Yankee Stadium Supporters & Yankee Stadium vs. Citi Field.

[LGehrigFan]

I honestly like the new idea. The new Yankee Stadium is going to be retro and I've always wanted to step in the old Stadium. Hey, it'll be more vicarious to walk into the new Stadium than turniing on MVP Baseball 2005 and playing in it there.

I just don't like the idea they're knocking down the older Stadium, though. There's so much history in that ballpark, including Monument Park. But I guess we all want those cozy luxury boxes.

[mrow1927]

I know there are many of us (including myself) that doesn't like the idea of a new Yankee Stadium. I just want to know if there are any supporters of the new stadium and why?

Also who do you think got the better deal in the stadium war, the Mets or the Yanks? I think the Mets got the better deal of the two. What do you think?

[MattM]

Originally Posted by mrow1927

I know there are many of us (including myself) that doesn't like the idea of a new Yankee Stadium. I just want to know if there are any supporters of the new stadium and why?

Also who do you think got the better deal in the stadium war, the Mets or the Yanks? I think the Mets got the better deal of the two. What do you think?

From a financial standpoint, the Yankees got the better deal long-term, just with those luxury boxes alone. Aside from that, I think that Citi-Field will be the better of the two. Wilpon and HKO or whatever the engineering company name is, are keeping the fans in mind with the seats so close, and paying hommage to the marble rotunda.

Yankee Stadium is built for the tourist and the wealthy of New York.

[tommydee2000]

I'm a lifeflong Yankee fan, and I support the new Stadium. Please see the attached. I believe the Mets and Yankees got equally good, and necessary deals.

http://home.att.net/~t.deangelo/NewStadium.htm

[EvanAparra]

Citifield is definately more visually appealing.

[mrow1927]

I think Citi Field is better because they took the timeless design of Ebbets Field and made it a new classic. It evokes the past and looks to the future while Yankee Stadium is a souless copy of a legend.

Many Met fans that were Brooklyn Dodger fans will feel a sense of nostalgia seeing the rotunda and remember when they were going against the Yankees in the 50s. Even though there is a strong case to add elements of the Polo Grounds to Citi Field since the Mets played there for two years which I agree with, the Dodgers and Mets have a common bond that they were and are beloved by many New Yorkers. Hence paying homage to Ebbets Field.

I think the new Yankee Stadium will be exciting for about a year then it will be forgotten. Kind of like a kid getting a new toy for Christmas, play with it for a while then shoving it aside. That is very sad. It is impossible to replicate or recreate the history of Yankee Stadium and they shouldn't. They have to build the stadium on such a grand scale that even though it will never come close to Yankee Stadium, at least it will have its own identity and inspire awe. Unfortunatly its not going to happen. I think more people will be happy if they bring back a prominent Death Valley to left center. MaKe the facade as prominent as can be. Give us something to like about the stadium. Make Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mickey Mantle and the rest proud. Please?

[TJH1923]

I believe it is time for a new Yankee Stadium. I am a huge fan of the original stadium and on a lesser degree the renovated version. The bottom line is the core of the stadium will be 84 years old in the spring. It is time for a new venue.
I do disagree with a few things in regards to the new stadium. The roof should be larger and the facade should be more prominent than currently proposed. The outfield wall should be an exact replica of the old stadium with the monuments & flag pole on the field and the auxiliary scoreboards. Death valley should also be incorporated, maybe not as extreme as the old stadium. 430 ft or 411 ft would be sufficient. Probably the most important feature would be moving the upper deck closer to the field. Not only is it beneficial for the fans it is also an intimidating factor to visiting teams.
As far as Citifield, I believe that it will be a nice stadium. It is also time to replace Shea. I would have liked to have seen more elements of the Polo Grounds incorporated into the design.

[Mariano_Rivera]

I would prefer for them to just renovate the current stadium.

I think what the Yankees are doing is better but the Mets are improving while the Yankees are getting worse. i`m looking forward to the new stadium I guess. At least they are keeping the field intact and not turning it into a parking lot.

[EvanAparra]

Originally Posted by Rickey_Henderson

I think what the Yankees are doing is better but the Mets are improving while the Yankees are getting worse

What? How does that make sense?

[Mariano_Rivera]

Originally Posted by EvanAparra

What? How does that make sense?

Current Yankees Stadium>>>>>>New Yankees Stadium>Citifield>>>>>>>>Shea Stadium

Does that make sense to you?

