The planned Mets stadium

[trainerboxer]

.......

[thegame4219]

if new yankee stadium is going to be a "throwback" to yankee stadium of old. I i want to see Monument Park in the field of play as it was in the 30's

[illinirox1]

I think one park that breaks the mould in it's uniqueness and incredible awfulness is Minute Maid Park.

Who the hell builds a seating section ABOVE the field? Who the hell puts a hill on the field AND a flagpole? Who the hell sets a vertical home run in the middle of a wall?

I'm not fond of parks that have exposed concrete walls. When looking at Minute Maid from the outfield to the infield, like a general baseball view, it looks nice, then you look in the outfield and it looks like a warehouse.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Crosley Field in Cincinnati (1912-1933) had even more quirks. A 4 foot hill in Left field, a left field fence that balls would roll under for ground rule doubles (but if the balls came back they were in play), a concrete wall in centre with 9 feet of plywood on top, but the plywood was out of play. There was also a wire fence in right field that caused umpiring problems where it met the concrete wall. This caused a line similar to the one in Houston to be painted. The right feild fence was 3 1/2 feet tall, and center was 23 ft. tall.

I think that's more bizarre than Minute Maid.

[Gothamite]

Lets not forget Dodger Stadium. Its going on 50 years old and is still as beautiful and unique as the day it was built. with the new(old) seat colors and light blue walls, it has to be regarded as one of the best

I agree - Dodger Stadium is one of the best ballparks in the country. Great place to watch a game.

The only strike against it is the access. The commuter train runs right past the stadium, but to protect the Dodgers' parking revenues, it doesn't stop.

[Gothamite]

I think one park that breaks the mould in it's uniqueness and incredible awfulness is Minute Maid Park.

Who the hell builds a seating section ABOVE the field?  Who the hell puts a hill on the field AND a flagpole?  Who the hell sets a vertical home run in the middle of a wall?

I'm not fond of parks that have exposed concrete walls.  When looking at Minute Maid from the outfield to the infield, like a general baseball view, it looks nice,  then you look in the outfield and it looks like a warehouse.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Crosley Field in Cincinnati (1912-1933) had even more quirks. A 4 foot hill in Left field, a left field fence that balls would roll under for ground rule doubles (but if the balls came back they were in play), a concrete wall in centre with 9 feet of plywood on top, but the plywood was out of play. There was also a wire fence in right field that caused umpiring problems where it met the concrete wall. This caused a line similar to the one in Houston to be painted. The right feild fence was 3 1/2 feet tall, and center was 23 ft. tall.

I think that's more bizarre than Minute Maid.

Except that Crosley Field could have made a claim towards originality.

Enron Field just copied all the quirks of older ballparks. That's worse, in my opinion.

[cyandlux]

It's detached from its surrounding areas, and just looks like a generic park.

Thats suburbia for ya

[pooter]

Crosley Field in Cincinnati (1912-1933) had even more quirks. A 4 foot hill in Left field, a left field fence that balls would roll under for ground rule doubles (but if the balls came back they were in play), a concrete wall in centre with 9 feet of plywood on top, but the plywood was out of play. There was also a wire fence in right field that caused umpiring problems where it met the concrete wall. This caused a line similar to the one in Houston to be painted. The right feild fence was 3 1/2 feet tall, and center was 23 ft. tall.

I think that's more bizarre than Minute Maid.

That was a great ballpark.

[cappital92]

cookie-cutter "retro" parks

Such as?

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Stadiums_by_class.html

Look for yourself.

[VitaminD]

I think one park that breaks the mould in it's uniqueness and incredible awfulness is Minute Maid Park.

Who the hell builds a seating section ABOVE the field?  Who the hell puts a hill on the field AND a flagpole?  Who the hell sets a vertical home run in the middle of a wall?

I'm not fond of parks that have exposed concrete walls.  When looking at Minute Maid from the outfield to the infield, like a general baseball view, it looks nice,  then you look in the outfield and it looks like a warehouse.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Crosley Field in Cincinnati (1912-1933) had even more quirks. A 4 foot hill in Left field, a left field fence that balls would roll under for ground rule doubles (but if the balls came back they were in play), a concrete wall in centre with 9 feet of plywood on top, but the plywood was out of play. There was also a wire fence in right field that caused umpiring problems where it met the concrete wall. This caused a line similar to the one in Houston to be painted. The right feild fence was 3 1/2 feet tall, and center was 23 ft. tall.

