Master Index of Archived Threads


"The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

G-Fafif Apr 03 2013 08:51 AM

Jay Caspian Kang in Grantland appreciates Dodgers Stadium, but includes a passage that I think nails a couple of other parks pretty well. Since 1992, when Camden Yards in Baltimore ushered in a new era of stadium design, nearly every ballpark in America has been built under the same principle — old-timey knickknacks like manual scoreboards get stapled onto a gleaming hulk of scalable, corporatized concrete and metal because nostalgia is a powerful purchasing device and drives fans to buy all sorts of useless stuff, from miniature bats to the now-$8 hot dogs they ate when they were kids. This is not to say that every ballpark built in the past 20 years is some horrific monstrosity that callously manipulates our most tender memories, but I do think we pay a psychic toll whenever we access nostalgia through a modern, corporatized avenue. [...] When I lived in New York, my friend Eric and I went to dozens of Mets day games at Shea Stadium.1 The Mets were unreasonably bad back then, trotting out some combination of Cliff Floyd, Mike Piazza, and a bunch of Triple-A players. But Shea Stadium was a comfy old heap that fit the team's personality. Citi Field, which opened in 2009, is a different sort of dump: the most cynical ballpark in the major leagues, complete with a Jackie Robinson rotunda (Robinson, of course, never played for the Mets), silly constructions like "the Great Wall of Flushing" and the Shea Bridge, a faux-industrial walkway modeled off the Hell Gate Bridge that connects Astoria and Randall's Island. There is a history of New York in Citi Field, but the same could be said about the New York-New York Casino in Las Vegas. When you go to a Mets game now, you're not so much reminded of the past or Shea Stadium as much as you're reminded of corporate strategy. It's a horrible place. I know the typical response here is to talk about the need for luxury boxes and modern amenities and walkways that make any sort of sense. And if you're a Wilpon or if you're the sort of person who needs to watch a baseball game from inside a luxury box, I'm sure you see the necessary evils of Citi Field. But if you're one of the millions of people for whom this is neither an option nor a desire, what, exactly, do ballparks like Citi Field offer other than efficient escalators and better garlic fries? I'll strike an old refrain here: Given the amount of money coming into baseball teams through television revenue and the always-escalating price of tickets, why would the average fan ever care about the fiscal viability of a ballpark? And for those who would argue that the next generation of kids will connect with a place like Citi Field and create their own memories, let me say that not everything is quite so relative. Everyone loses from corporate cynicism — Shea Stadium might have been a dump, but it was, at least, a colorful dump. I made my peace with Citi Field once they turned the outfield walls blue and human-scale. It's no longer on trial in my mind. The probationary period is over. I bought in, it's my ballpark. But the Wilponian cynicism, as Kang expressed it, remains baked in.

SteveJRogers Apr 03 2013 09:04 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

To be fair, no one officially called it The Great Wall of Flushing, the way they slapped "SHEA BRIDGE" onto the Bridge out there. That was an unofficial moniker that Howie Rose tabbed it. I do agree with the sentiments though, about the faux retro trend that Citi is very much a part of. Especially the trying to fit in parts of the culture of the city that the stadium is a part of.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Apr 03 2013 09:08 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Kang's on-point, I suppose... but isn't such crit-- "corporatized history," e.g.-- of the modern ballparks a little pointless? With the amount of money going into stadium design/construction, and the amount of money the new parks are counted on the generate, that sort of thing is unavoidable these days, though, innit? It's like pointing out how every food item in the truck stop is either stale or loaded with preservatives-- that's kind of the nature of the place, isn't it?

Lefty Specialist Apr 03 2013 09:14 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

The Rotunda will always irritate me. It told me, "I may own the Mets, but I've never really stopped being a Dodger fan". It's like Bloomberg at The Mausoleum pretending he's a Yankee fan while secretly delighting in the fact his Red Sox are kicking ass.

TheOldMole Apr 03 2013 09:34 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I went to games at Ebbets Field, and I love the rotunda.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 09:58 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I love Citi Field and it has nothing to do with luxury boxes. I love the Shea Bridge, it's a wonderful place and I'm not really sure what there is to knock about it. The Rotunda's nice. It's barely inside the stadium. It's actually one of the few places in the stadium you can't see the game. I don't feel like I'm in Citi Field until I'm through it, when I go in that way at all. Yes, it's overly corporate and expensive and all that. but you know what? So is baseball. If the Mets had kept Shea and kept tickets at the prices people think are right, they'd have a small market budget in truth rather than a temporary layover. I know I don't _need_ to eat and drink 'fancy' food and drink at the ballpark, but I spend so much time there it's nice that I don't have to worry about packing a dinner when I go. Honestly, if you told me I'd wake up tomorrow and Citi was never built and I'd be going to Shea Stadium..I'd be upset.

Fman99 Apr 03 2013 10:35 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Lefty Specialist wrote: The Rotunda will always irritate me. It told me, "I may own the Mets, but I've never really stopped being a Dodger fan". Yep. The rest of it is a jaded asshole reporter making his dumb points to fill a column.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 03 2013 10:50 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Ceetar wrote: I Honestly, if you told me I'd wake up tomorrow and Citi was never built and I'd be going to Shea Stadium..I'd be upset. yabbut that sorta misses the point of the huge opportunity they missed.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 11:00 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Ceetar wrote: I Honestly, if you told me I'd wake up tomorrow and Citi was never built and I'd be going to Shea Stadium..I'd be upset. yabbut that sorta misses the point of the huge opportunity they missed. I don't know if there's a 'huge opportunity' missed though. there's a different opportunity. but different is not better.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 11:01 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Kang's on-point, I suppose... but isn't such crit-- "corporatized history," e.g.-- of the modern ballparks a little pointless? With the amount of money going into stadium design/construction, and the amount of money the new parks are counted on the generate, that sort of thing is unavoidable these days, though, innit? It's like pointing out how every food item in the truck stop is either stale or loaded with preservatives-- that's kind of the nature of the place, isn't it? He's on point and I felt this way before I ever saw brick one of Citi Field, but I'd like to hear how this is true of the place in a way that it's not true of the Great American Ballpark or Chase Field or Petco or someplace. The huge opportunity was to make a place that was everything Shea was, only betterer.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2013 11:11 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Citi Field is a nice enough place to watch a ballgame, but architecturally, it is, as Johnny said, a missed opportunity. It's Disney architecture, which I hate. I haven't seen much of the new parks in Miami and Minneapolis, but to their credit, they didn't decide to go with the umpteenth "retro" stadium. It was a nice idea when Baltimore did it, but it's been way overdone by now. Don't build an early 20th Century stadium in the 21st Century. Making the stadium look like Ebbets Field was silly. Honoring Jackie Robinson is a nice and worthwhile idea, but it would have been better done with a statue or a plaque than a whole rotunda. (And really, it should have been at the Brooklyn Cyclones' park rather than at the Mets home in Queens.)

metsmarathon Apr 03 2013 11:28 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

it's not so much that it's an attempt at an early 20th century park that was made in the 21st century, its that its a disneyification of a early 20th century park that was made in the 20th century. actually, i think disney could've come up with something more authentic looking. the real problem is that its design cries out for it's lack of authenticity, and for its lack of actual architecture. its all modern facade with modern materials in kindof the style of an old ball park. and that's why it falls flat. camden yards appears to have captured more autheniticity, although surely much of that is the actual authentic warehouse out in right feild. i actually like shea bridge, though it really is a missed opportunity. in fact, the first time in the stadium, i missed it. i had to go back and look for the bridge that i had already crossed at least once. it could be so much more than it is, so much more architectural, so much more substantial, so much more authentic, but it just isn't. it's just kindof there.