[EvanAparra]

Originally Posted by Rickey_Henderson

Current Yankees Stadium>>>>>>New Yankees Stadium>Citifield>>>>>>>>Shea Stadium

Does that make sense to you?

ohh ok --- gotcha

[mrow1927]

With all the artist renderings of both new Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, it will be very interesting how the actual stadiums are going to be like. I think Citi Field is going to look the same because the pictures all show the same stadium while new Yankee Stadium has two different styles.

Yankee Stadium version 1:

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attach...1&d=1165276088
402210.jpg

Yankee Stadium version 2

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attach...1&d=1165276299
nyybpk02.jpg

I like version 2 better. As for Citi Field, I think that the field is going to look pretty much like the artist drawings.

http://www.baseball-fever.com/attach...1&d=1165276651
img_citifield1_450x338.jpg

[RichardLillard1]

Hey everyone, its been a while but I want to chime in with my two cents and some things to think about.

First, I think the Mets are definately getting the better deal here. The Yanks are spending around a billion on this new home and it isn't even going to really break the mold HOK has set in recent years. Sure the frieze will be back and a nice limestone facade around the outside. How ever the entire stadium will be a farce. At the end of the day, it still won't have the history or the charm that the current Yankee Stadium has.

Has anyone noticed that most if not all of the artist renderings of the new stadiums are the exact angles, or very close to ones from famous pictures of the original stadium. We've been had and they are trying to sell us buy tugging at our heart strings.

Restored or not we are still packing into the same building that Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, Maris and Jackson played in and some Yankee greats are still going strong there.

If its lost I won't be able to take my kids there some day and say "you see those bleachers? Reggie Jackson hit three home runs there and on three pitches. That flagpole once flew a proud flag that had definately seen better days before a tragic attack on what was the World Trade Center. Some guy once came running out of that dugout right there, fuming mad, because he lost a home run from having too much pine tar on his bat. And this guy named Jeter once hit a homer from that batters box to win a game in November!"

I feel this need and burning desire to go and see Yankee Stadium a place that has sat proudly for over three quarters of a century while it helped the neighborhood around it grow. When they bulldoze it and move into this new one all that passion will be gone, the mystical power of Ruth's house and all the Yankee tradition will be blinked away over night. Quite a shame.

Maybe the lack of obstructive columns isn't as advanced as everyone thinks it is?

Look familiar? Two very famous pictures of Yankee Stadium and the artist rendering ot publicity photo of the model that copied it.

[mrow1927]

Originally Posted by RichardLillard1

Hey everyone, its been a while but I want to chime in with my two cents and some things to think about.

First, I think the Mets are definately getting the better deal here. The Yanks are spending around a billion on this new home and it isn't even going to really break the mold HOK has set in recent years. Sure the frieze will be back and a nice limestone facade around the outside. How ever the entire stadium will be a farce. At the end of the day, it still won't have the history or the charm that the current Yankee Stadium has.

Has anyone noticed that most if not all of the artist renderings of the new stadiums are the exact angles, or very close to ones from famous pictures of the original stadium. We've been had and they are trying to sell us buy tugging at our heart strings.

Restored or not we are still packing into the same building that Ruth, Gehrig, DiMaggio, Mantle, Berra, Maris and Jackson played in and some Yankee greats are still going strong there.

If its lost I won't be able to take my kids there some day and say "you see those bleachers? Reggie Jackson hit three home runs there and on three pitches. That flagpole once flew a proud flag that had definately seen better days before a tragic attack on what was the World Trade Center. Some guy once came running out of that dugout right there, fuming mad, because he lost a home run from having too much pine tar on his bat. And this guy named Jeter once hit a homer from that batters box to win a game in November!"

I feel this need and burning desire to go and see Yankee Stadium a place that has sat proudly for over three quarters of a century while it helped the neighborhood around it grow. When they bulldoze it and move into this new one all that passion will be gone, the mystical power of Ruth's house and all the Yankee tradition will be blinked away over night. Quite a shame.

Maybe the lack of obstructive columns isn't as advanced as everyone thinks it is?

Look familiar? Two very famous pictures of Yankee Stadium and the artist rendering ot publicity photo of the model that copied it.

I agree. I give a year of oohs and aahs then it will be forgotten. No matter how much they say new memories will be created, they will be empty memories. The only stadium that matters in the history of baseball will be destroyed.

