Mets New Stadium: CitiField [Archive]

Elvis

11-11-2006, 12:00 PM

Age alone doesn't make a ballpark classic.

The difference between an old ballpark and a "classic" ballpark is 100% subjective. There's no right or wrong answer. Back in the 60s when many old ballparks were being demolished, they were thought of the same way as Shea is generally thought of now. But today they're considered classic. Forbes Field, Shibe Park, Polo Grounds were just thought of as old outdated stadiums - no one was tying themselves to a tree to save them. Time changes perceptions, as it will about Shea.

Brad MCdonald

11-11-2006, 03:05 PM

At least it wont be "Gee, Your Hair Smells Terrific" Field...( With acknowledgments to The Simpsons)

moebarguy

11-11-2006, 06:09 PM

The difference between an old ballpark and a "classic" ballpark is 100% subjective. There's no right or wrong answer. Back in the 60s when many old ballparks were being demolished, they were thought of the same way as Shea is generally thought of now. But today they're considered classic. Forbes Field, Shibe Park, Polo Grounds were just thought of as old outdated stadiums - no one was tying themselves to a tree to save them. Time changes perceptions, as it will about Shea.

Exactly. Even though there are many better stadiums, I still love (and will miss) Shea Stadium.

hellborn

11-11-2006, 06:43 PM

This sickens me.

There goes another classic stadium.

Long live Wrigley and Fenway!

Have you been to Shea?

AlecBoy006

11-11-2006, 07:18 PM

Take the 86 World Series. One of the most infamous series of all time, and yet, there will be nothing like it again. It will be demolished.

No, I haven't been to Shea.

Seattle1

11-11-2006, 07:50 PM

They should name it Halliburton Stadium after America's greatest corporation!

moebarguy

11-11-2006, 08:08 PM

Have you been to Shea?

He might not have, but I have season tickets -- so I've been there a bunch. While the exterior isn't the prettiest thing in the world, the field is spectacular.

efin98

11-11-2006, 08:44 PM

At least the stadium will be named after a local company even if it's nationally known.

hellborn

11-11-2006, 09:24 PM

I think that CitiField is actually a pretty cool name...NY is our country's premier "citi", I am forced to admit, so why not Citifield?
If the place turns out to suck, we can always replace the C with Sh...

I don't think that Shea is a bad park, just don't see it as a classic. But, I certainly don't have a personal emotional attachment to it, either.
You'd be surprised how many Bosox fans would love to see a beautiful new park replace Fenway...I love the old park in many ways, but give me some more seats, some reasonable parking, and a designer who understands that you don't stare out at short center field most of the time during a ballgame, and I'll be happier. My best baseball buddy has been a rabid Bosox fan for every minute of his existence (unlike me...he converted me in '86, though I always liked the team) and knows the team history in shocking detail, and he is literally drooling at the prospect of a great new park in Boston.

moebarguy

11-11-2006, 09:29 PM

I actually happen to like the new name, at least compared to other stadium's names. It's not as obvious like "Tropicana Field" or "Enron," etc...

metsfanbook

11-11-2006, 09:32 PM

I really can't claim classic status for Shea, in the way that Fenway and Wrigley are classic. But as a Mets fan who has attended games there for 42 years, I love it deeply. If you haven't already seen it, here is my eulogy for Shea:

http://metsfanbook.com/ForShea.html

efin98

11-12-2006, 01:56 AM

I actually happen to like the new name, at least compared to other stadium's names. It's not as obvious like "Tropicana Field" or "Enron," etc...

They may not be as glamorous as Citi but those two actually have a local connection to their cities: Tropicana down in the Tampa Bay area, Enron in the Houston Area.

Frankly I prefer any corporate name to be from a local corporation, be it a regional corporation or a multi-national corporation.

AlecBoy006

11-12-2006, 04:51 AM

What is with you people not calling Shea a classic? Of course it is!

moebarguy

11-12-2006, 02:19 PM

They may not be as glamorous as Citi but those two actually have a local connection to their cities: Tropicana down in the Tampa Bay area, Enron in the Houston Area.

Frankly I prefer any corporate name to be from a local corporation, be it a regional corporation or a multi-national corporation.

I'm not talking about whether it is a "local" name, but just what it is. Naming your stadium after orange juice is silly. But a name like "CitiField" sounds like "New York City Field." Basically, it's not as obvious that it's a corporate name.

Brownie31

11-12-2006, 02:31 PM

CitiField is not bad. However, I am one of those who wanted
it named after Jackie Robinson.

Brownie31

moebarguy

11-12-2006, 02:47 PM

CitiField is not bad. However, I am one of those who wanted
it named after Jackie Robinson.

