for that area of the Bronx. Remember that the neighborhood surrounding the stadium was burning during the 70's and 80's. Crime was out of control and to this day, the sh%t hits the fan in the surrounding area. It is kind of like a nice lawn, if you don't mow the lawn and put fertilizer down on it, the weeds just under the surface will eventually sprout and ruin the grass. The threats of moving to New Jersey and then to the west side were constant until he realized that his argument did not hold water and the Yankees and the Bronx were synonymous.

COLTS7

05-18-2007, 08:30 AM

“Get a grip yourself and stop making things up. No one said anything about the "great low cost seating" in the upper deck. Good way to attempt to make a point by claiming things that don't exist. Great sightlines from the upper deck is what is being lost. Who said anything about cost?"

Great sightlines, are you kidding? Sure if your in the first ten rows after that your seating on a frickin cliff. I'll be willing to bet my house most of you guys so pissed about the new stadium never set foot in the "real Yankee" stadium pre 1976. I'm 52 and was in the old stadium countless times. They destroyed the stadium during the renovation of 74-75. Don’t give me this crap how 65% or whatever you’re crying about still exists. The stadium is gone. I can’t stand what they did to the stadium. They completely screwed up the outside, the roof, the frieze, the scoreboards, etc. Not to mention lowering the playing field about 8 feet. The current stadium looks NOTHING like the old Yankee Stadium.

The seats your crying about will be one level lower so get a grip, since more of the seating will be in the lower bowl than it is now. The sightlines will be much better in the new stadium and anyone setting in the leftfield bleaches wont be sitting 600 feet from home plate. I’ve been to many of the new parks (Baltimore, San Fan, Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta) and the current Yankee stadium cant measure up to any of them.

Sean O

05-18-2007, 08:55 AM

The seats your crying about will be one level lower so get a grip, since more of the seating will be in the lower bowl than it is now. The sightlines will be much better in the new stadium and anyone setting in the leftfield bleaches wont be sitting 600 feet from home plate. I’ve been to many of the new parks (Baltimore, San Fan, Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta) and the current Yankee stadium cant measure up to any of them.

Wow, someone needs some Prozac. Relax dude, we're just having a conversation.

From going to many games at US Cell, Yankee Stadium's upper deck was far closer to the action. Same goes for Camden or CBP or any park, because nothing is as close as Yankee Stadium's upper deck. I have no love for that building, but I do lament HoK's inability to canterlever their seating sections for the benefit of the crowd. New Busch seems to be the only one that tries, but that place is otherwise a complete design disaster.

Relax, don't rip on people because you disagree with them. I'd expect that from someone 40 years younger, not from a 52 year old.

spiderico

05-18-2007, 12:01 PM

Great sightlines, are you kidding? Sure if your in the first ten rows after that your seating on a frickin cliff. I'll be willing to bet my house most of you guys so pissed about the new stadium never set foot in the "real Yankee" stadium pre 1976. I'm 52 and was in the old stadium countless times.

Then you must have hated the upper deck of the original stadium, since ITS THE SAME THING. Other than the additional 15 rows on top, the upper deck is all original. Same grade of steepness,same hight, same amount of overhang. You can still see where the old aisle/walkway was. The reason for the rail that currently runs all around the upper deck in front of row C is because that used to be the walkway. All they did was take the poles out. And the grade doesn't change as you go up. It's a straight line from front row to last. So I don't understand the "cliff" comment after the first 10 rows.

They destroyed the stadium during the renovation of 74-75. Don’t give me this crap how 65% or whatever you’re crying about still exists. The stadium is gone. I can’t stand what they did to the stadium. They completely screwed up the outside, the roof, the frieze, the scoreboards, etc. Not to mention lowering the playing field about 8 feet. The current stadium looks NOTHING like the old Yankee Stadium.

I've never been to old stadium and I'm not trying to say the new and old look exactly the same. And you have every right to not like what they did with the renovations. I would probably would agree if I was lucky enough to be at the original. But it's still Yankee Stadium. It's not gone. Cosmetically its different. And the extent of how different can be argued all day, but it is still Yankee Stadium.

Like RichardLillard1 said, the halls you walk around in, the gates that you enter, the tunnels that you walk through are Yankee Stadium. A lot of the history is buried, but its there. When I get a chance I'll post some pictures I took that show a lot of details from the old place that are still visible. I'm sure the White House is unrecognizable in certain aspects compared to 150 years ago, but it's still the white house.

