Sports Traditions

[njmeadowlanders]

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.

And in 1998 when the Yanks played the Angels there during the day, and the Mets played the Cubs that same night after the beam broke at Yankee Stadium.

I thought it was disgraceful to pop the Apple up for a Yankee HR to the point right above where the Met Logo on the apple starts, but that's another story...

[Original6]

While this arena doesn't have quite the history and isn't as old as Yankee Stadium, but it does have a rich history.

This is maple leaf gardens home to:

- Many Classic Wrestling matches

- Boxing cards

- Politcal Rallies

- Historic concerts (like the beatles)

- Host to the first NBA game

- the hockey of course

and a whole bunch of things I am forgeting. Either way, the building is not in use anymore, but I think they should keep it for local youth sports or whatever. What they are purposing is making a Grocery store out of it...

[pcgd]

Wrigley Field won't stand forever.

Neither will Fenway.

These stadiums have to be replaced at some point. Sometimes at the expense of tradition. St. Louis is going through this right now. There are quite a few people upset by the new stadium. They didn't see anything wrong with the old and see the new as a symbol of greed from the owners.

Tradition is a great thing. The Ivy of Wrigley, the Green Monster, the upper deck that overhung onto the field at Tiger Stadium, etc. All great. But, these things can't last forever. They are buildings that need to adapt as the years go on. Once that fails, they need to be replaced. We'll shead a tear for them because we'll miss them like our childhood home, but now we live in a better place that isn't our parents home anymore, but its our own.

The Bears thing:

I'm one of the few people that really like the "New" soldier field. I love the contrast of the old, roman inspired architecture mixed with the modern glass and steel. I like walking around the columns, having a 4 year old work sitting next to nearly 100 year old work. The interior of the stadium is beauitufl. Some might dislike the exterior, but I think its perfect for a city like Chicago. We're so proud of our architecture here. Buildings by Louis Sullivan from the 1900s sit next to ultra modern condos, a visual contrast that some may feel doesn't work. But somehow, it just does. Soldier Field is Chicago.

[CubsFanBudMan]

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. 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

Absolutely... I wasn't saying the quality of the Wrigley-Soldier work was the same or the results, just the process. The old was torn down and new was put up inside the old walls. It wasn't an "expansion" -- it was reconstruction. It wasn't advertised that way. That's all I meant.

I will say that many people love the way Soldier Field looks from the inside, just not outside. But I agree that they did a great job with the Wrigley bleachers reconstruction -- it's almost unnoticeable while watching a game from my usual perch -- upper deck.

[no97]

I'm likely to come across a bit two-faced here, but oh well. I've been avocating the "new" Yankee Stadium, "old" YS isn't worth saving, yet I think Wrigley is worth pulling a Soldier Field/Wrigley bleacher (with much more emphasis on the bleacher-style) grandstand renovation. Sometimes it comes down to how the renovation is done.

Bottom line is that Yankee Stadium was destroyed beyond repair in the mid '70's by the renovation, IMHO. At this point, it is much more cost and time effective to build new. If there is a reasonable solution to renovate, I'd like to see it.

Also, pcgd, I'm confused. You note "the Lou" as your location, and have Cards stuff, as well as Pujols stuff in your sig, then say, "We're so proud of our architecture here (Chicago)." Which is it? You can't claim both Chicago and St. Louis as your home...

Moose

[BBM]

Tradition is a great thing. The Ivy of Wrigley, the Green Monster, the upper deck that overhung onto the field at Tiger Stadium, etc. All great. But, these things can't last forever. They are buildings that need to adapt as the years go on. Once that fails, they need to be replaced. We'll shead a tear for them because we'll miss them like our childhood home, but now we live in a better place that isn't our parents home anymore, but its our own.

I think people realize the uniqueness of these stadiums won't and can't last forever. But there is something to be said for the ivy, the upperdeck at Tiger stadium, and the monster. Stadiums of today don't have that kind of character. I know it's been touched on before, but these new stadiums are no less "cookie cutter" than the all-purpose turf ones of the 60s and 70s. The only difference is these are more aethetically appeasing.

But what is so different from park to park? San Francisco has the waterfront. Ok, that is cool. And Houston with that little hill in centerfield is nice. Baltimore with the warehouse was the originator of this movement. But what else? Cincinnati, Detroit, Colorado, Seattle, Philly even Pittsburgh, they all play in essentially the same park. Red brick with green cast iron showing on the outside, "cozy" small seating capacity with large walkways and (usually) small dimensions. Show me some genuine appeal. Like the old stadiums they are trying to recreate had.

Boston with the monster, Cubs with the ivy, Detroit with the upper deck... let's add some more:

- up until the 70s renovation, the Yankees had the flagpole and three monuments IN play. And death valley (left center) was 460 feet.