G-Fafif Apr 03 2013 11:30 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

One thing they never addressed well and may not be able to is how much of the field one misses from too many seats -- an old gripe but a relevant one if you were sitting in left field Promenade, down the third base line, and tried to watch Collin Cowgill's extra base hit on Monday. Is it out? Is it in? What happened? You are just cut off from too much, which I've learned to roll with, except earlier in the game, when I'd dropped by a friend who was also sitting upstairs but basically behind home plate, I marveled at how much better the view of the field was. Not different, better. Not for panoramic reasons, but for baseball. How they couldn't get the geometry to work in so much of the park is the functional black mark against this enterprise. Plus with three video boards available, none was showing balls in play when you needed them to. Anyway, Cowgill's ball was a homer, to my surprise. Which was great (I loved watching him leg it out just in case), but it would've been nice to have seen it from my seat as it was happening, even on a screen. Then they cut the replay short (perhaps to discourage the Padres from arguing...though it was the right call, I could confirm after the game) and then, when they did the Delta promo wherein a kid gets an autographed ball from the player who just homered, we saw Cowgill swing and we saw Delta featured but not the actual home run fly over the wall. As the 10-year-old girl sitting behind me observed, "they won't show us the home run but we get to see an airplane."

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 11:40 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Ceetar wrote: I don't know if there's a 'huge opportunity' missed though. there's a different opportunity. but different is not better. You think that's the best they could've done? Citi Field represented a tipping point for me, where suddenly, all those newfangled retro baseball stadiums looked the same. From my initial televised impressions, CF didn't look much different than Citizen's Bank Park or the Rockies Stadium, whatever its name. Same brick wall behind home plate ... same scoreboard cast in that erector set framing. And that's a shame. Because in the grand scheme, there are so relatively few major stadiums, and so many millions of dollars invested in these ballparks, that there's no reason why they shouldn't all be unique artistic triumphs instead of the mostly repetitive iterations that they are. For this reason, I agree with Grimm in that my favorite new ballparks are the ones in Minny and Miami. Now those are bold, daring and innovative stadiums. Citi Field is, to me, an unimaginative contrivance. What the hell is a Shea Bridge? Is a bridge supposed to evoke memories of Shea? Was Shea mostly associated, or ever associated at all, with a bridge? About a year ago, at one of the presentations held at the Mets 50th anniversary Hofstra Convention, I sat next to an architect for the company that designed most of the new stadiums. We struck up a conversation and eventually, I asked him if he worked on the planning or design for Citi Field. He rolled his eyes at me, as if begging me to never think such thoughts lest his reputation be soiled. He made sure to establish that he had nothing to do with that stadium.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2013 11:41 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I was in Promenade Reserved section 512, almost directly behind home plate. It's a pretty nice place from which to watch the game, and it's very convenient to the food court that's atop the rotunda. And they're among the cheapest seats in the park, too.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 11:43 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

G-Fafif wrote: mark against this enterprise. Plus with three video boards available, none was showing balls in play when you needed them to. Anyway, Cowgill's ball was a homer, to my surprise. Which was great (I loved watching him leg it out just in case), but it would've been nice to have seen it from my seat as it was happening, even on a screen. Of course it would've been nice to see it on the field. Otherwise, the point of attending is diminshed.

G-Fafif Apr 03 2013 11:46 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Emotional attachment to Shea aside, I think if Citi Field came along more or less as was in the late '90s or thereabouts (save for the lousy obstructed views and some other unfortunate drawbacks), I would have greeted it more warmly than I did in 2009. BML cites Coors Field. Coors Field was novel in 1995, when it opened, the fourth of the Retro models. The early 2000s comers seemed to improve on that generation whereas Citi Field felt like a design left in the drawer right around then and dusted off when they got the funding approved a decade later. I really do believe the Wilpons, Katz, Dave Howard, whoever just assumed having Not Shea would be enough to make their fans and customers (particularly their high-end customers) swoon in unison.

G-Fafif Apr 03 2013 11:47 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

batmagadanleadoff wrote: G-Fafif wrote: mark against this enterprise. Plus with three video boards available, none was showing balls in play when you needed them to. Anyway, Cowgill's ball was a homer, to my surprise. Which was great (I loved watching him leg it out just in case), but it would've been nice to have seen it from my seat as it was happening, even on a screen. Of course it would've been nice to see it on the field. Otherwise, the point of attending is diminshed. No doubt. I thought the third screen, installed in August of the first season, was a reasonable fix to an unreasonable flaw. But on OD it wasn't doing its thing.

G-Fafif Apr 03 2013 11:48 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: I was in Promenade Reserved section 512, almost directly behind home plate. It's a pretty nice place from which to watch the game, and it's very convenient to the food court that's atop the rotunda. And they're among the cheapest seats in the park, too. Agreed that you can't do much better than roughly 512-517 if you don't mind knowing you can't duck in to a club during a rain delay or cold snap.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 11:53 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

batmagadanleadoff wrote: G-Fafif wrote: mark against this enterprise. Plus with three video boards available, none was showing balls in play when you needed them to. Anyway, Cowgill's ball was a homer, to my surprise. Which was great (I loved watching him leg it out just in case), but it would've been nice to have seen it from my seat as it was happening, even on a screen. Of course it would've been nice to see it on the field. Otherwise, the point of attending is diminshed. I think this is my only real gripe. They favored close to the action 'on top of the field' stuff instead of full visibility. The game happens in the valley of the stadium, even if you're on the field level, whereas at Shea and some other parks the walls into the outfield stayed pretty low and they added more foul territory so that the field level didn't interfere with the upper deck view (which was probably mostly incidental). It's nice that if you sit in the outfield seats in the promenade you don't feel like you're watching from the Empire State Building (although it's not _close_ by any means) but I'd have rather them moved me back, packed in another 20k seats on top somewhere, and not worry about whether or not the last seat in the last row feels like it's part of the stadium or not. but that's fine too. Very few stadiums, maybe none, have no bad sections. I know where the good features of Citi are and I buy my tickets are stand in the appropriate section. There's very little missing from my experience when I go to a game. (outside of the ..you know..winning..)

