Sports Traditions

[cbeach40]

I love the usher uniforms in that old pic (I assume they're ushers).

I haven't seen the plans, but I think we can guess the New Yankee Stadium will have a Monument Park, it'll have the signature arches, it'll have a home team wearing pinstripes (that are hated by non-fans) and it'll carry with it the traditions and practices of old Yankee Stadium. The traditions, the spirit of Yankee Stadium will live on, just in a new park next door.

Either that, or this will cause the team to jump the shark and never win the World Series again!

[GBurgNupe]

Umm.....can someone please explain again why the Celtics got cheerleaders?

[SabreGuy]

Umm.....can someone please explain again why the Celtics got cheerleaders?

People got tired of watching the boobs on the team?

[unl22]

While I agree that the 70's version has pretty much lost all of the old charm. Yet I think that the new designs for the third coming of Yankee Stadium are great. Yes it will be a retro stadium but, its not a whole new design. It is going to appear much like the first version and restore much of the old features. Basically it will have a more original looking shell with a seating structure that is a modern version of the 70's stadium. I think it's going to be awesome but that's my opinion.

[njmeadowlanders]

The good seats in the Bronx are great, but the cheap seats are terrible. In Flushing Meadows, there are no bad seats. The good seats are good, and the cheap seats are also good.

I've been to about 15 games or so this season, and it's been 50/50 for me. If you've ever sat in Loge Reserved Back Rows you can't see anything hit in the air, and you cant see whichever OF corner you're sitting in. Some of the Upper Deck seats towards the foulpoles also aren't too great. Yes, most seats are pretty good, but to say there's no bad seats is a stretch...I have Mezzanine Reserved for Satuday's 86 reunion vs. the Rockies...wonder what parts of the field I'll be missing...

[DJR118]

great post bucco b

[speedo]

As a southwestern Ontario - eastern Michigan guy, I never felt the same about Comerica Park as I did about new parks that replaced the cookie-cutters in Pittsburgh, Philly, St. Louis, Arlington, etc., Tiger Stadium to me, was irreplaceable. (I don't mean that it wasn't time for an upgrade, only that in those other cities, the new parks recaptured that "ballpark" feeling, while in Detroit, it was the other way around). It took a winning team for people in the Motor City to finally start packing the place. I would imagine Yankee fans would feel the same way, although even on a greater scale, with the incredible history of the place...

[no97]

As a southwestern Ontario - eastern Michigan guy, I never felt the same about Comerica Park as I did about new parks that replaced the cookie-cutters in Pittsburgh, Philly, St. Louis, Arlington, etc., Tiger Stadium to me, was irreplaceable.  (I don't mean that it wasn't time for an upgrade, only that in those other cities, the new parks recaptured that "ballpark" feeling, while in Detroit, it was the other way around).  It took a winning team for people in the Motor City to finally start packing the place.  I would imagine Yankee fans would feel the same way, although even on a greater scale, with the incredible history of the place...

I think the difference here is that with Tiger Stadium/Comerica, you never had a bad feeling in your mouth from a bad renovation. The Yankee stadium croud have had the '70's renovation to mute their feelings for the past thirty years (similar to having a Three Rivers or Vetrins Stadium). It's not the instant impact of losing their old ballpark, like Tiger Stadium. Just a theory...

Moose

[ElwoodCuse]

Yankee Stadium is a dump that would have been demolished completely in the 1970s if it wasn't home to the most successful sports franchise on the continent. Good riddance.

[Gothamite]

Yankee Stadium? A DUMP?!

</judge_smails>

Must respectfully disagree. There are many great things about the Stadium that even the terrible renovation couldn't destroy.

The cheap seats they added are weak, but from the original seats, there's no better view of a ballfield.

[Spearhead]

Yeah! Like that tradition where black people can't play in Major League Baseball! Great one! Let's keep it going!

Pardon me, but this is just a stupid-ass statement.

[mydogisgomez]

I agree Yankee Stadium doesn't have that "old ball park" feel like Wrigley, so It doesn't seem too terrible that they are starting over. They are keeping it in the Bronx aren't they? One thing I do like about the current Yankee Stadium is the glimse of the field you get when taking the train from Manhattan through the open section of the stadium in right field.

