Master Index of Archived Threads


Its the end...For Shea

mlbaseballtalk Apr 06 2006 10:21 AM

Coming in 2009: Another step closer to reality [url]http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nym/ballpark/newpark_overview.jsp[/url] Countdown to Shea's finale can be started

Frayed Knot Apr 06 2006 10:36 AM

Pitcher Friendly: Pitcher Friendly: Distinctive asymmetrical outfield walls, along with generous dimensions (LF - 335'; LC - 379'; CF - 408'; RC - 391'; RF - 300') make for a traditional pitcher's park. RF = 300' ?!?!?!?!

cooby Apr 06 2006 10:42 AM

I just can't find it in my heart to consider this a happy occasion

metsmarathon Apr 06 2006 10:43 AM

big high wall, with integrated pesky pole? edit: what the little bitty scaled down ballpark in the extreme northeast corner? could that be a pool of some sort? perhaps for cranes...

Edgy DC Apr 06 2006 10:50 AM

I'm guessing that 300' is for the right field line, not right field proper. ]• Wider seats provide enhanced comfort throughout the venue while more space between the rows allows for improved legroom. Fear not. We've heard your requests. We've seen your asses.

Willets Point Apr 06 2006 10:52 AM

I think that's KC in the Beltran jersey.

MFS62 Apr 06 2006 10:52 AM

I wonder if those plans have been submitted to MLB for their approval. MLB rules state that any new ballpark must ahve fould line distances of st least 330 feet. They would need a waiver from MLB to build it this way, no matter how high that wall is in right field. And "exposed iron work". That should could get rusty real fast. Sounds like a lifetime annuity for the local painter's union. Later

cooby Apr 06 2006 11:09 AM

That's kinda neat how they got that picture of those people there before it's been built

MFS62 Apr 06 2006 11:14 AM

cooby wrote: That's kinda neat how they got that picture of those people there before it's been built Consider it a deja vu preview. You have to see it before you can deja it. Later

Benjamin Grimm Apr 06 2006 11:15 AM

cooby wrote: I just can't find it in my heart to consider this a happy occasion I'm with you cooby.

KC Apr 06 2006 11:19 AM

Something missing from the story, I should be elated. We all should on some level. I just can't find the level right now.

metirish Apr 06 2006 11:21 AM

]I just can't find it in my heart to consider this a happy occasion I agree, as people say, Shea is a dump but it's our dump.

holychicken Apr 06 2006 11:22 AM

I am excited. The only thing that scared me was during the conference when asked about the name the response was something like "shea probably won't be in the name, we are currently marketing for a naming partner." *shutter*

Benjamin Grimm Apr 06 2006 11:27 AM

Potential ballpark naming partners: http://www.sheahomes.com/ http://www.shea-online.org/

Farmer Ted Apr 06 2006 11:46 AM

Home plate will be located near the site of the infamous Fire of 1999. The result of some jerkoff using charcoal at his tailgate party and putting the grill UNDER the car to cool down before heading into Shea. That was a pleasant smell while sitting in the leftfield loge.

Edgy DC Apr 06 2006 11:48 AM

Your wife hasn't let you forget it, has she?

Elster88 Apr 06 2006 11:54 AM

Is there going to be a dome? To be nostalgiac about a dump is ridiculous. Bring on the new park.

old original jb Apr 06 2006 11:55 AM I'm with you KC, something missing.

This ballpark seems kind of generic. It's another PetcoCamdenThe BallparkAtYourCityHereNowThrowbackYards. While an improvement over past generic ballparks, this is to the 90's and 00's as 3RiverVeteransMemorialRiverfrontMadeforfootballandbaseballArtificalTurf Stadium was to the 70's.

Spacemans Bong Apr 06 2006 11:57 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 06 2006 11:59 AM

My stadium was better. [url]http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y209/FlynnHagerty/NewMetstadium.jpg[/url] edit: forgot how big that thing was, I'll just link to it instead

Elster88 Apr 06 2006 11:58 AM

One problem: Bret would piss on that Piazza statue.

Spacemans Bong Apr 06 2006 11:59 AM

Elster88 wrote: One problem: Bret would piss on that Piazza statue. Not coincidentally, Bob Murphy Field at Tom Seaver Stadium would buck the current trend towards individual urinals with good ol' troughs made out of American steel!

Edgy DC Apr 06 2006 12:00 PM

]To be nostalgiac about a dump is ridiculous So much to learn, this paduan.

Elster88 Apr 06 2006 12:05 PM

Edgy DC wrote: ]To be nostalgiac about a dump is ridiculous So much to learn, this paduan. I've got great memories of Shea. I'll be sad to see it go. But I also don't hold on to the past at the expense of the future. You older Jedi Masters have to learn to adjust to the new and better. And I'm a Knight, not a Paduwan.