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 03 2013 11:53 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

G-Fafif wrote: I really do believe the Wilpons, Katz, Dave Howard, whoever just assumed having Not Shea would be enough to make their fans and customers (particularly their high-end customers) swoon in unison. No shit. They after all had the most to gain from the notion that Shea was a "dump" that needed to be replaced in the first place. I don't think CF is appreciably worse than other new parks I have seen, but surely they screwed it up badly with a design that lacks authenticity and wasn't even appropriate for baseball. They could have and should have done much better. I decided at some point last year that I would endeavor never to get a seat in CF that wasn't between the bases. Watching baseball from the outfield just isn't for me.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 11:56 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I decided at some point last year that I would endeavor never to get a seat in CF that wasn't between the bases. Watching baseball from the outfield just isn't for me. If you're bored one day, or it's a blow out or something, check out the front row of the last section in the Left Field Landing. I don't know if it's because it's basically the view we're accustomed to on TV via the center field camera, but I've always found it an interesting viewpoint. Not sure I'd watch the whole game there, but there's something to be said for watching the fly balls fly AT you. (and laughing when the crowd goes wild for fly balls that are so obviously outs to you)

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 12:10 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I think it's important to distinguish "most cynical" from "worst." The issues with the rotunda, I think, underscore this. I don't see this as a team-betraying tribute to the Dodgers. I think it's an important part of what Fred wanted, a celebration of a great New York park that went before. I don't think in any way that it was conceived with Jackie Robinson in mind. That was an afterthought --- a defense against demands that the whole park be named for Robinson, and definitely the sort of statement that helps you build and maintain the sort of coalition it takes to free up public money and approval to get a stadium built. [list]>>> "I don't see why, with all the problems this city has, we should be supporting bending over backwards for this ballteam and these very rich men." >>> "Did you see this part? The Robinson Rotunda! >>> "Yeah, and that's great. But I don't see how that's..." >>> "What? Do you hate Jackie Robinson? We're trying to end racism here.[/list:u] So, yeah, I'd say cynical is fair tag. While I believe Fred admires and respects Jackie Robinson to a degree, I don't see this as a tribute to or advancement of Robinson's civil rights struggle, so much as the Mets and MLB advancing their own ends by wrapping it in the civil rights struggle. I love Jackie Robinson and support tributes to him, but if you really cared thoughtfully about his legacy, would you really build a statue of a number? That's such an afterthought.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 12:14 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

the statue of the number ties into the MLB thing. MLB has made the number important. But numbers are important in baseball, so it's an interesting tie-in. It's certainly MLB-advancing first and civil rights second, but that doesn't diminish the civil rights part of it nor does it make it cynical.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2013 12:18 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Edgy MD wrote: I love Jackie Robinson and support tributes to him, but if you really cared thoughtfully about his legacy, would you really build a statue of a number? That's such an afterthought. I forgot to mention that. That big blue number 42 is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. I was reminded of that on Monday when I saw people waiting to have their photo taken with the 42. I also think that the new movie about Jackie deserves a much better title. Calling the movie "42" is as lame as that "statue".

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 12:20 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

G-Fafif wrote: I really do believe the Wilpons, Katz, Dave Howard, whoever just assumed having Not Shea would be enough to make their fans and customers (particularly their high-end customers) swoon in unison. Or maybe they thought for themselves rather than for the fan-base that simply not having Shea around would've been enough. They're cheesy, tasteless baseball philistines and nary a year goes by that this isn't confirmed. From trucker hats for the old-timers to hideous black uniforms that were the ugliest in all of baseball during their time to a stadium whose focal centerpiece celebrates a Brooklyn Dodger that never played for the Mets.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 12:21 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I love Jackie Robinson and support tributes to him, but if you really cared thoughtfully about his legacy, would you really build a statue of a number? That's such an afterthought. I forgot to mention that. That big blue number 42 is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen. I was reminded of that on Monday when I saw people waiting to have their photo taken with the 42. Amen, brother! Tell it.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 12:33 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Ceetar wrote: the statue of the number ties into the MLB thing. MLB has made the number important. But numbers are important in baseball, so it's an interesting tie-in. It's certainly MLB-advancing first and civil rights second, but that doesn't diminish the civil rights part of it nor does it make it cynical. I agree that ties into the MLB thing. MLB has declared 42 eternally retired (except when it's not) and a blue 42 is displayed on the inner façade of every stadium, and that makes the Robinson rotunda sort of the national capital of that statement. But a sincere statement doesn't really need a capital, and by doing it advance MLB ends and curry favor with MLB powers, that speaks to cynicism as well. MLB has made the number important. But numbers are important in baseball, so it's an interesting tie-in. I love numbers, but I'd say they're disproportionally important when a randomly assigned two-digit number is the best we can do to make a monument to sum up the great man's legacy. Jean-Luc Picard would scratch his bald head if he visited a planet where the citizens built monuments to their esteemed progenitors and what they stood for in the form of giant numbers. It's certainly MLB-advancing first and civil rights second, but that doesn't diminish the civil rights part of it nor does it make it cynical. Well, yeah, I'd say advancing MLB first and civil rights second while pretending to be exclusively the latter does exactly exactly those two things. Come on! Exactly exactly!

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 12:36 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Excerpt from Paul Goldbberger's somewhat dismissive though polite New Yorker review of Citi Field: As for the retro-classic side of Citi Field, the Mets, having no ancient ballpark of their own to evoke, have appropriated someone else’s. The architects, whose Camden Yards design incorporated features of several historic ballparks, have here wrapped an imitation of the façade of the much mourned Ebbets Field around the southern corner of the new structure, and the old Brooklyn stadium likewise inspired the form of the entry rotunda. The Mets treat the National League’s New York history as if it were abandoned property, which, in a way, it is. But does that mean it is there for the taking? True, the identity of the Mets—whose colors combine the blue of the Dodgers and the orange of the Giants—has thrived on a magpie element, but there’s something a bit dishonest about naming the rotunda for Jackie Robinson, who never wore a Mets uniform. A pastiche of the Dodgers’ former field in Brooklyn pasted onto the façade of a different team’s twenty-first-century ballpark in Queens is less a historical tribute than it is an act of make-believe. Historically, ballparks have been urban places, gardens in the middle of the city. The greatest of them—Wrigley, Ebbets, Fenway, Forbes Field, Shibe Park—emerged out of the form and shape of their cities. Fenway has the Green Monster, the thirty-seven-foot wall that compensates for the truncation of left field; at Griffith Stadium, in Washington, D.C., the center-field wall was notched inward because the owners of houses next to the stadium refused to sell. Ballparks weren’t the same because the urban places they belonged to weren’t the same. One football gridiron is identical to another, but a baseball field, once you get beyond the diamond, is not—which is part of the reason that even the ugliest ones are loved so fiercely by the fans and become such repositories of civic feeling. A baseball outfield, technically, has no outer limits, just as a baseball game has no set time to end. The outfield stops where the stadium’s builders decide it will stop. Urban ballparks had façades in front, to fit in with neighboring buildings, but were usually left low and open in the outfield, which had the effect of weaving the park into the neighborhood, so that, from the right place, you might catch an enticing glimpse of the green paradise within. [***] At Citi Field, conversely, the Ebbets Field façade, stuck in the middle of acres of parking (as Shea was), seems more like a theme park than it would if it were in the middle of the city. HOK has tried to make the stadium feel more urban by placing a long brick building, containing the Mets’ offices, just beyond right field, along 126th Street, where it faces a favela of auto-body shops in Willets Point. But, since the site is defined mainly by expressways and parking lots, the architects are fighting a losing battle. It’s a pity that the Mets didn’t build on the far West Side of Manhattan, where Colonel Ruppert first thought of putting Yankee Stadium, ninety years ago, and where the Jets recently tried to build a football stadium. A football stadium doesn’t need to be in the middle of a city, but a baseball park, smaller and used much more often, does. A stadium is a stage set as sure as anything on Broadway, and it determines the tone of the dramas within. Citi Field suggests a team that wants to be liked, even to the point of claiming some history that isn’t its own. Yankee Stadium, however, reflects an organization that is in the business of being admired, and is built to serve as a backdrop for the image of the Yankees, at once connected to the city and rising grandly above it. ?

Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2013 12:44 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

His use of "make believe" and "theme park" underscores my own point about Disney architecture. I would have loved it if they had built the new park in Manhattan, or even closer to Manhattan. If they could have found a spot in Long Island City, that would have been nice. But I don't think they ever considered other locations. The Shea location isn't bad; it was especially convenient when I lived on Long Island. You have the LIE and the Grand Central and the LIRR and the 7, but a place in or near Manhattan would have been more convenient to more people. I especially feel that way now that I approach the ballpark from the other side of the city. Oh well. I'm almost 50 years old. I suspect this will probably be the last "home of the Mets" during my lifetime, so if they do a better job the next time around I don't expect that I'll be alive to see it.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 12:47 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

The Brooklyn Navy Yards was considered.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2013 12:49 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Really? I don't remember that. At what point in time was that?

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 12:54 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

It was entertained around the turn of the century. I can't say how extensive the inquiries were, but it was reported as an option they were considering. Obviously, with all the rights an organization has to secure to build in New York, using the location they already had helped them past a lot of hurdles.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 12:55 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

The Mets have appropriated that history since their inception, right down to the '62 roster. Why should they change it now? When MLB hands you Jackie Robinson, self-serving or not, why not run with it? Big corporations are never going to get the benefit of altruism, and certainly they're rarely actually altruistic because with the wealth comes the expectation of giving and charity. But it's still there. Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie? He's important. more than baseball important. Where else? Dodger stadium? It's 3000 miles away from where it all happened. You could, it wouldn't be a horrible idea, but the color barrier he broke was the community and fans and was New York, not the Dodgers. You going to put it at Yankee Stadium? There is no indication that the Yankees wanted that. The Mets have always claimed that NL descendant thing, and there is really no better place in the entire country to put a tribute to the man. You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2013 01:08 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

As I said earlier, I don't mind the tribute to Jackie, I just think the rotunda is too much. The Mets are the second best team to host that tribute, right behind the Brooklyn Cyclones. Honoring Jackie Robinson in LA, because that's the current home of the Dodgers, makes as much sense as honoring Connie Mack in Oakland or Walter Johnson in Minneapolis.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Apr 03 2013 01:09 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I was gooing to respond but I saw it was already responded to: So, yeah, I'd say cynical is fair tag. While I believe Fred admires and respects Jackie Robinson to a degree, I don't see this as a tribute to or advancement of Robinson's civil rights struggle, so much as the Mets and MLB advancing their own ends by wrapping it in the civil rights struggle. In a semi-related thought, how bad is this '42' movie gonna suck?

themetfairy Apr 03 2013 01:13 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: I was gooing to respond but I saw it was already responded to: So, yeah, I'd say cynical is fair tag. While I believe Fred admires and respects Jackie Robinson to a degree, I don't see this as a tribute to or advancement of Robinson's civil rights struggle, so much as the Mets and MLB advancing their own ends by wrapping it in the civil rights struggle. In a semi-related thought, how bad is this '42' movie gonna suck? Big time, I fear.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 03 2013 01:16 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Why do we think that? I haven't gotten any kind of a vibe one way or the other. (I haven't seen any commercials or trailers.) All I know is that Harrison Ford is playing Branch Rickey, which seems like strange casting. (I would have gone with Stephen Root.)

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 01:19 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Ceetar wrote: Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie? He's important. more than baseball important. in the entire country to put a tribute to the man. You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something. So was Raoul Wallenberg. And Albert Einstein. Why not an Abraham Lincoln Rotunda? And a Horace Mann statue? And a Jonas Salk Museum right off the Earl Warren Rotunda?

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 01:19 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Ceetar wrote: The Mets have appropriated that history since their inception, right down to the '62 roster. Why should they change it now? When MLB hands you Jackie Robinson, self-serving or not, why not run with it? I'm not sure who you are addressing here. Ceetar wrote: Big corporations are never going to get the benefit of altruism, and certainly they're rarely actually altruistic because with the wealth comes the expectation of giving and charity. But it's still there. What's still where? Ceetar wrote: Why shouldn't there be a tribute to Jackie? I didn't say there shouldn't. I've long supported the notion. You're twisting my argument here and you know it. Ceetar wrote: He's important. more than baseball important. I've said as much Where else? Dodger stadium? It's 3000 miles away from where it all happened. You could, it wouldn't be a horrible idea, but the color barrier he broke was the community and fans and was New York, not the Dodgers. You going to put it at Yankee Stadium? There is no indication that the Yankees wanted that. The Mets have always claimed that NL descendant thing, and there is really no better place in the entire country to put a tribute to the man. I've mostly said as much. (I'd dispute the no-better-place-in-the-country business.) You're just throwing slop at me here. Answering statements I never made. Red herrings. Ceetar wrote: You can squabble over the silly 42 thing instead of a statue, but It's something. I'm not squabbling. I made a reasonable assertion.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 01:24 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

It wasn't directed at you Edgy, just in general, and in part to the New Yorker article. but you made a reasonable case, not a reasonable assertion. It's an opinion, not a truth. I just mean that at least there is A tribute, which is more important than the form it takes.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 01:24 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Why do we think that? I haven't gotten any kind of a vibe one way or the other. (I haven't seen any commercials or trailers.) All I know is that Harrison Ford is playing Branch Rickey, which seems like strange casting. (I would have gone with Stephen Root.) My suspicions start with them choosing 42 as a title. The continue with the selection of Harrison Ford. And they go right on through the basic reality that most biopics of American icons stink. When it's a subject that you have deep knowledge of and that is close to your heart, one gets... trepadatious.

Edgy MD Apr 03 2013 01:29 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Ceetar wrote: It wasn't directed at you Edgy, just in general, and in part to the New Yorker article. but you made a reasonable case, not a reasonable assertion. It's an opinion, not a truth. I just mean that at least there is A tribute, which is more important than the form it takes. Sheesh, a little pedantic. I understand what I did. There are dozens of tributes to Jackie Robinson. I think the form and the motivation are very meaningful. At their worst, a poorly expressed tribute to a person can detract from or distort the legacy, or coopt it into something very different.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 01:34 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I'd cast as Jackie Robinson. as Branch Rickey as Pee Wee Reese and as Fred Wilpon in the jump to the future where the JR Rotunda is built.

Ceetar Apr 03 2013 01:37 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Edgy MD wrote: There are dozens of tributes to Jackie Robinson. I think the form and the motivation are very meaningful. At their worst, a poorly expressed tribute to a person can detract from or distort the legacy, or coopt it into something very different. I disagree is all. I think the tribute itself is 95% of it or more. And this isn't poorly expressed anyway, simply a difference of opinion on one small aspect of it. maybe a little too MLB press releaseish in using a big number rather than a statue, but I think having a statue would conflict too much with the location, being a Mets location. He's a baseball player, but not our baseball player. The tribute isn't about him playing here. His swing isn't a representation of his presence at the Citi location. Maybe they could've done something other than a 42, but I like that better than a statue. And the Rotunda is so not part of the Citi Field experience when you're there.

metirish Apr 03 2013 01:40 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Excellent thread.....very happy to have been to Shea many times and to have taken my son on a few occasions. Having said that Citi Field to me is a far better place for the family to enjoy a game, there is something to be said for all the stuff kids can do there when they can't be arsed to sit through a whole game. If you swapped out the San Francisco's stadium and placed it where CF is would it be as revered as it is?