I'm trying to find a reason to like the new stadium. I never been to the classic stadium before the renovation or was too young to remember, so bringing back the facade and the look of how it looked back in the day is a good idea in theory but fails to capture the essence and soul of what Yankee Stadium brings to the sport. I think the dimensions may hold the key of getting people to like this stadium more. Yankee Stadium is held on such a grand scale when it was first built and remained that way until the renovation with its deep fences (the renovated version had nice dimensions too before the final distance), bringing the fences to at least the renovated version or a variation of that will be a little truer to Yankee Stadium. Unfortunatly HOK doesn't believe in the upper deck being larger than the lower deck, that is why they have the same stadium design for so many parks. Steinbrenner is taking a trendsetter and turning it into a follower. That is what is so bad about this Stadium.

Maybe they were better of building a stadium completely different from Yankee Stadium to have it's own identity. Not a cheap knockoff.

[DevilRays1969]

I have mixed emotions on both although I think the Mets are getting the better end of the deal. Of course Shea Stadium is a much easier ballpark to replace than Yankee Stadium if only because the Mets don't have nearly as lengthy a tradition as the Yankees. If the new Stadium is a close replica of the pre-renovation Stadium, fine. But there will still be something missing. Even though I think Steinbrenner ruined the Stadium when he had it renovated in the early 70s by removing the facade from the main grandstand, it's still the same field the likes of Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle, Maris, Reggie, etc. played on. That alone is enough to give anyone goosebumps. So why not re-renovate the Stadium to more closely resemble the original Stadium, build in the skyboxes and have the facade on the upper deck roof?

[mrow1927]

Originally Posted by DevilRays1969

So why not re-renovate the Stadium to more closely resemble the original Stadium, build in the skyboxes and have the facade on the upper deck roof?

I think Steinbrenner doesn't want the Yankees playing anywhere else while the stadium is being built or he didn't get permission from Selig or other team owners to make arrangements so they can build it on the same site. They can ask the Mets to play at Shea (again) or play all away games. Who knows?

Also you have a strong point I noticed other people made in which he possibly ruined Yankee Stadium when it was renovated in the 70s. At least it was on the same site.

Basically most of us are in agreement that HOK sucks since they only build one type of stadium, but we have to give to them with Citi Field. It looks really good and it looks like its going to be very popluar. Lets just hope that the ghosts of Yankee Stadium guide their hands and build a proper stadium. Something we (the fans) can be proud of.

[Richmond Hill Phoenix]

I think that the Yankees missed out on a great opportunity. They could have put up a big facade and re-made death valley. I think that people would be alot warmer to the idea of a new stadium if they tried to bring back some elements from pre-renovation.

Any reason why they wouldn't bring back the facade/roof and/or death valley?

[TJH1923]

NO!!!!!!!! I do disagree with a few things in regards to the new stadium. The roof should be larger and the facade should be more prominent than currently proposed. The outfield wall should be an exact replica of the old stadium with the monuments & flag pole on the field along with the auxiliary scoreboards. Death valley should also be incorporated, maybe not as extreme as the old stadium. 430 ft or 411 ft would be sufficient. Probably the most important feature would be moving the upper deck closer to the field. Not only is it beneficial for the fans it is also an intimidating factor to visiting teams.

[mrow1927]

Originally Posted by RichmondHillPhoenix

I think that the Yankees missed out on a great opportunity. They could have put up a big facade and re-made death valley. I think that people would be alot warmer to the idea of a new stadium if they tried to bring back some elements from pre-renovation.

Any reason why they wouldn't bring back the facade/roof and/or death valley?

I don't know why they're not bringing back death valley, but I think that they want it hitter friendly. Even though it's still kind of hard to hit a ball to left center. My opinion death valley should be at least 410 ft or maybe two to three feet shorter than center. Make center around 430 ft. Also bring the fences in at the foul poles. Less than 310 ft with the right field porch being less than left.

I also hear conflicting statements that either the dimensions are going to be the same as the current stadium or they might change. If the dimensions are going to be different, I just hope they are going to be deeper and bring back a little bit of the asymetrical look it had.

I agree that the facade should be one of the most prominent features if not the most prominent. Also the flag pole should be in center with the three monuments in front. I think the facade is suppose to be a hint of the past.

Originally Posted by TJH1923

NO!!!!!!!! I do disagree with a few things in regards to the new stadium. The roof should be larger and the facade should be more prominent than currently proposed. The outfield wall should be an exact replica of the old stadium with the monuments & flag pole on the field along with the auxiliary scoreboards. Death valley should also be incorporated, maybe not as extreme as the old stadium. 430 ft or 411 ft would be sufficient. Probably the most important feature would be moving the upper deck closer to the field. Not only is it beneficial for the fans it is also an intimidating factor to visiting teams.