Spacemans Bong Apr 06 2006 12:06 PM

If they're going to get rid of Shea, I hope they mark where the pitcher's mound is, where 1B is, where Tom Agee made the catch that ended the 1969 World Series and so on. Atlanta did a good job of this: [url]http://terraservice.net/image.aspx?T=4&S=10&Z=16&X=3709&Y=18681&W=1[/url]

old original jb Apr 06 2006 12:06 PM The more I look at it, the more I like it--for the Dodgers.

I'd like a ballpark that makes more explicit reference to the Mets and Shea stadium, with only a passing nod to Ebbetts Field. One more thing: a stadium that refers mainly to Ebbetts Field built in the middle of a large lot in Queens makes no contextual sense whatsoever. The architectural/spatial fabric of the two locations are completely different.

Gwreck Apr 06 2006 12:10 PM

The 300' to right field I think is a typo. According to the "side by side comparison" chart (also on Mets.com) right field is 330'.

Edgy DC Apr 06 2006 12:10 PM

HUGE YUPS TO DR. JB!

86-Dreamer Apr 06 2006 12:11 PM

="Frayed Knot"]Pitcher Friendly: Pitcher Friendly: Distinctive asymmetrical outfield walls, along with generous dimensions (LF - 335'; LC - 379'; CF - 408'; RC - 391'; RF - 300') make for a traditional pitcher's park. RF = 300' ?!?!?!?! I wonder if the 300 is a misprint. At the bottom of this page it says RF will be 330 feet: http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/nym/ballpark/newpark_comparison.jsp

Willets Point Apr 06 2006 12:12 PM

Is there an echo in here?

abogdan Apr 06 2006 12:13 PM

At least they're keeping the scenic views of the chop shops. Shea's a dump. I'll miss it, of course, but I also miss my first apartment. And that place was a dump. So will parking be affected this season? What will they do for the next three years to make up for all those lost spots?

Benjamin Grimm Apr 06 2006 12:29 PM

I also agree with JB. I have a suspicion that forty years from now the next generation will want to knock down this new place and build something reminiscent of Shea. There's a replica of Independence Hall at Knott's Berry Farm in California. It's completely out of place there. Same would be true of an Ebbetts Field in the big Queens parking lot. I'd like to see the blue and orange "tiles" (those giant rippled metal sheets) on the facade on the new park. Let's give nods to Mets history. I don't decorate my home to look like the places where my great grandparents lived.

Centerfield Apr 06 2006 12:35 PM

I think the Ebbets Field-type facade is ugly.

Rotblatt Apr 06 2006 01:11 PM

I like the Ebbet's Field facade thing. I also like the "bridge" theme. Kind of unique, and it's certainly works in NY. I agree, however, that the focus should be on the Mets, not on the Dodgers. It'd be one thing if the Mets were moving to Brooklyn, but they're not. Which is too bad, really, since it'd make my commute to Shea a lot easier.

Benjamin Grimm Apr 06 2006 01:19 PM

Whatever they name the new park, I hope the fans collectively insist on calling it "Shea." Philadelphia had a similar shorthand for "The Vet" and that hasn't been replaced at all. Calling Citizens Bank Park "The Bank" thankfully hasn't caught on. The local station I listen to, WHYY-FM (the public station) doesn't seem to ever call the park by its name. They say, "The Phillies will be at home at the ballpark to play the Cardinals." Maybe it's because as a public radio station they don't want to give plugs to a company that's not a sponsor, but whatever the reason I applaud the decision to not mention the name.

metirish Apr 06 2006 01:22 PM

Speaking of new stadiums, anyone hear anything on the new Busch Stadium?

ABG Apr 06 2006 01:37 PM

Only the Mets could have advertisements in the design of the stadium. Lousy cheap ass org.

Frayed Knot Apr 06 2006 01:55 PM

Willets Point wrote: Is there an echo in here? Is there an echo in here? Mmmm, I guess there is. ]MLB rules state that any new ballpark must ahve fould line distances of st least 330 feet. Yeah, and virtually every single stadium built since they've put in that rule has ignored and/or gotten a waiver to bypass minimum. Whether it's a typo (I hope) or not, it's a silly rule if they're not going to enforce it. It's like having a law saying you can't do something ... unless you ask nicely.