Frayed Knot Apr 03 2013 02:05 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: In a semi-related thought, how bad is this '42' movie gonna suck? I dunno, the rap soundtrack they're using during the commercials certainly lends an air of authenticity to it.

G-Fafif Apr 03 2013 02:50 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Speak of the devil: Jason and I generate warts-and-all enthusiasm for Citi Field on Yahoo! Sports Big League Stew here. Faith and Fear in Flushing welcomes you to our home ballpark, Citi Field. It took us five seasons, but we can now pronounce its corporate moniker without unconsciously (or otherwise) tripping over our tongues and instinctively referring to it as Shea Stadium. Shea — whose former parking lot provided the space for the current facility — will probably always remain psychic headquarters from a New York Mets State of Mind standpoint, but we’re comfortable at last with what this place is called and, more importantly, what this place is. It is indeed our home. Yes, it lays on the Ebbets effect a little too eerily out front. And it did come off upon its opening in 2009 as about a dozen years late to the Camden Yards wannabe party. It has also yet to host anything remotely evocative of 1969 or 1986. But it has grown on us even as its team-in-residence has made us groan over four postseason-less campaigns. We have fun here. You might, too, if you care to act on some of our blog-tested, fan-approved suggestions. [...] And once you’ve been wanded/patted down and your ticket’s been scanned, pause for a moment and consider Mr. Robinson’s contribution to baseball and America, if not the Mets directly...it’s a sore spot for many Mets fans that their signature foyer is dedicated to a Brooklyn Dodger, but we do our best to big-picture this detail.

Mets – Willets Point Apr 03 2013 03:20 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

On the one hand, I don't think Shea needed replacing quite yet and I don't approve of public monies to be handed over to sports organizations to build venues for private profit. I also think if they're going to build a new place, they should've gone to a more centrally located neighborhood site rather than the out-of-the-way location in a sea of parking that I thought was the worst thing about Shea. On the other hand, Citi Field is an attractive, comfortable and all-around pleasant place to enjoy a ball game. I like the open concourses that allow one to go to the rest rooms or concessions and not miss the games. I like the seating all around the field. I like that one does not feel a gazillion miles away from the action even on the top level. I dunno, I guess Mets fans can't have nice things. I became a Mets fan because it seemed that Mets fans were the ones who were optimistic about life, who supported a team through thick and thin, who recognized the humanity. The ones who could go to a game in a "dump" and know it was home. It seems in the last 6-7 years the whole mindset of Met fandom has changed to whiny, entitled, never satisfied, and overall just plain unpleasant. It's hard to keep going when all one wants to is have fun and watch baseball.

batmagadanleadoff Apr 03 2013 03:52 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Mets – Willets Point wrote: On the other hand, Citi Field is an attractive, comfortable and all-around pleasant place to enjoy a ball game. I like the open concourses that allow one to go to the rest rooms or concessions and not miss the games. I like the seating all around the field. I like that one does not feel a gazillion miles away from the action .... It seems in the last 6-7 years the whole mindset of Met fandom has changed to whiny, entitled, never satisfied, and overall just plain unpleasant..... I agree that CF is roomier, yet more intimate than Shea, more comfortable.... and the food is loads better. But so what? That's the absolute rock bottom least that I expected from the new 21st Century 50 years newer than Shea ballpark. Are we also supposed to heap praise and genuflect to ownership because the toilets flush and because the elevators work properly?

Lundy Apr 03 2013 10:50 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I was having this discussion at the park with my friends on Monday. I wonder how much of our view of Citi Field is clouded by the fact that our team has sucked every year since they've been there. I don't have many problems with CF. My kids love the place. I don't know if they'd have the same love for Shea.

themetfairy Apr 04 2013 05:09 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I started Weight Watchers just before the last game at Shea. I hit goal weight just after the Citi opened. So psychologically, I associate Shea with being fat and the Citi with being in shape. Obviously that's not going to apply to the rest of you. But I've always felt better about myself at the new place.

Ceetar Apr 04 2013 05:25 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Mets – Willets Point wrote: On the one hand, I don't think Shea needed replacing quite yet and I don't approve of public monies to be handed over to sports organizations to build venues for private profit. I also think if they're going to build a new place, they should've gone to a more centrally located neighborhood site rather than the out-of-the-way location in a sea of parking that I thought was the worst thing about Shea. Do "we" as sports fans get too attached to location? The Wilpons at least put a lot of their own money in, enough that you could make the case that a more publicly funded stadium has them more competitive on the field this season. I agree, although I think the city/public should invest some money too, although not towards the stadium but things like train service and parking lots and all that sort of thing that tie the stadium to the community. I cringe at the red tape that would've happened had they seriously considered a different location. Although the Yankees didn't seem to have much issue blowing up parks for theirs. I wonder if we weren't that far off from a Mets/Isles/Nets mega-complex in Brooklyn.

Edgy MD Apr 04 2013 06:11 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

If you can dream it, it can happen. Throw the Jets in there too, along with some soccer team that's not named after an energy drink, if you're of a mind.

The Second Spitter Apr 04 2013 06:17 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Don't build an early 20th Century stadium in the 21st Century. Making the stadium look like Ebbets Field was silly. The Ebbets Field idea made more sense to me when the design still had a the retractable roof (juxtaposing the future with the past), just like Miller Park which was also heavily inspired by Ebbets Field, yet is practically post-modern at CF. What kills Citi for me is the piss-poor scoreboard, the horrible LF landing, a terrible corporate-to-public seating ratio & the green seats (an aesthetic choice that sterilizes the last remaining vestiges of character of the place). Benjamin Grimm wrote: I swear, I thought you just posted a photo of.................

metirish Apr 04 2013 08:09 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Me too....throw a black Mets jersey on him and it could be..

Benjamin Grimm Apr 04 2013 08:36 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Who? I feel like I'm missing something.

G-Fafif May 17 2013 12:05 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

The author of the "cynical" ballpark piece (which was actually more about Dodger Stadium), returns to Cynic Field and finds the Mets' identity barren. Tall, blue-eyed, and sabermetrically sound, Matt Harvey is everything you could ask for out of a young pitcher. He has already been on the cover of Sports Illustrated and occupies more than his fair share of column space in the New York tabloid dailies. For the most part, the success or failure of the 2013 Mets will be irrelevant as long as Harvey continues to pitch well. He, like all the other pitching prospects who floated in their own orbit around bad teams, will become the main story line at Citi Field, distracting a jaded fan base from the truly boring mediocrity around him. But Harvey's popularity and success don't mean that the Mets will stay comfortably in a holding pattern until the team around him coalesces. New York is not Minneapolis or Houston or Pittsburgh, where any reason to go to the ballpark — especially the handsome kid who throws in the mid-90s — will suffice. Something has been lost in Flushing, and it's worth wondering if the boisterous, self-deprecating, but ultimately humane crowd that used to fill Shea Stadium will ever fully move over to Citi Field. On the concourse in front of the press box, I watched a woman in her fifties watch the ballgame with her husband. They both fit the bill of longtime season-ticket holders — they had their own Mets seat cushions, weathered canvas caps, and they talked with the ushers with a warm familiarity. In the eighth inning, with both the tying and go-ahead run on base, Ike Davis, whose .532 OPS has pushed the boundaries of the old baseball cliché "mightily struggling," walked to the plate. He, of course, struck out. The woman turned back to the usher and, perhaps to the row of reporters sitting behind her, yelled, "I can't take this shit anymore. I'm trying, but I can't. What is this team? What are they?" Some interesting thoughts, but a lot of well-trod material that even a non-Mets intensive reader would have heard to near death by now.