- At old Griffiths Stadium in Washington, there was a giant tree behind the right centerfield fence, growing up and over IN play! Not to mention the ~ 400 left field foul pole. I mean, can you even fathom that today?

- Polo Grounds had the funkiest dimensions of any modern ballpark. Centerfield (where the clubhouses were) was about 520 feet!

Ballparks were forced to innovate due to space restrictions. THAT's why there were angles in the walls and high fences (or low ones, depending where you are). Ballparks today typically have outfield angles just to be quirky. There's no meaning behind them.

So when a truly innovative and historic park finally calls it quits, this is what fans will miss the most.

[Gothamite]

Well put.

I'd take Houston off the "character" list, though - stealing attributes from old stadiums shouldn't qualify.

[cranium]

More opinions from Chicago -

This is the first time that I have read/heard ANYONE praise the awkward (to say the least) architectural combination that is the new Soldier Field. There is even talk of removing it from the National Register of Historical Places because they changed/added so much. Really, they blew it. Just about everyone likes or loves the inside of Soldier Field but the spaceship landing in the colonades is just too jarring. They should have A. removed the Columns and put them in Grant Park or somewhere else along the lake front, or B. Build a new stadium near US Cellular so they could share parking lots, the Red line, etc. As far as tradition, just about everybody at the time seemed in agreement that it was time to put the old lady to rest.

The Cell has undergone some changes over the last three years or so to make it more aesthetically pleasing to the baseball fan. Overall, I think it looks a lot better than it did when it opened. But, it still isn't a great park, unless you like cheap homeruns.

Wrigley's new bleachers are astonishingly well done. If they could do the grandstands in a similar fashion, that would be fine with me. Obviously, the Tribune will not abandon that cash cow until falls into lake Michigan, so I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to subtley upgrade various parts of it. They understand that the stadium is the big draw. It would be nearly impossible and unbelievably expensive to do what the Yankees are going to do with Wrigley Field. There just isn't that much space on the North side available for another stadium footprint.

[no97]

Well put.

I'd take Houston off the "character" list, though - stealing attributes from old stadiums shouldn't qualify.

I'd agree. While I like Minute Maid, it is one of the most convoluted parkes there is (next to the out-field at Arlington, what with it's tri-tribute to Fenway (left field), Wrigley (center) and Tiger Stadium (right)).

Special props in the retro park area go to Petco for the Western Metal Supply Co. building. That is likely the most creative use of a historic building in ballpark design to date. The B&O Warehouse in Baltimore is great, but putting the thing darn near in play! Brilliant!

Moose

[no97]

So, I decided I'd post what my theory is on the eventual path for a Wrigley renovation:

This offseason, the Cubs are starting construction of what, for now is being called "The Triangle Building." For those that havn't seen what this building will be, it basically is a parking ramp, with shops, and a hall of fame. Also, the Cubs will close the area between the "Triangle Building" and Wrigley Field (the former Seminary Street) to non-ticket-holders and attempt to create a Eutah Street, or Yawkee Way type atmosphear. This building has already been approved, and will start construction after the season. Here are some artist renderings:

After this building is complete (which will take about two years), the Cubs will say that the new brick on the "Triangle Building" and the bleacher expansion project do not match the rest of the park (yes, Wrigley used to be brick on the exterior).

So, the Cubs will then go about a "Exterior Renovation Project," taking down the pre-fab concrete put up in the 1950 and '60's and replacing it with brick to return the exterior to somewhat the origional look of the park.

At this point, it will be suggested that as long as they are going to spend the money to fix up the exterior, why not fix up the entire grandstand. You know, just like they did with the bleachers... Why spend the money on cosmetic changes, when they can completely modernize the park at the same time for just a few bucks more.

Just my theory...

Moose

[Original6]

What I wouldn't do for a regular ball park like those ones! Instead I have to deal with the Rogers centre which sucks. It was a novelty in the late 80s but now has lost a lot of that novelty. Damn multipurpose facilty.

[Rocknjosie]

Tradition is a great thing.  The Ivy of Wrigley, the Green Monster, the upper deck that overhung onto the field at Tiger Stadium, etc.  All great.  But, these things can't last forever.  They are buildings that need to adapt as the years go on.  Once that fails, they need to be replaced.  We'll shead a tear for them because we'll miss them like our childhood home, but now we live in a better place that isn't our parents home anymore, but its our own.

I think people realize the uniqueness of these stadiums won't and can't last forever. But there is something to be said for the ivy, the upperdeck at Tiger stadium, and the monster. Stadiums of today don't have that kind of character. I know it's been touched on before, but these new stadiums are no less "cookie cutter" than the all-purpose turf ones of the 60s and 70s. The only difference is these are more aethetically appeasing.