The seats your crying about will be one level lower so get a grip, since more of the seating will be in the lower bowl than it is now. The sightlines will be much better in the new stadium and anyone setting in the leftfield bleaches wont be sitting 600 feet from home plate. I’ve been to many of the new parks (Baltimore, San Fan, Philly, Pittsburgh, Atlanta) and the current Yankee stadium cant measure up to any of them.

If you're comparing the sightlines of YS to the new stadiums, again, you must have not liked the sightlines of the old stadium since the seating decks and sightlines, for the most part, have not changed. And your theory of seats being moved down one level is completely wrong. Not counting suites, there are still going to be 3 main seating levels (field, club, upper divided into 2 sections). Although more seats will be in the field level, prices all around will be insane. Trust me when I say that seats behind the plate, in the front of the upper deck (currently Tier Box MVP seats) will be a minimum of $100 per game in the new place. And the kicker is that the new seats will be approx the same hight as they are now, but about 75 FEET STRAIGHT BACK. I have blueprints of the current stadium and I've seen detailed cross section plans of the new one. I'm not making these numbers up.

People (not companies) will be forced to downgrade location due to price (ie thoses paying $100 now on the field level will be paying $100 higher up; those paying $50 for tier boxes now, will be in the back of the new upper deck; and those with $20 upper reserves now...will be watching from home)

I don't want one, but I could live with the thought of a new stadium if they were making something special. But from what I've seen, there is nothing special about it.

abnsox

05-18-2007, 04:07 PM

As an avid Sox fan I took my 8 yr old son to Yankee stadium for a Sox road game this past month and it was our first time there.I couldnt believe how big the differance between Fenway Park and Yankee stadium was. I talked with many fans there and my son was in awe of all the history and great players that have played there ,the championships won and lost (mostly won i'm sorry to say)and I thought of my sons first game at Fenway Park (5/07/04)and I told him of my first time at Fenway Park with my dad (6/1/73)and of him telling me of his first time at Fenway Park with his dad((7/?/54). It saddens me to think of all the memories Yankee fans wont be able to share with their sons in the same tradition as their fathers did.I know ive only been to one game in Yankee stadium but I know what is being lost with the demolition of the stadium, the true essence of baseball.Goodbye new friend not just Yankee fans will miss you....

TJH1923

05-19-2007, 07:37 AM

As an avid Sox fan I took my 8 yr old son to Yankee stadium for a Sox road game this past month and it was our first time there.I couldn't believe how big the difference between Fenway Park and Yankee stadium was. I talked with many fans there and my son was in awe of all the history and great players that have played there ,the championships won and lost (mostly won I'm sorry to say)and I thought of my sons first game at Fenway Park (5/07/04)and I told him of my first time at Fenway Park with my dad (6/1/73)and of him telling me of his first time at Fenway Park with his dad((7/?/54). It saddens me to think of all the memories Yankee fans wont be able to share with their sons in the same tradition as their fathers did.I know I've only been to one game in Yankee stadium but I know what is being lost with the demolition of the stadium, the true essence of baseball.Goodbye new friend not just Yankee fans will miss you....

Just an observation......I consider myself a huge Yankee fan and I am a fan of both versions of the Stadium and I totally agree with everyone, including myself, who will be sad to see the Stadium go. But, is it just remotely possible that a new era of history will be seen at the new stadium? Won't fathers be able to share their experiences of the old stadium with their kids. Those kids that go to the new stadium for the first time will be able to share their experience with their own kids some day. It will still be an awesome sight coming out of the runway and seeing the field and the new stadium for the first time. I'm sure I will get a similar feeling that I've gotten walking out of the runway in the old stadium and the renovated stadium. True fans have the rest of this year and all of next year to soak up all the history and tradition of Yankee Stadium before it becomes a shell of itself.