Edgy MD May 17 2013 12:13 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Harvey is handsome? He's awesome, and of course, that lends a certain perfume of attraction to an otherwise unimpressive grill, but he's no Anthony Recker. <>

G-Fafif May 17 2013 12:17 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Recker is terribly good-looking, isn't he? Assuming he doesn't play out of Collins's jealousy over his less trashy Johnny Damon vibe.

Swan Swan H May 17 2013 12:19 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I assume Recker supplements his major-league minimum salary by posing shirtless for the cover of romance novels.

Ashie62 May 17 2013 12:25 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I went to my first game at Shea in 1968 Banner at age nine and Shea was part of the landscape of my life for 41 years. I can't replace that.... I am having trouble embracing Citifield on any level but I'm sure one, just one winning season would change that...

dinosaur jesus May 17 2013 06:52 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Edgy MD wrote: Harvey is handsome? That's not really my area of expertise, but yeah, I think he's handsome, in a Renaissance prince sort of way. The kind who might talk about Aristotle with you or have you dismembered, depending how he felt that day.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr May 17 2013 07:51 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

More like the practical, slightly-ruthless prince with a piercing intelligence, with a head for Hannibal or the fine points of horsemanship, but absolutely no time for useless frippery like poetry or philosophy.

Edgy MD May 17 2013 10:05 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Yeah, if he's a prince, I wouldn't put him in the Renaissance. Maybe an Ostrogoth, slowly bringing his people out of a long subugation by the Huns. Tired of war but being so good at it, willing to live a warrior's life that his successors may know a life beyond conquest. He's driven by a little bitterness, that his people envy the sophistication and civilization of Roman citizenship, but he's seen Rome, and he knows they're better than that, and that Romans themselves consider the Ostros too pointless even to notice. He sometimes stares at the Danube and imagines a home there by the shore, to retire when the warring is done, but then he gets another image of the same river stained with his blood. Maybe at the hands of the divisional rival Huns, and maybe from the crosstown Romans. But what's the difference? The river doesn't care. He's that sort of prince. Not a particularly handsome one. And he's got an Escalade, so you know he's more than a little Romanized himself. And that's just got to tear at him a little.

dinosaur jesus May 18 2013 08:39 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

All right, he's a Romanized Ostrogoth.

Edgy MD May 18 2013 02:35 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

G-Fafif Jul 18 2013 04:52 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Not sure if anybody here has mentioned the tackiness of the Citi Field scoreboard advertising situation, but SB Nation's Rob Neyer just noticed it. Leaving aside the ear-splitting sound systems, which aren't a function of the architecture but rather are just an offensive stylistic choice, both Safeco and Coors are largely geared toward the game on the field. In both ballparks, you can almost literally walk around the entire lower level and never lose sight of the field. It's almost as if the architect - and by extension the franchise itself - believed that watching baseball was the single most important thing about attending a baseball game. Well, that's just no longer the case. Or doesn't seem to be. I haven't been to a number of the newer ballparks; later this summer, I'll visit the new parks in Philadelphia and Washington, which will leave me two short (San Diego and Miami) of the complete set. But the new paradigm is, in a more blatant way than ever before, all about the money: Get the people inside the building, then separate them from as much of their money as possible while bombarding them with as many advertisements as can be sold. Every time I write something like this, a few wise guys are quick to yell at me, "Hey, I guess you don't know that all the baseball parks used to have advertising!" Actually, yeah. Thanks. I do know that. I've seen the old photos. When I was growing up, the fountains in Royals Stadium were capped by huge rotating billboards, including advertisements for cigarettes. Mind you, the Royals were owned by a noted humanitarian. That was life in the 1970s and '80s. My point isn't that ballparks weren't commercial enterprises. They were. My point is that the commercialism, aside from actually selling tickets and beer and hot dogs, was a secondary consideration. Today, it's the primary consideration. Which was never so clear to me before this week, when I visited Citi Field for the first time. Citi Field's most notable elements create a jarring contrast. Exiting the Willets Point subway station, your path takes you to the stadium's main entrance, the Jackie Robinson Rotunda. This isn't just a name. The rotunda is essentially a shrine to Robinson, with huge photographs, a video screen running Robinson clips in a loop, and inspirational quotes. These words are writ large, high on the wall: excellence, justice, persistence, determination, courage, citizenship, commitment. It's all in perfectly good taste, but somewhat discordant, since Robinson never played for the Mets, never played a baseball game in Queens. It's also a bit odd to build a shrine in a high-traffic area like the main entrance to a baseball stadium. But I can't really quibble with Fred Wilpon's execution of what I will assume was high-minded sentiment. It's the rest of the stadium that leaves me cold, because the rest of the stadium is a shrine, not to Jackie Robinson, or to excellence or justice or citizenship or any of the rest of it, but rather to rank commerce. There are the usual suites, of course, and also a number of clubs, where one can relax with an overpriced drink without having to look at those silly baseball players doing the things that Jackie Robinson used to do. Some of the clubs are close to the field -- supplanting many hundreds of seats, and any view of the field from the concourse -- and some are far from the field, but it's hard to escape the conclusion that this ballpark wasn't designed for actually watching baseball games. If you do actually sit in the stands, you might notice something strange: two huge walls beyond the outfield, featuring video boards and advertising billboards. This is not unusual. What's unusual is that one board is angled toward the middle of the field, while another is angled toward left field. Why this cockeyed arrangement? Because one of the boards is not designed for people inside the ballpark. Some clever lad realized that if that wall were angled in a certain way, it would perfectly catch the eyes of people driving on the Van Wyck Expressway. The other wall, the one that faces the infield, faces out perfectly toward another highway. That one's covered with signs, too, with just a little room for a subtle, easy-to-miss Mets logo. When I was growing up, the giant scoreboard at Royals Stadium also fronted a freeway; it was painted blue, with the Royals logo in white. In those days, you sold a few commodities on the inside, but you were really selling your baseball team. Today, it's all about the commodities. Essentially, Citi Field is a shrine to Jackie Robinson's value and to naked commerce. Which seems an uncomfortable, vaguely inappropriate combination. I'm sure that many Mets fans have figured out a way to enjoy Citi Field; after all, it's all they've got. I do appreciate the extremely cantilevered upper deck in right field, which hearkens back to the old days. The Mets Hall of Fame and Museum, in a room next to the rotunda, is decent enough (although it's not as well-appointed as the Royals Hall of Fame and Museum at Kauffman Stadium). Citi Field isn't a terrible place. But like the new Yankee Stadium, it could have been so much more. Considering how much money was spent, and the grand tradition of public architecture in New York, it should have been so much more. But this, I'm sorry to say, is where we're at. Baseball stadiums are no longer palaces for the fans. They have become palaces for people who live in palaces, and places from which to hang garish billboards. Maybe it didn't have to be this way, but then again maybe it did. Considering that not a single owner has stood up to the forces of commercialism, not even the owners of teams that play in the remaining Classic Era ballparks, maybe there was never any reasonable hope of resisting the impulse to suck every last short-term dollar out of these publicly financed stadiums. Maybe this is just where we're at, in our society and in baseball ... which does, in the end, usually do a pretty good job of reflecting our society. Welcome to the enemy, sports fans; he is us.

dgwphotography Jul 18 2013 05:15 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Yeah, Neyer nailed it. I have never warmed to the place, and I likely never will.