Brownie31

Eh, if anything, it should have stayed "Shea." Jackie Robinson didn't do anything for the Mets organization...

efin98

11-12-2006, 03:36 PM

I'm not talking about whether it is a "local" name, but just what it is. Naming your stadium after orange juice is silly. But a name like "CitiField" sounds like "New York City Field." Basically, it's not as obvious that it's a corporate name.

After orange juice? What the heck do you think Florida is known for producing!!!!:eek: It fits them well down there just as Citi fits New York.

PJ-34

11-12-2006, 06:33 PM

This sickens me.

There goes another classic stadium.

Long live Wrigley and Fenway!

What about Yankee stadium, thats still around...for now at least.

Seattle1

11-13-2006, 06:55 AM

Eh, if anything, it should have stayed "Shea." Jackie Robinson didn't do anything for the Mets organization...

How about "Shea Stadium at CitiField"?

Elvis

11-13-2006, 11:55 AM

efin98

11-13-2006, 01:53 PM

milladrive

11-13-2006, 03:36 PM

This topic of honoring Jackie Robinson at CitiField is a bit intriguing.

On the one hand, I agree that there's nothing wrong with paying homage to a great player. At the same time, though, where are the tributes to Hodges, Stengel, McGraw, Seaver, Shea, Payson, et al; those people who actually were a big part of Mets history? Robinson, while a great player and a vanguard for all who followed, has, in this man's opinion, been shown just enough respect in NY (and MLB in general) where it's gotten to the point where we begin to ask about all the others who are not being given their due.

On another hand, "Mets land" has been paying tribute to the Dodgers (and Giants) since their birth. It one of the reasons they've been traditionally adorned in Dodger blue (and Giant orange) for 45 years. I personally celebrate the Dodgers (and Giants) everytime I watch a Mets game, for if it weren't for their move west, odds are there'd be no Mets at all.

As for the name, I agree with Moe, in that at least (at very least) Citi sounds like "City," and is not an obvious corruptorate name. In this day and age of corruptorately-named ballparks, there were worse monikers we could've ended up with.

Lastly, Shea Stadium was once state of the art. It is no longer. Being there these days is, if you'll pardon the phrase, no day at the park. Will I miss it? Yes. But then, we all miss the parks we've grown accustomed to. I know folks who still pine for Ebbets Field and the Polo Grounds. It's time to move forward.

mrow1927

11-15-2006, 05:22 PM

I really like the new Met stadium. I like how they evoked the past by taking cues from Ebbets Field, but I just don't like the name Citi Field. It's another in a long line of corporate named stadiums that we can do without.

If you can choose 5 names instead of Citi Field, what would you name it?

Mine would be.

1. Shea Stadium
2. Jackie Robinson Memorial Stadium
3. Stengel Stadium
4. Metropolitan Field. (The full name of the Mets)
5. Ballpark at Flushing Meadow Park

moebarguy

11-15-2006, 05:48 PM

Shea Stadium (or William A. Shea Stadium)
Metropolitan Field
CitiField (it's realy not that bad compared to other corporate named stadiums since it doesn't sound like a company name)

milladrive

11-15-2006, 09:00 PM

If you can choose 5 names instead of Citi Field, what would you name it?

Stengel Stadium is kinda cool. Flushing Field wouldn't be so bad either (if it didn't leave itself open to so many jabs). Bob Murphy Stadium (somehow, it doesn't seem unreasonable). All things considered, though, I would see nothing wrong with merely transferring the name Shea Stadium to the new arena.

If it weren't named Citi Field -- which it will be -- I wouldn't mind something like Metropolitan Park. ..or.. Mets Park.

milladrive

11-16-2006, 12:47 AM

Heh. Enjoy. (http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=53713) ...for what it's worth. :atthepc

Donnybrook @ Second base

11-16-2006, 08:49 AM

Elvis, Jackie never played anything in LA, except college football and track.

Mattingly

11-16-2006, 10:31 AM

It's not directly related to CitiField itself, but it could occur there if it's done.

LIRR Considering Shea Stadium Link (http://www.wcbs880.com/pages/125658.php?contentType=4&contentId=241534)
NEW YORK (AP) -- An MTA committee is expected to approve $2.3 million to renovate the LIRR's Shea Stadium station and to study the feasibility of linking it to the railroad's main line.

The money includes $1.6 million for short-term improvements at the station. The LIRR's MTA committee meets today.

Currently, most Long Islanders going to Shea on the Long Island Rail Road must transfer at the Woodside station and head east again on the Port Washington line or take the Number Seven subway.