rjyankees23

05-19-2007, 06:40 PM

I've been a Yankee fan since the day I was born. I have many fond memories at Yankee Stadium including my very first Yankee game back in 84 and suffering through many bad teams through the early 90's. My greatest memories include Jim Abbots No Hitter, the Leyritz HR game in the 95 wild card game (Mattingly's last game at the Stadium), and seeing Mattingly's # retired. I have mixed emotions about the new stadium, but understand that the game of baseball at the major league level is nothing more then a business. Just look at the money they are throwing at Clemens and all the rest of the overpaid players on the team. As much as I hate to see them leave beyond the mystic and history of Yankee Stadium behind, we can at least be proud that they haven't sold the naming rights to the new Stadium like the Mets and CitiPark. I hope to god that the true Yankee Stadium is never torn down, so I can one day take my children there and talk about all the fond memories that I have of the greatest stadium ever. I fear that ticket prices at the new stadium will be even worse then they are now and that I will not be able to afford to take my children to a ballgame at the new stadium. Keep the pics coming of the new stadium coming and for the love of god George don't sell out and please leave Yankees Stadium alone.

RichardLillard1

05-20-2007, 01:48 PM

Richard, I enjoy reading you insights and opinions regarding Yankee Stadium. I believe you said in an earlier post that you were in your twenties. I admire your passion for the history of baseball and our country. I think many of the younger generation (damn I must be getting old:ughh ) ignore a lot of our heritage. There is no doubt that the Old Stadium and the Renovated Stadium have had some great history take place there.
I still believe that the renovation desecrated the baseball cathedral. Arguments are valid for cramped seating, narrow aisles and concourses etc. Considering Steinbrenner has been threatening to move the Yankees out of the Bronx since he purchased the team, I think it is amazing that this type of project is underway for that area of the Bronx. Remember that the neighborhood surrounding the stadium was burning during the 70's and 80's. Crime was out of control and to this day, the sh%t hits the fan in the surrounding area. It is kind of like a nice lawn, if you don't mow the lawn and put fertilizer down on it, the weeds just under the surface will eventually sprout and ruin the grass. The threats of moving to New Jersey and then to the west side were constant until he realized that his argument did not hold water and the Yankees and the Bronx were synonymous.

Thanks for the kind words. I'm actually 22. I've been fascinated with history in all realms of the subject since I was very young, first getting into the history of things like the Yankee ballclub and the times during the Yankee's rise to power (the Roaring 20's) when I was in 8th grade.

I feel so strongly against the demolition of the stadium for two main reasons. It is the same location Mickey Mantle went to work at each day. The same place the Bambino changed the game with his long ball. And the only difference is that there is some new cosmetics that have been applied. I view it this way, if I take a classic '67 Mustang fastback and put a GT500 body kit on it it is still a '67 Mustang there, just some added parts. Same goes for if I put new interior in that car. It is still the same car that was made in Dearborn, Michigan in the later half of the 60's but there is a few cosmetic changes.

The second reason is because of how much the fans are getting ripped off with this new Stadium. Did you know Yankee Stadium was quoted at $250 million to modernize her again? And I can only assume that this would have meant bringing back some of the more traditional elements given that its the style once again to do so.

So for a quarter of the price of this new knock-off we could have had a glorius Yankee Stadium that stood as even more of a symbol of New York than it does right now. I've heard people say that New York is all about modern and why should the Yankees be the exception. However I beg to differ.

Take a look at places like Hell's Kitchen, the Empire State and Chrystler Buildings and places like the South End Docks. These are all places that have stood the test of time while adapting to remain current. Yankee Stadium was hopelessly outdated more than anything else in the 70's. So she was modernized to be a state of the art building that happened to have been built in the 20's. Another modernization would have done the same. If NYC is all about modern then why are so many buildings there close to 80? Even the pier that the RMS Titanic was supposed to dock at in 1912 still stands and serves the Queen Mary 2.

You can't tell me that Yankee Stadium needed to be destroyed because its outdated when the work to make it a current stadium could have been paid for by the Yankees alone rather than borrowing a load of money from the city of New York which will cause raises in some taxes.

At the same time I am accepting that there is nothing that can be done about it now short of a miracle. Too much dammage has already been done to stop from saving a true landmark.

Richard

RichardLillard1

05-20-2007, 02:23 PM

Elvis

05-20-2007, 11:08 PM

I couldn't think of a thread to post this in without starting a new one, but this one will dod just fine.

I was just checking out the new Nationals design. Not bad, looks like they took PETCO and threw some PNC and GABP in together to give us their latest and greatest. All in all this won't be an overly bad park, I have seen better from them (I love PNC and PETCO, probably the best work they have ever done) but this will be a nice park.