Mets – Willets Point Jul 18 2013 05:23 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Requisite Yankee fellation alert: If only it were like Yankee Stadium, it would be so much better.

Swan Swan H Jul 18 2013 05:29 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I have great memories of Shea, of course, but I go to the park 15-20 times a year and I wouldn't trade Citi for Shea under any circumstances.

G-Fafif Jul 18 2013 05:31 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Requisite Yankee fellation alert: If only it were like Yankee Stadium, it would be so much better. Neyer wasn't at all crazy about MFYS III -- said both NY parks could have been so much more. His review of that place here. The New York Yankees are supposed to epitomize class. But with the arguable exception of Derek Jeter's appearances still announced by the (now) disembodied voice of Bob Sheppard, there is almost nothing classy about Yankee Stadium. The Yankees could have afforded to eschew advertisements on the outfield walls, but they didn't. They could have jettisoned "YMCA", but they didn't. They could have built something in the grand tradition of the Empire State Building or the Chrysler Building or the Brooklyn Bridge or any of a dozen other New York City landmarks, but they didn't. Yankee Stadium's like a school in summer. The big blue letters say Yankee Stadium, but otherwise you could be almost anywhere. There's something special about Yankee Stadium because the New York Yankees do play there and, as the franchise wins more championships, this new building will naturally accrue atmosphere and mystique, weighty with emotion and history. Now, though? The New York Yankees and the local citizenry spent more than a billion dollars on a wasted opportunity.

Ceetar Jul 18 2013 06:04 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Swan Swan H wrote: I have great memories of Shea, of course, but I go to the park 15-20 times a year and I wouldn't trade Citi for Shea under any circumstances. agreed. 10 years from now Citi will have that same "I know it's not perfect, but it's OURS!" and the "Well _I_ would've designed it different" stuff will fade some. Like the Wilpons/designers should've consulted you when they decided they'd rather build the promenade closer to the field and obstruct view than push fans another 50 feet back. I'm sure I'm considered a Citi Field apologist or whatever, but it's not just rampant commercialism, and a lot of that stems not just from greed on the owners part but on the players (hello, they've gotta pay these salaries you know..) but from things like building codes. Shea wasn't as bad (newer). but take old Yankee. The upper level steps were dizzingly steep. You literally would not be allowed to build that today. My home inspector told me the code for step height on a front entrance has come down a whole inch, and i'm sure there are similar codes for buildings like stadiums. That means either moving the seats further out to grade the pitch, or obstructing views. It means plexiglass and more women's bathrooms even though the bathrooms don't really match the gender percentages of the fan base. Neyer's speculating. If they tilted the scoreboard in Right-Center towards home plate, fans in the cheap seats in the left field fair territory seats would not be able to see it as well. Also it'd just look stupid. It's set back beyond the bridge (why yes, Pepsi Porch people can see it too that way) And it'd mess with the bridge if you brought it forward. Yes, duh, someone realized you can advertise on the stadium too, and this is most noticeable on Northern BLVD more than anywhere else. They certainly could've extended the building up higher to maximize that if they wanted, as it doesn't quite peak through the trees onto the GCP as well as Shea did, and it's further back (yeah, logistics. Maybe if the Yankees weren't doing the same they would've demolished, played there, and built it in the same spot for that reason? who knows) Look, the advertising isn't great. I'd love it, I think it'd be the most awesome thing, if a team hired an advertising firm themselves and demanded that all advertisments go through them so that they were designed to fit the park specifically. These are the extra steps the Mets (And many others) don't take. They don't put in the extra deck to push the capacity towards 60k but they knew they rarely were going to draw that and yes, money, they knew they'd rather sell tickets at 10-20 as the low end rather than crappy 'just get 'em in here' seats 6 miles from home plate. I liked Citi Field to begin with and it's only grown on me more. We're still breaking it in, but we're getting there.

metirish Jul 18 2013 06:09 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Swan Swan H wrote: I have great memories of Shea, of course, but I go to the park 15-20 times a year and I wouldn't trade Citi for Shea under any circumstances. This, I love going to Citi Field, my son loves going there. All the ads are garish but I really couldn't give a fuck at this stage....sponsors on the front of the shirt, we don't have that.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 18 2013 06:36 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

It helps folks weather the vagaries of both weather and childhood moods a LOT better than Shea did.

Swan Swan H Jul 18 2013 06:40 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

As long as we're invoking the opinions of writers: Jon Heyman ?@JonHeymanCBS 16 Jul folks finally seeing how great citi field is. 1 of 6 faves: pnc, at&t, safeco, dodger, marlins

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 18 2013 07:01 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Well, I agree it is way too commercialized, and it's certainly no mistake that the scoreboards double as billboards. Really, that's their primary purpose inasmuch as that side does what it's supposed to do 365 days a year vs. 81. That's not to say Shea was better. I mean at onepoint it was but by the time that place was done the Wilpons had sold every square inch of Shea available, and erected truly awful stuff just for the ad space like the Azec thing in the RF bullpen, the Keyspan sign in left, the giant Budwesiser ad where the scoreboard used to be etc etc etc

Ceetar Jul 18 2013 07:43 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

John Cougar Lunchbucket wrote: Well, I agree it is way too commercialized, and it's certainly no mistake that the scoreboards double as billboards. Really, that's their primary purpose inasmuch as that side does what it's supposed to do 365 days a year vs. 81. That's not to say Shea was better. I mean at onepoint it was but by the time that place was done the Wilpons had sold every square inch of Shea available, and erected truly awful stuff just for the ad space like the Azec thing in the RF bullpen, the Keyspan sign in left, the giant Budwesiser ad where the scoreboard used to be etc etc etc And that's the Shea I knew, which is probably part of my reasoning. I like the Azek K-Counter actually. Thought having a dedicated board was neat. How about the Dunkin Donuts cup they put up the last couple of years though? How freaking AWESOME was that?