But what is so different from park to park? San Francisco has the waterfront. Ok, that is cool. And Houston with that little hill in centerfield is nice. Baltimore with the warehouse was the originator of this movement. But what else? Cincinnati, Detroit, Colorado, Seattle, Philly even Pittsburgh, they all play in essentially the same park. Red brick with green cast iron showing on the outside, "cozy" small seating capacity with large walkways and (usually) small dimensions. Show me some genuine appeal. Like the old stadiums they are trying to recreate had.

Boston with the monster, Cubs with the ivy, Detroit with the upper deck... let's add some more:

- up until the 70s renovation, the Yankees had the flagpole and three monuments IN play. And death valley (left center) was 460 feet.

- At old Griffiths Stadium in Washington, there was a giant tree behind the right centerfield fence, growing up and over IN play! Not to mention the ~ 400 left field foul pole. I mean, can you even fathom that today?

- Polo Grounds had the funkiest dimensions of any modern ballpark. Centerfield (where the clubhouses were) was about 520 feet!

Ballparks were forced to innovate due to space restrictions. THAT's why there were angles in the walls and high fences (or low ones, depending where you are). Ballparks today typically have outfield angles just to be quirky. There's no meaning behind them.

So when a truly innovative and historic park finally calls it quits, this is what fans will miss the most.

This whole claim that the new parks are cookie cutters is starting to bother me. Should ballparks have some character to them, unique rules specific to just that ballpark? Sure, why not. But quirky does not equal good. The winds at Candlestick sure made the park unique but no outfielder longs for catching a ball in it. These ballparks fans gush over are not built for fans, we aren't the ones going to work, the players are. And things like trees in play, overhangs, etc make the day at the office hell.

Now obviously quirks that don't interupt play like the high walls and short fences at AT&T and Fenway but those are space issues, it was neccesary to fit into the property. But give me a good reason why a team building a stadium into the city grid (ie square plot of land) should randomly bring in fences. Take away the Ivy and Wrigley's beloved but not quirky. But what's Safeco Field supposed to do plant Morning Glories?

Final point, the quotes about cookie cutters back in the day were from players not fans. They never asked the balding 40 yr old wearing a replica jersey if they felt the concourse he walked through to get his hot dog felt too architecturally similar to the other parks of the day. But for a player, standing in the middle of a concrete doughnut, it was saddening cause it was no different than the other concrete doughnut you were in the night before. Take down all the teams paraphenalia, fly a player in blindfolded and have him figure out where he is. ?Couldn't do it.

But in Pittsburgh all he'd have to do is turn around.

[VitaminD]

What I wouldn't do for a regular ball park like those ones! Instead I have to deal with the Rogers centre which sucks. It was a novelty in the late 80s but now has lost a lot of that novelty. Damn multipurpose facilty.

Actually, it's places like Rogers Centre that are more or less the novelty these days.

As was stated very eloquently by many here (most recently, by BBM earlier in this very thread), the vast majority of ballparks today are more or less copies of each other. In this regard, we've made no real strides in breaking away from the conformity we all derided when so many cities had round(ish) multipurpose stadiums.

There are exceptions, of course. There are the truly venerated parks, like Wrigley and Fenway. Dodger Stadium probably belongs here as well, for whlie not as old as the other 2, it is a jewel that has never been duplicated, and with the recent refurbishments, looks as good as it did when it opened in the 1960s. Yankee Stadium falls somewhere near these 3 - it's got tons of history hiding beneath a facade that's only 30 years old. Then, there are the old holdovers, like RFK and Shea - which for as much as they're criticized, look nothing like any other park currently in use. Then, there's Rogers in all its uniqueness - the turf, the hotel in center field, the dual purpose configurations, not to mention the things it pioneered, like the Hard Rock Cafe with views of the action and the retractable roof.

The others are all clones of Oriole Park by and large. Oriole Park is a classic because it was first, and SBC Park in San Francisco and PNC Park in Pittsburgh head the top of the list for their brilliant use of local geography to create a great ambience. Beyond that - and maybe PETCO in San Diego for incorporating the Western Metal building as the left field foul pole - all the others are derivative copies. Many, like Ameriquest or Citizens Bank Park, are built with all kinds of funky variations in the wall FOR NO GOOD REASON. These parks sit amidst vast oceans of blacktop. All the artificial contrivances in the world don't make any of the other parks stand out from the others; in fact, they only help to make them all blend together. A hill here, a swimming pool there, a retractable roof overhead and an aquarium tank behind the wall don't make these parks better or unique - just equally contrived and faux-nostalgic.