Also posted was a side elevation. It is exactly the same as PETCO, no change even the framing is the same.

http://www.maurybrown.com/?p=75
http://www.maurybrown.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/crosssection.jpg

Now this is the part where I get really upset. That side elevation is the closest to Yankee Stadium that I have seen on any modern stadiums. So why give DC this design and give the Yankee's $1 billion stadium some tired design pushing everyone back? If they had gone with thiss elevation I wouldn't be near as angry over the new ballpark than the old one.

While I am on the subject, at what point did baseball our beloved sport become the most commercialized even in the sporting world? Why do we need such huge concourses? Whatever happened to just going for the game and a brautwurst and beer instead of going to see the video games, ice cream and McDonald's we have now?

I'll cool off in due time I'm sure but as of right now this is what infuriates me. People wonder why we have ADD, its because there is so much crap that corporations are trying to get us to take part in. I want to go to a baseball stadium not an amusement park.

Richard

Richard, my friend...I'm worried about ya, Man. You gotta lay off that cough syrup. :laugh

This new Washington ballpark is in my opinion the worst of the worst in recent designs...dreadfull...horrid...and I'll tell you why, three reasons:

Number one is the deck cantilever, or should I say, the utter and complete lack of one. Take a look at it again, or better yet, take a look at this comparison I attached that shows this new monstrosity compared to PETCO Park (in orange). Take a look at how the first row of the upper deck in this new park is aligned with the last row of the lower deck and tell me how that is in any way "Yankee Stadiumesque". It's the absolute anithisis of Yankee Stadium and PETCO's aggressive cantilever design. Even the loge deck isn't cantilevered over the lower deck. :faint: Truly a horrid cowardly design, and virtually identical to the new Yankee Abomination Stadium.

Now if that weren't bad enough let's move on to reason number two: There are no upper deck seats behind home plate. Let me repeat that--There are no upper deck seats behind home plate. One more time just for fun--There are no upper deck seats behind home plate. :faint:

http://www.jdland.com/dc/images/stadium-rendering-outfield.jpg

HOK, in all its wisdom, has concluded that sitting behind home plate must somehow a bad place to watch a ballgame, and decided to limit all behind home plate seating to club and high-end premium seats. Not only did they build a luxury suite tower where the upper deck should be (as if there weren't enough suites in the two levels below the sky decks), but left open areas to the sides of the tower that could've been used for affordable seating. I guess they figured that average Joes would much rather sit by the foul poles, because there's plenty of upper seating there. Un&^&$%believable.

Reason number three is the uninspired, recycled and overused interior and exterior design.

HOK did everything wrong with this ballpark. Everything. Horrible, horrible, horrible design--the worst I've ever seen. :thumbsdown:

RichardLillard1

05-21-2007, 03:31 AM

Elvis,

I noticed right after I clicked "post reply" that the upper two decks were so far back but had to take care of some things so I didn't bother to fix my post. I should have known you would call me on it. :applaud:

I noticed the layout of the upper two decks without looking at the lower bowl and immediately assumed that HOK wouldn't do something dumb like move it back. They made a couple winners with PNC and PETCO I thought that progress was the only way to go, boy was I way off.

If you look at the cross-section you can see that the layout of the top two decks is the same as PETCO but their location for the Nationals park is so far back that cannot make up for it.

They're getting closer to what they (I'm sure) want to do. Build a wall of suites and then put a few rows on top. Imagine something like the apartment buildings at Wrigley. They could maximize suite revenue while crapping on the little guy big time. Then they could tint the glass in such a manner that you could still see out but in looking at it from the outside you see nothing but ads. It would be the perfect family atmosphere too because they could put a roller coaster around the outfield in place of the bleachers.

Its amazing to think that they built something as wonderful as the two parks mentioned above. PNC and PETCO are fantastic examples of what they are capable of. Personally I think they could alternate between the two designs of those parks and just rebadge the style and they would be a much more fan-friendly and iconic design comapny. As it stands now they make everything look the same.

Take a look at GABP. HOK and GBBN Architects diesgned the park. Care to take a guess as to which firm designed which side of the park (hint; check out the foul territory and the outfield wall and stands)?

Richard