SteveJRogers Jul 18 2013 08:02 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Ceetar wrote: How about the Dunkin Donuts cup they put up the last couple of years though? How freaking AWESOME was that? I first heard about it on another forum where the poster was talking about things new at Shea that year as he had gone to Opening Day. At first I thought he was saying that a cup had landed in the bullpen early in the day and no one had bothered to come and remove it for the whole game! And, yeah...no it was quite tacky, quite minor league actually. Yeah there is the Apple, but the Apple has never, in any incarnation, well Shea's Apple was sporting the ASG logo this week, SOLD anything. Not on the Apple, not on the hat, no where. So it may be a tacky thing you'd see in a minor league ballpark, it isn't shilling some sponsor's product. And the problem isn't just the sensory overload and the disgusting mis-mash of ad space (the less said about the bullpen tarp ad debacle, the better, its they've been getting so many different advertisers, that some have turned out not to be the most stable choices (Spongtech for example), and that's not even bringing Amway into the conversation! It makes the team look cheap, low rent and willing to grab anyone who actually offers to buy ad space in the stadium.

batmagadanleadoff Jul 18 2013 08:17 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Swan Swan H wrote: I wouldn't trade Citi for Shea under any circumstances. Form or function? Citi functions better than Shea, no doubt about that. Not that I'm impressed. Citi's almost 50 years newer than Shea: it oughtta function better. Citi's also almost 20 years newer than Camden Yards, and you'd hardly know it. Aesthetically, Citi's an unimaginative mish mash of mismatched pieces. Neyer's the first journalist I read who noted the wackiness of placing two giant scoreboards so close to each other. I always thought that their absurd placement was a domino effect necessitated to adjust for a bad bowl design. But Neyer writes that the ugly scoreboards were placed to take advantage of the highway traffic facing the stadium. I'm not surprised and on second thought, it makes sense to me. Besides, Citi's bowl doesn't appear so much different from other new baseball stadiums. I could go on, as Neyer does, noting some other of what I agree are missed opportunities. Like the so called Museum and Hall of Fame, a dinky exhibit, neglected more and more with each passing season, and erected only after the owners were shamed into doing so. I'm sure the Wilpons are still stewing over all of that wasted space that isn't generating revenue for the sale of more $50.00 t-shirts. How much you wanna bet that Jeff Wilpon's wife's walk-in closet is bigger than that Museum.

Swan Swan H Jul 18 2013 08:36 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Does the amount of advertising in the park really affect your experience, Steve? Watch the fucking ballgame.

Swan Swan H Jul 18 2013 09:05 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I count fourteen sponsors in this picture. I got fourteen here too, including some totally classy 20' tall Coke bottles. I am not counting the two charity spots. The sainted wall covered with advertising - good heavens. And Amway? Only the Mets would take money from an organization like that - well, the Mets and the Red Wings, one of the most respected NHL franchises. Christ, the whining.

Vic Sage Jul 18 2013 09:23 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

i've hated Citi from day 1, and we all went around and around on that topic as the stadium was being built and afterwards,too, and i have nothing new to add to that discussion. But to criticize a for-profit commercial enterprise for being commercial... well, as my daughter sometimes says when i say something stupidly obvious, "DUH". It IS a palace for commerce, not for people, but so was Shea in its day, and every other ballpark in America, for that matter. And compared to Shea, this palace has better amenities, if equally bad sight lines, so it offers a better experience for me, generally, than Shea ever did, albeit a more expensive one. But CitiField certainly represents a missed opportunity in oh so many ways.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 18 2013 09:28 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

I don't think the issue is, or ever has been, that there's in-park advertising; it's that the park's aesthetic is dominated by said advertising. There's no style constraint on the color/sizes/regularity of the advertising... it's just as big and visible as we could get it up there, get it up there, get it the fuck up there. Hell, forget form, even; the park's function-- displaying and relaying information about a baseball game-- is slightly impeded by the particular array (disarray? agglutination?) of advertising, and how it impacts scoreboard size/placement. I mean, if you don't see the difference between that Fenway picture... and, say... ... I'm not quite sure what to say.

Swan Swan H Jul 18 2013 09:35 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Here's a picture I took on Opening Day. I have no problem with advertising, sightlines, or anything else. I'm six rows from the top and have an unobstructed view of virtually every inch of fair territory, and these are among the lowest priced seats in the place.

Vic Sage Jul 18 2013 09:39 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

i tend not to give a shit about color schemes in ballparks, or interior design generally. Is there a difference with Fenway? Yeah, Fenway is an iconic piece of design that became part of the cultural landscape of the 20th century. That its advertising is more consistent in its design is like 12th on the list of reasons why Fenway is better than CitiField. Is the circus-like explosion of color and fonts that is CitiField distracting? yeah, a bit, but that too is 12th on the list of reasons i don't like the park. Yes, it may be symptomatic, or a signifier, of the Wilpons nakedly crass approach to their ownership of the team, but thats more about the Wilpons than Citi as a ballpark.

Ceetar Jul 18 2013 09:41 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

very first thing i see in the Fenway picture: CVS Very first thing I see in the Citi picture: Omar Quintanilla Partly that's because I've got my eye trained at Citi. I know which box to look at, and the scoreboards are not broken up, like in that Fenway shot or at Yankee Stadium for example. There are advertisements BETWEEN useful baseball information. Good trick, that. Makes sure you always look at it.

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Jul 18 2013 09:55 PM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

Swan Swan H wrote: Here's a picture I took on Opening Day. I have no problem with advertising, sightlines, or anything else. I'm six rows from the top and have an unobstructed view of virtually every inch of fair territory, and these are among the lowest priced seats in the place. Hey, no argument here. Y'know, 'cause there's no argument here. Your seat's great. That's great! That doesn't mean that plenty of equally-priced or higher-priced seats don't have those same-- apparently value-added, rather than intrinsic-- features. It was designed expressly for baseball and the game's particular sightlines; that there are "bad seats" at all is a pretty glaring error, isn't it? Partly that's because I've got my eye trained at Citi. I know which box to look at, and the scoreboards are not broken up, like in that Fenway shot or at Yankee Stadium for example. There are advertisements BETWEEN useful baseball information. Good trick, that. Makes sure you always look at it. How wonderful for the advertisers! Just because I know how to jiggle the handle on my defective toilet doesn't make it a marvel of plumbing engineering. Listen, it's a good place to spend an afternoon, and I like a lot about it. It just isn't nearly as world-class as the people discounting overpriced seats and calling them "bargains" would have you believe.

Ceetar Jul 19 2013 05:04 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr wrote: Listen, it's a good place to spend an afternoon, and I like a lot about it. It just isn't nearly as world-class as the people discounting overpriced seats and calling them "bargains" would have you believe. Never is, turns out they're advertisers too though. World-class is mostly that, an advertising word. Bargains are few and far between in NYC though.

metsmarathon Jul 19 2013 06:51 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

the thing fenway does right is, though they've allowed advertising to cover and hover over the green monster, they've maintained strict control over the color palate of those ads (monster green and white on & above the wall, scoreboard green & white on the scoreboard), and also have forced them to be uniform in size and shape, helping them to be fairly unobtrusive. yeah, you still know they're there, but they don't get in the way. but the park is not immune to the incursion of advertisements over every available space. feast your eyes.

metirish Jul 19 2013 06:57 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

It's a small sample size but I recently took three friends separately(father/daughter first) to their maiden Citi Field outings, the responses were overwhelming positive , nothing mentioned about all the sponsors around the place.......I think a lot of this is finding things to complain about , the Wilpon's suck , their stadium sucks....the signs suck...none of that has ever interfered with my day out at Citi Field.

themetfairy Jul 19 2013 07:13 AM Re: "The Most Cynical Ballpark in the Major Leagues"

metirish wrote: It's a small sample size but I recently took three friends separately(father/daughter first) to their maiden Citi Field outings, the responses were overwhelming positive , nothing mentioned about all the sponsors around the place.......I think a lot of this is finding things to complain about , the Wilpon's suck , their stadium sucks....the signs suck...none of that has ever interfered with my day out at Citi Field. This If you're looking for things to complain about then you'll find them in abundance. But if you're not, they fly below the radar.