MTA committee member Mitch Pally says there has to be a better way to connect train riders with Shea Stadium. He says people won't take mass transit unless it's a direct route to the station. The study is scheduled to begin in February.

The LIRR says advertising campaign this summer increased ridership to Shea Stadium from about one thousand people per game to between two and three thousand.

LIRR spokeswoman Susan McGowan says during the playoffs, ridership spiked as high as 12-thousand at one game.

Elvis

11-16-2006, 10:34 AM

double post

Elvis

11-16-2006, 10:36 AM

Elvis, Jackie never played anything in LA, except college football and track.

You forgot baseball and basketball. You make it sound like growing up here and being a four-sport star at UCLA shouldn't count in Jackie's timeline/career? :noidea Care to explain that bizzare reasoning?

2Chance

11-17-2006, 10:53 PM

originally posted by Seattle1
How about "Shea Stadium at CitiField"?
Or following a recent idea from the lower left coast, "Shea Stadium at CitiField in Queens of New York City."

DODGER DEB

11-18-2006, 06:10 AM

The rotunda will be called the Jackie Robinson rotunda and will feature all things Jackie including photos, a timeline of his life in Los Angeles, Montreal and Brooklyn and Dodger career, and a Dodger statue of Jackie as the centerpiece.

I love it! A celebration of a beloved DODGER as the centerpiece in the Mets house which is modeled after the DODGERS house by a former DODGER fan! Dodgers rule in Mets land! :laugh :gt

Let's make one thing perfectly clear here......

It is a celebration of a BROOKLYN DODGER PLAYER, modeled after OUR BROOKLYN DODGER HOME, EBBETS FIELD, by a (former) HUGE BROOKLYN DODGER FAN, Fred Wilpon, who just happens to own the METS and is keeping a promise he made to himself, and others, through the years. Nothing more...nothing less! :clapping :clapping :clapping :clapping

c.

Brownie31

11-18-2006, 08:51 AM

Let's make one thing perfectly clear here......

It is a celebration of a BROOKLYN DODGER PLAYER, modeled after OUR BROOKLYN DODGER HOME, EBBETS FIELD, by a (former) HUGE BROOKLYN DODGER FAN, Fred Wilpon, who just happens to own the METS and is keeping a promise he made to himself, and others, through the years. Nothing more...nothing less! :clapping :clapping :clapping :clapping

c.

It is fine that the Brooklyn Dodgers and their loyal fans being
honored. However, as has been raised in a post in the New
York Giants section, what about the team that resided from
1911-1957 at 8th and 155th? Have they been airbrushed
out of the picture like Stalin and Hitler used to do?

Brownie31

Elvis

11-18-2006, 10:14 AM

Let's make one thing perfectly clear here, It is a celebration of a Brooklyn DODGER PLAYER...

c.

It's a celebration of the man. Jackie wasn't special because he played in Brooklyn. Jackie was special because of his character which was formed long before he arrived in New York.

who just happens to own the METS

:laugh Exactly. Well put. I'd take bets that he often pretends they're really the Dodgers instead of the Mets.

DODGER DEB

11-18-2006, 11:38 AM

It is fine that the Brooklyn Dodgers and their loyal fans being
honored. However, as has been raised in a post in the New
York Giants section, what about the team that resided from
1911-1957 at 8th and 155th? Have they been airbrushed
out of the picture like Stalin and Hitler used to do?

Brownie31

I did infact see that in the NY Giants Forum, Brownie, and thank you for making a point of it. It does seems strange that there is never a mention about the great (and long) history of the NY Giants, along with OUR History, from the METS. I agree that the METS certainly should not have ignored it, but have found some way to honor the orange in their uniform, because it is the right thing to do!

Perhaps, if enough is written and said about it, they will find a way to do it.

c.

Brownie31

11-18-2006, 11:53 AM

I did infact see that in the NY Giants Forum, Brownie, and thank you for making a point of it. It does seems strange that there is never a mention about the great (and long) history of the NY Giants, along with OUR History, from the METS. I agree that the METS certainly should not have ignored it, but have found some way to honor the orange in their uniform, because it is the right thing to do!

Perhaps, if enough is written and said about it, they will find a way to do it.

c.

Several months ago, I posted in the New York Giants forum
about their lack of activity, especially compared to the
outstanding activity in your Brooklyn Dodgers forum. It
has gotten a little better as of late but still could use more.
I am glad Jackie Robinson is getting a lot of recognition.
He is a true American hero and deserves it and more.