I think that's more bizarre than Minute Maid.

Except that Crosley Field could have made a claim towards originality.

Enron Field just copied all the quirks of older ballparks. That's worse, in my opinion.

Worse still, Enron/Minute Maid Park just shoehorned all these contrivances into the park's design for no particular reason. The reason parks like Wrigley and Fenway have quirky irregular walls was to fit the contours of the neighborhoods they were built in at a time when civil engineering was markedly different from how it is today. With the exception of Camden Yards, PNC Park and whatever the Giants are calling their park this year, which have irregularities due to buildings or water, places like Enron are putting in hills and flagpoles for no good reason but to be contrived.

[logodawg]

As for the modern, retro ballparks; I remain a big fan, except when they replace something that should have been preserved. I will never like Coamerica for this reason alone; the Tigers should still be playing in a renovated Tiger Stadium.

You should probably check out the concept I posted yesterday.

http://boards.sportslogos.net/index.php?showtopic=35233

Yeah, I would of liked to see them renovate the corner, but the reality is that it really wouldn't make much sense.

1) The neighborhood is a :censored:hole. There's nothing but rundown shacks that sold Tigers crap and empty dirt lots that the owners charged people to park there.

2) Yes, the stadium itself is structurally sound, but the rest of it would have to be completely gutted. The end result is something that would cost just as much or more as building a new stadium, and much of the charm would be gone. And why would you want to dump that much money into a stadium in the neighborhood that it's in?

Comerica is in a much better location. The last time I went there, we maid a day out of it. We ate in Greektown, checked out the casino, and walked to the game. With Tiger Stadium, you got there 45 minutes before the game to make sure you got a decent spot for less than 15 bucks and got the hell out of there as soon as the game ended or you knew that the Tigers were going to lose.

[Gothamite]

cookie-cutter "retro" parks

Such as?

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Stadiums_by_class.html

Look for yourself.

Interesting link.

When you look at plans of the new ballparks, the superficial resemblance that leads to the "cookie cutter" argument falls away.

The seating arrangements are all different, the fields are all different, the footprints of the buildings are all different. Which is what I've been saying - the so-called similarity of the new ballparks is based almost entirely on the use of one of the most common building materials on the planet.

Not to say that I'm defending all of the new parks. I'd rather have a bland cookie-cutter doughnut stadium than the mismatched pastiche of quirks stolen from more interesting ballparks, the Frankenstein's Monster of a building that they named Enron Field.

[Lucas718]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/02/nyregion...r=1&oref=slogin

Am I the only one that thinks the interior really looks a lot like Turner Field?

[Gothamite]

In what way? I'll grant you the scoreboard in dead-center, but that's about all I see.

[VitaminD]

Am I the only one that thinks the interior really looks a lot like Turner Field?

Maybe. I don't see it though.

Turner Field has a two-tiered left field porch, with seats in a third deck that go partially beyond the left field wall; Shea II has 4 decks. There's no grassy hill in dead center, and the right field porch is also different. And the contour is different - the Mets have a large (and unnecessary, since there's no neighborhood being designed around) angle in center-right that Turner doesn't have. Turner's wall is generally a smooth curve with a subtle angle in right-center; Shea II has a couple prominent angles.

[BaltimoreFan]

I like the idea of this, but I'd set the building back from the outfield wall. Similar to Camden Yards, the warehouse isn't right next to the wall. I just think it looks a little strange right next to the wall.

Personally I think all ballparks should have some kind of homerun plateau (for lack of a better word). What I mean is something like Eutaw Street and the Warehouse (which no one has hit yet in a game) in Camden Yards and McCovey Cove in San Francisco. I heard Wrigley Field had something similar too. I like how you can walk on Eutaw Street and see the little plaques on the ground of who hit homeruns. It would be cool to see that other places. Unfortunately ballparks may not want to do that now that baseball is trying to get past the steriod era.

[dunford]

Longtime lurker. Rare poster.

I dig the new stadium designs a lot, but I think there are similarities among them - they do have, as many have defining characteristics that place them in the same categories.