Having grown up in Dallas I always loved Texas Stadium, but i'm not upset that they are buiding a new one (just wish they would have put it in downtown instead of Arlington). The current stadium is an eyesore from the road (cool inside though) and traffic before/after games is HORRIBLE due to its limited and confusing traffic flow.

With the debate of remodeling or rebuilding, how do you guys in Chicago like the job done with Soldier Field?

[no97]

I agree Yankee Stadium doesn't have that "old ball park" feel like Wrigley, so It doesn't seem too terrible that they are starting over. They are keeping it in the Bronx aren't they? One thing I do like about the current Yankee Stadium is the glimse of the field you get when taking the train from Manhattan through the open section of the stadium in right field.

Having grown up in Dallas I always loved Texas Stadium, but i'm not upset that they are buiding a new one (just wish they would have put it in downtown instead of Arlington). The current stadium is an eyesore from the road (cool inside though) and traffic before/after games is HORRIBLE due to its limited and confusing traffic flow.

With the debate of remodeling or rebuilding, how do you guys in Chicago like the job done with Soldier Field?

Yeah, they're keeping it in the Bronx, in fact, it'll be right next door:

That small ballpark next to the new Yankee Stadium is the playing surface from the "old" Yankee Stadium, returned to the origional dimensions, and with some grandstands, so high school games can be played there, if I remember correctly. In fact, Ballpark Digest has a page dedicated to the new Yankee Stadium.

As far as "remodeling" Soldier Field, that's a bit of a streatch. They basically took the outside walls and the colonades, left those intact, and demolished everything else, and built a state-of-the-art football stadium inside. Talk about leaving virtualy nothing of an existing structure...

With that said, Soldier Field simply did not function as a NFL stadium in the 21st Century. Something had to be done, and while it likely could have been done better, as far as trying to keep the historical look of the facility, I certainly don't know how it could have been made to look any less imposing over the colinades.

Moose

[CubsFanBudMan]

A few random thoughts inspired by the pictures and comments above:

Speaking of Soldier Field, that's exactly what I thought of after seeing that aerial view of the new Yankee Stadium. It looks like the '70s version built inside the classic version.

In all honesty, Wrigley Field pulled a Soldier Field renovation in the offseason on the bleachers. They completely tore down the left and right field bleachers and rebuilt them inside the old ivy-covered outfield wall and around the center field scoreboard and (upper) bleachers. I have to wonder if they've considered doing the same to the rest of the park someday.

I always thought new Comiskey, now U.S. Cellular, looked like it was based on the renovated Yankee Stadium. The white structures in the outfield, the blue seats, the big ads beyong the walls, the thin rows of seats... it might have been a retro stadium after all. Of course, the blue seats are gone and the white has been painted charcoal...

EDIT: Guess I wasn't alone: "In 1991, prior to the opening of the new park, the hype led people to believe that this place would evoke Yankee Stadium."

[no97]

In all honesty, Wrigley Field pulled a Soldier Field renovation in the offseason on the bleachers. They completely tore down the left and right field bleachers and rebuilt them inside the old ivy-covered outfield wall and around the center field scoreboard and (upper) bleachers. I have to wonder if they've considered doing the same to the rest of the park someday.

Yes and no. They did tear down the outside wall, and the seating area of the bleachers, and essentially only leave the ivy covered outfield wall, but the difference ends there. What is the new bleachers is hardly discernable from the old, outside the centerfield batters-eye suite. (BleedCubbieBlue.com did a phenominal job of chronicaling the construction last winter. The same can't be said of old and new Soldier Field:

As far as the Cubs as them doing a bleacher-style renovation to the grandstand? I say bring it on! As long as it's done like the bleachers were (where I sat, by the way, August 5th. And universal opinion, even from long-time bleacher season-ticket holders, is that they did a great job), and not like Soldier Field was...

Moose

[2mr41h]

All beginnings have to have an end, too - especially with sports facilities, which have obvious lifespans that show with time.

Take the southside of Chicago, for example. Old Comiskey Park was absolutely grand, but it had eight decades of wear and tear and was limited by the architectural deficiencies of the early 20th century. It was replaced by the new Comiskey (now US Cellular), which was lauded for its design in 1991. Now, 15 years later, US Cellular Field looks like a dinosaur compared to PNC Park and new Busch Stadium.