I agree 100% with everything you said, but HOK doesn't believe in the upper deck being closer to the field. I forgot why they said that but it's nonesense.
I also think what they are trying to do is bring Yankee Stadium into the future while respecting the past but again nonesense. Since they are still digging the foundation of the stadium, maybe they'll will make changes along the way and it will change for the better.

[CMart]

Here is my opinion -- if anyone happens to still be reading this forum

I am sensing alot of the negativity thrown toward the New Yankee Stadium here is due to factors beyond its design, which is the true purpose of the discussion here. So I just wanted to address that before anything else.

First off, I have been a life-long Yankee fan, but have only known Yankee Stadium as it is currently -- during its renovated years. The place is an awsome, I will admit; it has that great aura about it that nothing compares to. I totally understand and appreciate the history of the current stadium; the new one will never compare to the nostalgia, the history that the current one brings.

That said, I truly feel that the New Yankee Stadium is a better stadium, even moreso than the current one. Yes I know that is blasphemy, and yes I share the same sentiments that many do about the upper deck design not respecting the characteristics of the original, and yes, I may even think that the models show the new stadium to be more round than the characteristic shape of the current Yankee Stadium. But I honestly feel that this one will be an improvement. I have to be brutally honest: from a design perspective, I feel the current stadium is boring; it has lost some of the charater the pre-renovated stadium had. It is a symbol of the drab, utilitarian style that is present among most structures built in the 70's.

I see the character restored in the new version. To me, the new stadium will be sort of a mixture of old and new: you will get some aspects of the old (the restored frieze surrounding the park interior, the bleachers that seem to be (to me) reminiscent of the old design) in a new, updated and structurally stronger frame; heck the exterior is even going to resemble the old design to some degree -- alot more than the renovation ever did.

It is going to be different, I agree with what all of us are feeling here; it won't be the same place where Ruth, DiMaggio, Mantle, Maris, Jackson and Mattingly played. It will feel like an illegitimate successor to all of us who know it as it is now. But that is, again, simply because of the aura the ground carries now. Change was necessary, and since another renovation would have been impractical (where exactly would the Yakees play during the renovation?), the only other option would be a move to a new location; unfortunate, I agree, but again, necessary.

I really think and I see from the plans that when they designed the plans for the new Yankee Stadium, HOK did step things up a notch; yes, it carries a degree of the "HOK" style, but it also pays much respect to the history of the old stadium. And you know, I would truly wait on final judgement as to which is better until both stadiums are built. Plans don't always tun out to be the same in reality; I actually think it will look better than the drawings and computer models that we have seen.

As for Citi Field, I honestly have to say I am not impressed with it. I think it is a great thing to pay respect to Ebbets field with that rotunda. But honestly, beyond that, can anyone truly say that the new stadium maintains the spirit of the Mets? I see something in Citi Field that is completely and radically new in this respect. Does Citi field show any connection to its predecessor? I don't feel so, and I am curious if anyone feels differently.

To take it further, Citi Field looks more like a cookie cutter HOK design than New Yankee Stadium. It's interior looks no different to me than does Coors Field, or Citizens Bank Park. And doesn't anyone else feel that the Left field upper deck in the plans are a bit too high? Hopefully the reality won't be the same.

Lastly, something about Citi Field that isn't left to conjecture and can be truly critiqued upon. Anyone who has seen the recent pictures of the Citi Field construction will notice the brick facade being put up. Now how is that different from every other new stadium that has been built lately (i.e. Busch, GABP, Citizens Bank, Coors)? And even more so, how does that convey a sense of the spriti of the Mets? At least with the New Yankee Stadium, we gat a whitish, limestone facade, reminiscent of the stadium of old.

Just my 2 cents.

[nymdan]

Originally Posted by CMart

As for Citi Field, I honestly have to say I am not impressed with it. I think it is a great thing to pay respect to Ebbets field with that rotunda. But honestly, beyond that, can anyone truly say that the new stadium maintains the spirit of the Mets? I see something in Citi Field that is completely and radically new in this respect. Does Citi field show any connection to its predecessor? I don't feel so, and I am curious if anyone feels differently.

To take it further, Citi Field looks more like a cookie cutter HOK design than New Yankee Stadium. It's interior looks no different to me than does Coors Field, or Citizens Bank Park. And doesn't anyone else feel that the Left field upper deck in the plans are a bit too high? Hopefully the reality won't be the same.