Brownie31

DODGER DEB

11-18-2006, 12:20 PM

Elvis

11-18-2006, 10:28 PM

How about "Flushing Downs"? :p Or "The Park formerly known as Shea" - Or my favorite, "The Metropolitan Garden"

PJ-34

11-18-2006, 11:19 PM

Meh whatever to that.

Los Bravos

11-19-2006, 03:07 AM

I liked Olbermann's suggestions: "Jackie Robinson Stadium" or "Teufel Town" :laugh

callingit

11-22-2006, 05:25 AM

They should name it Halliburton Stadium after America's greatest corporation!

this name has been reserved for Bhagdad's new ballpark.

The field at Shea Stadium is beautiful, a good place to watch a game but from the outside the ballpark has always been an eyesore. They're overdue & more deserving of a new park, but what really makes a ballpark classic is the experience within the park. To that end, there are only three classic moments in Shea's history.

milladrive

11-22-2006, 07:06 AM

I still think my suggestions put things in the best perspective.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=53713

:D:p

MattM

11-27-2006, 04:21 PM

I still think my suggestions put things in the best perspective.

http://baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=53713

:D:p

I don't mind the name of the stadium, as someone said in another post, it could be worse, like PetCo Park, or whatnot. I just wish that there would be some sort of hommage (sp?) to the Mets playing at the Polo Grounds. Even if they just made the frames of the seats lookl ike the Polo Grounds (green color) it would be a small honor.

jints15

11-28-2006, 07:14 AM

I agree that the Mets should honor the Polo Grounds in some way at there new stadium. This ballpark was the site of the most famous home run in baseball history and was also the home for the Mets for their first two seasons. Perhaps Mr. Wilpon the Mets owner and an old Bklyn Dodgers fan still has not gotten over that day of October 3,1951.

riverfrontier

11-28-2006, 09:24 AM

I think the Mets rebuilding Ebbets Field instead of the Polo Grounds may be directly linked to fan nostalgia for the 'Golden Era' of baseball and its parks. Post WWII to the opening of RFK Stadium and (ironically) Shea Stadium. Plus the fact that the Polo Grounds, cool as it was, was just a freak of a stadium. The Dodgers of those years had their only success in New York. The fact that they were the dominant NL team when the NL abandoned New York must give some explanation for their popularity. You know how folks in the south still fly the confederate flag? That's their nostalgic equivalence of the Brooklyn Dodgers. They were the better army until the economics caught up with them. The Giants were a more successful team during their New York tenure, but they weren't as lovable as the Dodgers, and they didn't have a martyr like Jackie Robinson or Stonewall Jackson. The Giants only had the best Afro-American player to ever play in the major leagues, not the first.
The Giants in New York are like the Army of the Potomac. The uncontested better team, but lacking a whole lotta love. Baby, I'm not foolin'.

jints15

11-29-2006, 07:32 AM

I don't have a problem with the Mets honoring Ebbets Field or Jackie Robinson, all that I'am asking for is the Mets to find some way to also honor the Polo Grounds by naming some part of the stadium like the Mets are doing by naming their lounge area the Ebbets Field Lounge, after all the Mets did have their start at the Polo Grounds for two years.

BeatEmBucs

11-29-2006, 05:20 PM

4. Metropolitan Field. (The full name of the Mets)

That's probably what the name would've been. but Apparently MetLife didn't pony up as much as Citi Did. I could've just seen the marketing..."Live the MetLife!" would've made a great catchphrase for going to a ballgame.

DirtBall

12-03-2006, 05:44 AM

That is your opinion. Shea is over 40 years old.
Shea's a tiolet

riverfrontier

12-03-2006, 06:39 AM

You mean 'violet', don't you?

MattM

12-04-2006, 03:33 PM

Several months ago, I posted in the New York Giants forum
about their lack of activity, especially compared to the
outstanding activity in your Brooklyn Dodgers forum. It
has gotten a little better as of late but still could use more.
I am glad Jackie Robinson is getting a lot of recognition.
He is a true American hero and deserves it and more.

Brownie31

In my few months here on the boards, I haven't quite understood that. It seems that the Giants were baseballs team up until the mid-1950's, or until the Polo Grounds became a real war zone. I would love to see the Mets give the Polo Grounds some sort of honor, especially since that was their home for the first 2 years of their existence.

I particularly would like to see some sort of hommage paid to Gil Hodges, and Casey Stengel.

milladrive

12-14-2006, 11:34 PM

http://www.stadiumpage.com/stpages/corona.html

It's best to scroll from bottom to top for the real chronology. ...And don't overlook the renderings on the second page.