So don't lament that your Rogers Centre looks like it came from the late '80s. It did, and it did genuinely. All these other parks with their contrived charm conjure up a past that never happened, and are all eseentially interchangeable. But there's only one Rogers Centre, which can't be mistaken for anywhere else on Earth.

[CubsFanBudMan]

So, the Cubs will then go about a "Exterior Renovation Project," taking down the pre-fab concrete put up in the 1950 and '60's and replacing it with brick to return the exterior to somewhat the origional look of the park.

I think the Cubs already announced this. Someone was quoted as saying there's brick still under the pre-fab concrete.

Like you said, the outer wall of the bleachers does not match, and they said after it went up that it will once the concrete is taken down.

(I'll look for the story.)

As far as your theory that they'll just rebuild the whole grandstand at that time, that'd be quite a project. Certainly not something they could sneak past fans by putting up big tarps.

[Gothamite]

This whole claim that the new parks are cookie cutters is starting to bother me.

Me, too.

It's an absurd claim, impossible to support. It basically boils down to the fact that most are brick, and most have the color green somewhere on them.

It's an extremely superficial look at the new ballparks.

[njmeadowlanders]

The original plans for the new Mets park from the late 90's had cantilevered seats in Right Field that came pretty close to the field. That would've been cool to see nowadays.

Say what you want about the new Cardinals Stadium (Arizona, not St. Louis), but you can't say thats not original or innovative.

And on the subject of Shea not looking like anything else, did you know the original plans called for it to be fully enclosed with about 80,000 seats or so? If it were, it'd have been just like the others, plus the shingles .

[Gothamite]

When was this - when Robert Moses tried to move the Dodgers there?

Yankee Stadium was originally supposed to be fully enclosed, as well.

[cranium]

Moose, that sounds exactly like the Cubs. The place is falling apart to a certain degree. They had concrete falling from the upper deck last year, so it makes sense to start rehabbing the grandstand. Maybe they could add some more suites and premium seats right on the playing field !!! (sarcasm)

[njmeadowlanders]

When was this - when Robert Moses tried to move the Dodgers there?

Yankee Stadium was originally supposed to be fully enclosed, as well.

The Dodgers tried to move back to New York? Or did I misread that? Care to elaborate?

It was also the first stadium capable of being converted from baseball to football and back using two motor-operated stands that moved on underground tracks. Shea Stadium is the noisiest outdoor ballpark in the majors because it is in the flight path of La Guardia Airport. The story goes that when the city scouted out stadium sites in 1962, they went during the winter, when flight paths into La Guardia are different, so they never anticipated the aircraft noise.

Plans were drawn up to add 15,000 seats and cover the stadium with a dome. Those plans were scrapped when studies showed the stadium might collapse under the weight of a roof. An article in the February 1, 1996 issue of the New York Times reported that the Mets plan on building a new ballpark in Queens some time in the next ten years. The owner said that he wanted the new park to resemble Ebbets Field with a retractable roof.

It also mentions there it was designed to be expandable to 90,000 seats. I don't know where I saw that was part of the original plan, but I definately do remember hearing that. Of course, it's all moot because it obviously never happened, and it's being torn down in a few years.

http://ballparks.com/baseball/national/sheast.htm

[pcgd]

I'm likely to come across a bit two-faced here, but oh well. I've been avocating the "new" Yankee Stadium, "old" YS isn't worth saving, yet I think Wrigley is worth pulling a Soldier Field/Wrigley bleacher (with much more emphasis on the bleacher-style) grandstand renovation. Sometimes it comes down to how the renovation is done.

Bottom line is that Yankee Stadium was destroyed beyond repair in the mid '70's by the renovation, IMHO. At this point, it is much more cost and time effective to build new. If there is a reasonable solution to renovate, I'd like to see it.

Also, pcgd, I'm confused. You note "the Lou" as your location, and have Cards stuff, as well as Pujols stuff in your sig, then say, "We're so proud of our architecture here (Chicago)." Which is it? You can't claim both Chicago and St. Louis as your home...

Moose

I moved to Chicago 4 months ago. I lived in St. Louis for a year and a half before that.

I just haven't updated my profile. the We thing was a little soon to some I guess. "Chicagoians" would have been better.

I don't claim St. Louis as my home, but I grew up in Champaign. My loyalties were split between St. Louis (The Cardinals) and Chicago (Bears, Bulls, the city in general.) I never dreamed of living in St. Louis, but I always wanted to live in Chicago.

Anyway...on the soldier field thing...it won architecture awards..

http://www.chicagoparkdistrict.com/index.c...75a493a3ad3.cfm

I'm not saying its the general feeling in Chicago. Its opinion. I personally like how its unique and has a combination of the old and new. If it came off that everyone felt that way...I didn't mean that.