Lastly, something about Citi Field that isn't left to conjecture and can be truly critiqued upon. Anyone who has seen the recent pictures of the Citi Field construction will notice the brick facade being put up. Now how is that different from every other new stadium that has been built lately (i.e. Busch, GABP, Citizens Bank, Coors)? And even more so, how does that convey a sense of the spriti of the Mets? At least with the New Yankee Stadium, we gat a whitish, limestone facade, reminiscent of the stadium of old.

Just my 2 cents.

I agree with the lack of uniqueness, but as far as the red brick/Ebbets Field look and not "conveying a sense of the spirit of the Mets"... what's the spirit of the Mets, architecturally? A big, blue, round, featureless stadium? There's nothing worth paying tribute to there. Though they are bringing over the home run apple, which is keeping some Mets history.

So, having established that they're not going to build something that looks like Shea, they really had three options: something that looks like Ebbets, something that looks like the Polo Grounds, or something completely new and different. From pictures I've seen of the Polo Grounds it seems like it wasn't much to look at, so that was out of the question... and while I know lots of people would have liked to see something new and unique looking, I don't mind the Ebbets Field exterior.

Back to the uniqueness of the place, or lack thereof... I was a little upset about that at first, but I'm sure when I'm at a game and I'm actually sitting in a comfortable seat rather than one falling apart, can actually go to the bathroom without missing an entire inning, or can actually buy food without missing three innings, I won't be sitting thinking it looks too much like Citizens Bank Park (if I can get a ticket in the first place, but that's another issue for another day). And having been to CBP a handful of times, it's a nice place to watch a ballgame, so being similar is nothing to be too upset about. And I'm sure most Mets fans agree after putting up with Shea for so many years.

[CMart]

First off, you did catch me on some things - I have rarely been to Shea (2 times I think) so I really can't speak of things that the regular fan would know more than I. And I have not been to Citizens Bank Park myself; I just think each stadium should have some more uniqueness to them and not look similar in style to others. And I would want Citi Field to stand out in some fashion more than just the Ebbets Field rotunda.

Yes I agree, Shea, to many people, may not be something most fans fawn over, but the stadium does play some role in the character of the New York Mets; now I don't think they should be building an updated Shea mind you (ugh!), and the new stadium is nice in that it isn't that, but it should have some connection to its past, I would think. Like, in the very least, maybe make the seats orange or something, instead of that green in the plans? Or maybe they are doing that in the final plans, I don't know.

However, I did not know that they were bringing over the Home Run Apple, though; that is nice to see.

I like the Ebbets facade too, but I just wonder how much of the use of brick is the wishes Mets ownership (I know they really wanted to emulate Ebbets) and how much of it had to do with the fact that it is so the standard in HOK stadiums.

[nymdan]

Originally Posted by CMart

Yes I agree, Shea, to many people, may not be something most fans fawn over, but the stadium does play some role in the character of the New York Mets; now I don't think they should be building an updated Shea mind you (ugh!), and the new stadium is nice in that it isn't that, but it should have some connection to its past, I would think. Like, in the very least, maybe make the seats orange or something, instead of that green in the plans? Or maybe they are doing that in the final plans, I don't know.

Eh... I see what you're saying, and while some great moments have happened at Shea, there's nothing about the actual building that's worth preserving.

As far as orange seats, that would look disgusting in this place. I could see the argument for blue seats instead of green ones, though.

[CMart]

Originally Posted by nymfan9

Eh... I see what you're saying, and while some great moments have happened at Shea, there's nothing about the actual building that's worth preserving.

As far as orange seats, that would look disgusting in this place. I could see the argument for blue seats instead of green ones, though.

I agree, definitely blue

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

[quote=nymfan9;939647]
So, having established that they're not going to build something that looks like Shea, they really had three options: something that looks like Ebbets, something that looks like the Polo Grounds, or something completely new and different. From pictures I've seen of the Polo Grounds it seems like it wasn't much to look at, so that was out of the question... and while I know lots of people would have liked to see something new and unique looking, I don't mind the Ebbets Field exterior.

[quote]

You are so wrong about the polo grounds. it was one the greatest venues in sports history and was so unique because of its design.the mets should never have left the polo grounds for shea stadium.the mets should put some features of the polo grounds in there new ballpark along with the ebbets field features.of the 3 new york classic stadiums the polo grounds does not get the respect it should.