The Kid

12-15-2006, 02:07 PM

This new Citifield is gonna be good!

http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nym/ballpark/citifield_images.jsp

Solair Wright

12-29-2006, 11:41 PM

They've started working on CitiField and not much can be said yet. Right outside where the Pepsi Picnic Area is, you can see they have dug up the foundation, and I can't wait to see the final result. If you want to see the Mets at Shea for the next two years, I say...Good luck, because 45,000-55,000 fans aren't afraid in filling up Shea Stadium before it is knocked down.

It's too early to judge CitiField, too early.

redbuck

01-04-2007, 02:30 PM

What makes a ballpark a classic are the memories. So age generally does make a ballpark a "classic" by the fan's sense. But that doesn't prevent them from being absolute dumps. And Shea certainly is a dump.

Jack-o-lope

01-04-2007, 03:47 PM

Why cant the New Mets stadium look like the old Ebbets Field but much better? Like the Old Ebbets Field had obstructed view seats. New Ebbets look like no obstructed view seats and a Larger field. Like this is my idea

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/EbbetsField.gif
NEW
http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e47/steveox1961/NewEbbetsField.gif

Plus the Jets can play there

MSUlaxer27

01-04-2007, 04:29 PM

Why on earth build a new stadium with obstructed views? Obstructed views were the result of antiquated design. No reason to recreate the past. Jets aren't moving back to Queens.

Sean O

01-04-2007, 04:39 PM

Jack-o-lope

01-04-2007, 04:54 PM

Plus Both stadiums foer the mets & yanks should have a retractable roof. So when it rains just close it.Or when it gets too cold in april and october close it too.

MSUlaxer27

01-04-2007, 04:57 PM

Why can't the designers just create a new, worthwhile design instead of aping the past? This is New York City, why not have a modernist design instead of more red brick?

No Ebbets, no Polo Grounds, just actual design.

I agree 100% Mets have their own history. Plus there used to be time when NYC led the country in architectural design. Why rehash a design (or designs) from 90 years ago? The new stadium doesn't face the geographic limitations that Ebbets and the PG faced. No reason to replicate these outdated and ridiculous (PG) designs.

Interesting though, it looks like they are trying something new (design wise) in DC.

Jack-o-lope

01-04-2007, 10:54 PM

Both Stadiums should cook hot dogs,Sausages and Hamburgers on an open flame grill. No dogs should be cooked in boiling water and no Hamburgers on a greasy grill.

Like this grill should be cooked on
http://static.flickr.com/19/23236782_466363957d_m.jpg
Not on This crap

http://ring.uvic.ca/00oct20/bbq.JPG

PeteU

01-06-2007, 10:32 AM

Interesting though, it looks like they are trying something new (design wise) in DC.

True, but trying to figure exactly what design it is. Right now it looks like a post modern suburban office complex from the exterior. Original--yes, but will it work? I guess we'll have to wait to the thing actually gets built to say yes or no.

MSUlaxer27

01-07-2007, 05:02 PM

NewEnglandAmazins

04-15-2007, 09:57 PM

The new stadium looks good. It would been a good time to replace the Homerun Apple, that thing looks awful. I'm okay with stadium being named Citi Field, although I would have preffered Metropolitans Field. Corporate naming rights suck.
E.G. Pac Bell,SBC, AT&T,__________Park

lollar

04-16-2007, 12:00 AM

I appologize for not reading through every post on this topic, but the inside of the Park looking out towards centerfield looks a lot like the Texas Rangers yard.

jimmyjimjimz

04-16-2007, 07:13 AM

At least ****** field is gonna look like a real baseball stadium unlike that ugly, purple, plastic looking thing they play in now.

A ****** field for a ****** team.

Sean O

04-16-2007, 07:39 AM

Here's a thought...the last "part" of the polo grounds that exists is the placard - The John T. Brush Stairway presented by the NY Giants - that is now almost impossible to get to (it's fenced off) and crumbling into history. How about the mets removing this important piece of NY baseball history and preserving and displaying it in the new stadium?

Yeah this is 3 months later, but if it's crumbling and decrepit, wouldn't that make it more difficult to remove to the new park?

At least when the first cries for CitiField to be replaced happen around 2025, I should have my license so I can finally build an acceptable ballpark in New York, for the first time since 1975.

mwb

04-29-2007, 12:50 AM

PeteU

04-29-2007, 06:12 AM

Plus Both stadiums foer the mets & yanks should have a retractable roof. So when it rains just close it.Or when it gets too cold in april and october close it too.

(First of all, I have to compliment you on the cartoon bird icon. I'd love to see the O's go back to the uniforms of 1966 with the solid black cap and the cartoon bird.)