Here's what bugs me about

For me, it's all about the seats. When you look at the seats, there's a real uniform of color from level to level. I don't dig the green seats in New Shea, because they have no tie whatsoever to Shea, the Mets, or for that matter Ebbets field. They're green plastic, evocative only of other retro parks. This might sound lame, but why not use some team colors, or a more diverse pallette of subtle colors? The green looks lame to me - it's meaningless and adds to the sense of connection that a lot of us have to the other retro ballparks - in actuality, it's the least retro part of the new stadium (plastic in lieu of splintery wood! more legroom! wider seats for wider American asses! actually focused on the ballgame!), and yet the most standardized part of these new stadiums. Perhaps black and grey seats would be more fitting - after all, you're not a New Yorker unless you wear black, right? (I do think the Mets should not wear black, by the way.)

The only other thing I would like to have seen in the design would have been more brownstone. Much of New York is defined by brownstone buildings, both in Manhattan as well as the outerboroughs - it's more New York than the exposed steel that has, for too long, been a fallback of the HOK crew. Also, perhaps a nod or two to the (extremely defining) New York City subways? They're far more iconic than the bridges closest to Shea (Triboro, Whitestone, and Throgs Neck).

As for the New Yankee Stadium? I agree with those who point out that Yankee was the blueprint for so many of the newer stadiums, and feel that they should stay the course with what they have now, which is a perfect blend of old and new Stadiums. Just my opinion, of course...

(Granted, and for the sake of full disclosure, I should say that I grew up in the Bronx...Yankee Stadium and the Yankees have always been iconic for me, whereas Shea and the Mets have always seemed more in need of a stronger sense of identity. The Mets have always been tied to the identity of the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants, which I think does them a disservice...but that's another post for another time. Seeing as how I post about once every three months, it will probably mean something in late July...)

[jkrdevil]

if new yankee stadium is going to be a "throwback" to yankee stadium of old. I i want to see Monument Park in the field of play as it was in the 30's

Well they were in Centerfield in old Yankee Stadium. However the new one is a mix of the old one and the new one. The demenisions are the same as they currently are. That means it would be dangerous to put the monument si in play. In the old stadium they were 460 feet away and thus rarely reached.

[swilson160]

With Tiger Stadium, you got there 45 minutes before the game to make sure you got a decent spot for less than 15 bucks and got the hell out of there as soon as the game ended or you knew that the Tigers were going to lose.

So counting that 45 minutes before the game, you probably stayed for what, an hour?

[Gothamite]

For me, it's all about the seats. When you look at the seats, there's a real uniform of color from level to level. I don't dig the green seats in New Shea, because they have no tie whatsoever to Shea, the Mets, or for that matter Ebbets field. They're green plastic, evocative only of other retro parks. This might sound lame, but why not use some team colors, or a more diverse pallette of subtle colors?

The green doesn't bother me any more than the powder blue in Yankee Stadium. It's neutral enough to work.

I've never been a fan of seats in team colors - that's always seemed to me to be a very modern convention, and not a terribly attractive one in most cases.

Black? In August? No way. Gray would be nice.

The only other thing I would like to have seen in the design would have been more brownstone. Much of New York is defined by brownstone buildings, both in Manhattan as well as the outerboroughs - it's more New York than the exposed steel that has, for too long, been a fallback of the HOK crew. Also, perhaps a nod or two to the (extremely defining) New York City subways? They're far more iconic than the bridges closest to Shea (Triboro, Whitestone, and Throgs Neck).

The subways are what I think of when I see the exposed steel - it reminds me of the elevated tracks that wind their way through the outer boroughs.

Hope you don't actually wait until July - you're always welcome in the conversation.

[griffin128]

The subways are what I think of when I see the exposed steel - it reminds me of the elevated tracks that wind their way through the outer boroughs.

Hope you don't actually wait until July - you're always welcome in the conversation.

The problem is, the exposed steel they are using in the design is actually nothing like the trains. Nothing.

What actually would have been cool, is to incorporate the 7 train into the stadium design. The way Shea is now, you get off at that stop and have to leave the station to go into the stadium. How cool would it be to have the train run through just behyond the outfield wall.

The biggest problem with both new NY buildings is the locations.

Shea is surrounded by puerto rican auto repair shops, and Yankee stadium is even worse. And they're gonna say that these stadiums will improve the area, but no that's not true. It's amazing that the community that Yankee stadium is in has been protesting a new building because it would be built on parkland. Why aren't they protesting the fact that they're neighborhood is one of the most dangerous in America. Nope that they ignore, but God forbid you take away a park.