Another example is Arsenal Stadium (Highbury), home of Arsenal in English soccer. It opened in 1913, tucked into the borough of Islington in north London. Much like Fenway Park, its community defined Highbury. The stadium underwent several renovations in its 80+ years and survived the London bombings during WWII. Arsenal got to the point where it had to look to the future - Highbury was too small to compare to the grand stages of Arsenal's European counterparts. It could only hold just above 38,000, while stadiums like Santiago Bernabeu (Madrid) and Old Trafford (Manchester)hold over 75,000. Highbury could not be expanded because of the surrounding residential area, so the club's options with the classic facility were out.

The team is moving into a beautiful new facility this season, Emirates Stadium, which holds over 60,000 and sits less than a mile from Highbury. It was sad for the team to leave - I teared up when I walked away from it for the last time after last November's match vs. Blackburn Rovers. But most fans know that the move is necessary, because Arsenal is a world-class club.

There will be a time when Camden Yards, Jacobs Field, and AT&T Park will close their gates and be replaced. Most of us won't be around to see it, but when those times come, it will probably be as necessary as the implosions of Three Rivers and Atlanta-Fulton County stadiums and the closing of Tiger Stadium.

[Gothamite]

Highbury's an interesting example - they couldn't just expand it because of the constraints of surrounding buildings.

Here's the old and new:

As an Arsenal fan, I was sad to see Highbury go. But the club needs a larger stadium.

However, that doesn't address the new Yankee Stadium, which will have a smaller capacity than the current park. Why couldn't they renovate this one?

[powersurge]

I hate to step on anybody's toes...but here goes.

Lets call a spade a spade. Even though I'm not a big fan of the Yankees, I do acknowlege and give respect to their success in baseball over the years but I think Yankee Stadium is the biggest most overrated piece of garbage park in baseball.

1. It smells and is dirty. Absolutely the most disgusting park in baseball.

2. The surrounding area is awful and doesn't even whisper the word "historic", which is way over used when speaking about the park.

3. It is outdated and plain. They took the only thing that gave some character (the roof fascade) and put it on the wall over the outfield bleachers where it looks horrible. Its meant to be on the roof. The monements didn't really belong on the field but at least it was unique.

4. The area beyond the center field wall (monument park, bleachers, and ad wall) looks like a minor league park

5. There is nothing that has any distinct character what so ever. No Green Monster, Brick and Ivy, Beautiful vistas of a skyline, Warehouse, Grassy hill, nada.

I'm probably forgetting alot more that bothers me about the park, but the number one thing that kills me about the stadium is that it really bares no resemblance to an "historic" park, and neither will the new one EXCEPT for the outside. But really now, who cares about the outside? The outsides of Coors Field, Citizens Bank Park, Comerica Park etc all look great but the INSIDES look less than stellar.

You want to go see a "historic" park that will forever be up to date and classic, go to Camden Yards. They got it right! Everyone else tried but missed badly

[no97]

However, that doesn't address the new Yankee Stadium, which will have a smaller capacity than the current park. Why couldn't they renovate this one?

Ah, yes, the economic model of today - less seats, and more money coming in... How does it work? Simple. More suites, more club seating, and higher ticket prices for the right to attend ball games. That, paired with higher prices for steped up concessions, and you've got the smaller capacity issue.

As to why not renovate, part of the problem falls inot the "where to play" problem. Shea likely isn't an option, as the Mets are building their own park as well. So, if the Mets and Yankees are both building new parks, they can't both use Shea while renovating Yankee Stadium, then let the Mets use the renovated Stadium while they build the new Mets park (I don't think the Mets would be willing to hold off their project to let the Yanks finish theirs). Throw in the ego of Steinbrenner (the Mets are getting a new park, I want one too), and I think there's your answer...

Moose

[speedo]

So, if the Mets and Yankees are both building new parks, they can't both use Shea while renovating Yankee Stadium, then let the Mets use the renovated Stadium while they build the new Mets park (I don't think the Mets would be willing to hold off their project to let the Yanks finish theirs). Throw in the ego of Steinbrenner (the Mets are getting a new park, I want one too), and I think there's your answer...

Moose

You're right, it'll never happen, despite the fact they both used Shea in 1974 and '75 during the initial Stadium renovation. But that was a different time and era.