Retractable roofs are cop-outs, if you ask me. Ideally, I'd love to see all stadiums open air, but realistically, no ballpark that doesn't need a retractable roof should be forced to have one. And New York isn't that far north that you would need one.

Yes, I would say Seattle would pretty much require a retractable roof. And Safeco Field is a very nice park and probably the best of all the retractable roof parks. But I would also say it would be an even better park if not for that big hideous roof to the side, which makes it look like the stadium is being attacked by the aliens from Independence Day. But, it's Seattle, so you can't blame it for not making common sense.

Miami's gonna have a retractable roof too, that is whenever they get around to building the darn thing. Now living in the South Florida area, you can call me a glutton for punishment, but I like baseball out in the elements down here and I personally would perfer an open air park. But again, it would make sense for there to be a roof added to it as well. (Given the relatively "small" $60 million still left remaining to give the okay to the place, my solution would be to build a stadium that is open air but "ready made" for a roof, and then add a surcharge to the tickets which could pay for the roof later on.)

PeteU

04-29-2007, 06:13 AM

I've never been to Shea, but it looks ugly on TV & in pictures.

CitiField looks like a nice place. Hopefully it will live up to the great expectations & not have to take a back seat to Yankee Stadium.

Given the dissapointing and uninspired plans for the New Yankee Stadium, the Mets may very well end up with the best park of the two teams.

IPO

05-01-2007, 10:37 AM

I guess sentiment is in the eye of the beholder and generational. To me the Polo Grounds had personality but I have to respect the generation of folks who some claimed it was outdated and had to go.

I was born about a mile from Shea, my mom worked there when it opened, we have pics of the bicycle track before any construction began for Shea. Have been to a million games there, even when the Yankees played there in 74-75.

When it opened it was a modern park with the esculators, it did not look bad with the plackards (spelling) on the outside, it's green fences, white paint and clean, crisp lines in the outfield, but for me it never had a personality or identity that made it unique. To me Shea was the first of the cookie-cutter ballparks built in the early 60's, it was a bad design.

Over the years (around the early 80's) the park with the orange, blue, green and red seats (the apple and aux scoreboard advertised to be protected from Kingman-Foster homeruns...LOL) just made it look terrible with the blue paint everywhere and an eyesore of a scoreboard that fell into major dis-repair and had to be covered up by advertisements in the center as it took forever to get Let's go Mutts to appear as the letters spun. The Jane Jarvis organ was replaced by taped music and more and more the place looks painfully outdated and run down, despite some peripheral improvements like the matrix boards.

Unlike Yankee Stadium which was renovated over thirty years ago and looks clean and in good shape and modern, Shea to me is a park that looks old and run down. My guess is the majority of fans may not like a corporate park to replace it but it will be a vast improvement to Shea, which in the end was a building that hung around a good fifteen years longer than it should be.

My guess is even when it's time for it's demolition few in the media will talk of it's sentimental value with the public. Many will call it a dump and celebrate it's demolition which will be on par with the general reaction of Three River Stadium, Veterans Stadium.

Of course somone needs to tell me why they could not do to Shea what was done to make Edison Field (Angles Stadium circa 1960's) a modern ballpark that is beautiful, especially given all the design changes made to that park and the open outfield like Shea has.

nymdan

05-02-2007, 05:09 AM

Of course somone needs to tell me why they could not do to Shea what was done to make Edison Field (Angles Stadium circa 1960's) a modern ballpark that is beautiful, especially given all the design changes made to that park and the open outfield like Shea has.

Why in the world would you want to renovate Shea?

The fundamental difference between Angel Stadium and Shea is that Angel Stadium was built as a baseball stadium, which was converted to a multi-purpose stadium and then back to a baseball stadium. I've never been there so I don't know about the amenities, but because it was built for baseball the sight lines look decent. Shea, as a circular, multi-purpose stadium has terrible sight lines.

TJH1923

05-02-2007, 07:39 AM

Of course someone needs to tell me why they could not do to Shea what was done to make Edison Field (Angles Stadium circa 1960's) a modern ballpark that is beautiful, especially given all the design changes made to that park and the open outfield like Shea has.

Apples and oranges. Anahiem Stadium has had a few "renovations" over the years. In order to attract the Rams from the Coliseum, they added all that seating as well as other amenities to bring it to an up to date facility. When the Rams deserted L.A., and no other NFL team was going to come in to backfill, they again had to alter the appearance to bring it back to a baseball only facility and again upgrades were added.

In comparison, Shea was left to deteriorate. NYC was not so quick to spend any money on improvements and there was also a time when Met ownership did not push the issue. Eventually, some improvements were made just to keep it a viable venue at the Mets persistence. This stadium has become outdated. For the same reasons a new Yankee Stadium needs to be built, so does a new Mets ballpark need to rise. Modern amenities are the way to go. Fan friendly concourses, food courts and bathrooms are a must. Both teams draw very well now and attendance will continue to improve with the new venues. It is all about business and making money. There will be many happy people when Shea implodes or is dismantled. Hopefully, Citifield will be a more intimate setting for baseball........They just need to add a little Polo Grounds flavor to it.

Why haven't any Met fans posted progress photos of construction?

nymdan

05-02-2007, 06:23 PM

Apples and oranges. Anahiem Stadium has had a few "renovations" over the years. In order to attract the Rams from the Coliseum, they added all that seating as well as other amenities to bring it to an up to date facility. When the Rams deserted L.A., and no other NFL team was going to come in to backfill, they again had to alter the appearance to bring it back to a baseball only facility and again upgrades were added.

In comparison, Shea was left to deteriorate. NYC was not so quick to spend any money on improvements and there was also a time when Met ownership did not push the issue. Eventually, some improvements were made just to keep it a viable venue at the Mets persistence. This stadium has become outdated. For the same reasons a new Yankee Stadium needs to be built, so does a new Mets ballpark need to rise. Modern amenities are the way to go. Fan friendly concourses, food courts and bathrooms are a must. Both teams draw very well now and attendance will continue to improve with the new venues. It is all about business and making money. There will be many happy people when Shea implodes or is dismantled. Hopefully, Citifield will be a more intimate setting for baseball........They just need to add a little Polo Grounds flavor to it.

Why haven't any Met fans posted progress photos of construction?
I've put some photos up at http://community.webshots.com/user/citi_field/

I started a construction photos thread on another board... I guess I'll do the same thing here.

The Duke of Flatbush

05-28-2007, 03:37 AM

First, the Mets are paying for a bulk of Citi Field, so they will have to pay bond interest over 30 years. The corporate selling of the name goes to pay the bond interest. It's that simple. I would rather have a corporate name than a 200 dollar seat - and the prices will be close to that anyway.

Also, I won't miss Shea. I have covered the team for the past three seasons and also been a fan since I was a kid. Yeah, it's a dump, but our dump. But to sit in a pressbox without air conditioning and a cramped clubhouse is a tough way to do work. I welcome the new facility.

Oh and forget about renovating Shea. The steel is rusted so much that a full renovation will mean basically putting up a new park. The Mets need a new place as much as any team in the majors.

Candlestick60

05-28-2007, 03:49 PM

Mets bloggers are reporting that the New Mets stadium is going to be called CitiField, CitiBank having won the bidding war to name it. I hate this whole process and I will miss Shea enormously, but this is better than it could have been, I think. I still have to get used to the idea. Here's what I've written about it on my Mets blog.

http://metsfanbook.com/blog/

I will miss shea too it will feel funny getting off the seven train and not walking over to shea instead i will be going to the right side to citifeild instead of shea on the left. C60

SirBLaUghs

05-30-2007, 01:10 PM

Im gonna miss Shea stadium a lot.
A lot of my childhood memories, and a lot of memories the stadium holds itself.

The Mets are doing the right thing.
When the Dodgers left for Dodger stadium out west, they moved for a better stadium, which Shea is probably almost the same amount in years as was Ebbets field...40 something years i would have to guess.

SirBLaUghs

05-30-2007, 01:11 PM

I've put some photos up at http://community.webshots.com/user/citi_field/

I started a construction photos thread on another board... I guess I'll do the same thing here.

Awesome pics!

nymdan

05-30-2007, 02:39 PM

Awesome pics!

Thanks. The Mets are doing a terrible job on their website documenting the construction, so I figured it I might as well do it.

nymdan

06-09-2007, 09:22 AM

By the way, I don't know how many people have seen this...

http://www.stadiumpage.com/citi_models/newmetscross.jpg

While it may not please Elvis and Co, at least the site lines at Citi Field will be a heck of a lot better than they are at Shea.

nymdan

06-26-2007, 09:57 PM

Here is a scan from a brocheure I picked up at Shea the other day showing an angle of the rendering that the Mets don't have posted online... you can get a good idea about the super-premium seating behind home plate as well as the club level with its restaurants and clubs glassed in behind the seats... also for all the talk about the 360 degree circulation around the concourse level, you can see here that standing behind home plate on that level, you won't be able to see the field because of that raised area of seating.
http://img295.imageshack.us/img295/2417/citifield2ot3.jpg

The Commissioner

06-26-2007, 10:09 PM

I'm actually sad to see Shea go because it was the place where the Mets clinched two World Championships and a historic site where a pretty decent little band played

http://members.home.nl/jpgr/shea.jpg

riverfrontier

06-26-2007, 10:35 PM

Wow, Grand Funk Railroad look so young in that photo. I seem to recall them being somewhat hairier though.

nymdan

06-26-2007, 11:26 PM

I'm actually sad to see Shea go because it was the place where the Mets clinched two World Championships and a historic site where a pretty decent little band played

Yeah, it will be strange to see it torn down. But while you're right about the history that's happened there, as far as the building itself goes, there are really no positive attributes at all to speak of.

skobabe8

06-28-2007, 01:23 PM

Those green seats just dont look right with the Mets. I wish teams didnt feel the need to have green seats in every new park.

placount

06-28-2007, 02:14 PM

yea i like blue seats personally

Elvis

06-28-2007, 09:01 PM

Those green seats just dont look right with the Mets. I wish teams didnt feel the need to have green seats in every new park.

But, you see, in our culture, it's not cool to be different than everybody else. :crazy We must conform to the green seat standard.

Venti

06-28-2007, 09:05 PM

Just behind home plate in that picture and slightly to the right...is that another box or more like an observation deck? It looks glassed in with no seating.

nymdan

06-28-2007, 10:08 PM

Just behind home plate in that picture and slightly to the right...is that another box or more like an observation deck? It looks glassed in with no seating.

Where exactly are you talking about? There are so many little areas back there.

metsfanbook

06-30-2007, 08:29 PM

For Shea (http://metsfanbook.com/ForShea.html)

I Still Don't Like Citifield (http://danabrand.com/blog/2007/04/19/i-still-dont-like-citifield/)

nymdan

07-01-2007, 05:15 AM

Partial stop-work order at Citi Field site following construction accident:
http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=10&aid=71247

I wonder how this will affect the progress.

Venti

07-02-2007, 10:00 AM

Where exactly are you talking about? There are so many little areas back there.

I'm sorry, it's directly behind home plate. It just doesn't look like the other boxes. It looks like it's glassed in and if you look at the construction pics currently....there seems to be something of a flat extension rather than the normal cantileveres behind home plate. Also, I think that accident won't really effect the construction progress that much. They'll stop work for about 3 days if that and continue kicking a$$ on this project.

Sean O

07-02-2007, 10:20 AM

But, you see, in our culture, it's not cool to be different than everybody else. :crazy We must conform to the green seat standard.

As much as I try to be unique and different when it comes to stadium architecture, I hate blue seats. They look horrid in US Cellular Field, and that park didn't really come alive until they installed the green seats. Dodger Stadium's light blue look nice now, as they did in the 60s, but eventually changing fads will require their removal. History always repeats itself, especially when it comes to colors.

I would like to see a gradient in each of the sections. Either do it front to back (i.e. front row has a dark red, 2nd row lighter and so on until the last row is bright red), or do the Nurburgring thing and have each section different.

Elvis

07-02-2007, 10:39 AM

As much as I try to be unique and different when it comes to stadium architecture, I hate blue seats. They look horrid in US Cellular Field, and that park didn't really come alive until they installed the green seats. Dodger Stadium's light blue look nice now, as they did in the 60s, but eventually changing fads will require their removal. History always repeats itself, especially when it comes to colors.
\

For the record, the only blue seats in Dodger Stadium are the Top Deck seats directly behind home plate.

http://insidethedodgers.mlblogs.com/photos/uncategorized/stadium_restoration.JPG

nymdan

07-02-2007, 11:32 AM

I'm sorry, it's directly behind home plate. It just doesn't look like the other boxes. It looks like it's glassed in and if you look at the construction pics currently....there seems to be something of a flat extension rather than the normal cantileveres behind home plate. Also, I think that accident won't really effect the construction progress that much. They'll stop work for about 3 days if that and continue kicking a$$ on this project.

Yeah, it's hard to tell. Either way, I don't like the way they designed that section. I was in Philly yesterday, and they have the same set-up with the premium seats behind home plate with their own seperate entrance underneath the concourse level, but the seats behind them are on the same level as the rest of the concourse level, so fans can stand behind home plate in the concourse and be able to watch the game. Not so at Citi Field. I wonder why they designed it that way. Maybe the section of premium seats is bigger? Hmm.

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3382/metsatphillies7107003di0.jpg

http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/9674/metsatphillies7107025fp6.jpg

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8230/metsatphillies7107026vq4.jpg