Johnny Dickshot Apr 06 2006 02:02 PM

abogdan wrote: At least they're keeping the scenic views of the chop shops. Shea's a dump. I'll miss it, of course, but I also miss my first apartment. And that place was a dump. Actually looks like the Chop Shops will be obstructed by the high right field stands and scoreboard and the new stadium will be angled so as to offer a better view of the Bay, whitestone, etc.

sharpie Apr 06 2006 02:19 PM

1,600(!) seating capacity in the Sterling Lounge plus over 700 in the Ebbets Lounge. Where's the damn Seaver Lounge? Since Arizona has a pool in right field, can't we have a Crane Pool?

Benjamin Grimm Apr 06 2006 02:19 PM

Frayed Knot wrote: Yeah, and virtually every single stadium built since they've put in that rule has ignored and/or gotten a waiver to bypass minimum. Whether it's a typo (I hope) or not, it's a silly rule if they're not going to enforce it. It's like having a law saying you can't do something ... unless you ask nicely. This reminds me of all those environmental laws that the Bush administration says should be "voluntary."

G-Fafif Apr 06 2006 02:55 PM

For those who will miss "the old dump," think how the old dump itself feels today. http://faithandfear.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/4/6/1865869.html

ABG Apr 06 2006 03:59 PM

G-Fafif wrote: For those who will miss "the old dump," think how the old dump itself feels today. http://faithandfear.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/4/6/1865869.html OUTSTANDING.

Sandgnat Apr 06 2006 04:21 PM

Is there any chance that the escalators will actually work all the way to the upper deck in this new stadium?

DocTee Apr 06 2006 04:34 PM

Interesting choices for players to appear at the press conference: I get Beltran, Reyes and Wright, but Anderson Hernandez and Roger Royce Ring?

Methead Apr 06 2006 05:11 PM

DISASSEMBLE?

ScarletKnight41 Apr 06 2006 05:15 PM

Sure Greg - go make me feel guilty for wanting a new stadium....

Iubitul Apr 06 2006 05:28 PM

Shea is a dump. At Opening Day last year, it was filthy. the escalators didn't work. Basically an eyesore. It was then that I stopped saying, "Shea's a dump, but it's our dump". I just started only saying, "Shea's a dump". Yeah, the old girl is a dump, and she needs to be replaced, but it is a very sad day. When she is demolished after the 2008 season, a large part of each of our childhoods will die with her.

Johnny Dickshot Apr 06 2006 05:35 PM

Super hi-res here: [url]http://www.maurybrown.com/?p=115[/url]

Benjamin Grimm Apr 06 2006 06:21 PM

If the only thing making it a dump is dirt and escalators, it can be fixed with cleanser and a call to a repairman. Dirt, stopped escalators and leaky pipes isn't an excuse to knock the place down.

metsmarathon Apr 06 2006 06:44 PM

"I can try. Give me some bricks! I can wear bricks!" friggin' brilliant! absolutely friggin brilliant!

mlbaseballtalk Apr 06 2006 09:27 PM

Maybe its that I've only been going for the last 21 years, but I don't know sometimes complete change is for the best rather than trying to shine up a "piece of turd" Maybe I'll feel different the last time I walk out I don't know, or watching the eventual implosion (is that dopey baseball painted wrecking ball that did in Polo Grounds and Ebbetts still around?) that a part of my youth will be gone and nothing left but an imprint and markers in a parking lot. You know, I kind of compare it to what happened at my ala mater, Fairfield University, the summer I graduated, 1999 (graduation day was the same exact day of our comback against Schilling and the Phillies that afternoon) the University commenced (pun not intended) on construction projects that would leave the campus a mess over the next few years, and neccessitate the move of the basketball team to other facilities. At first I kind of felt a little sad in a way, thinking that there would come a time when I'd go up and almost not reconigze my own ala mater! Well, last summer I went back for my 5 year reunion, and I saw the work that was done to "moderninze" several of the buildings including the library, dorms, campus center and other facilities, and I even made a trip to the arena in Bridgeport, Arena At Harbor Yard, where the Stags currently play. And to tell you the truth, walking through the new buildings, seeing new, 21st century office spaces for various clubs, radio station, student government and newspapers (where 5 years previous looked like they were stuck in a perpetual time warp back in 1970) I felt a sense of, well joy I would say. The evolution of something that could not be done if it was just redressing or touching up something here and there. Again, maybe its just the youth in me saying this, maybe I have a little coldness in me, wanting the memories to be storied only in the mind and whatever audio, video and print records and archives, and maybe I really don't mind telling my nephew "This space we are parked in? Is right about where the stage was when the Beatles played here in 1965" rather than pointing behind 2B from the stands. But that is my take on the whole thing. Steve

soupcan Apr 07 2006 07:24 AM

Personally I'm more worried about increased ticket prices and seat availability.

Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 07:37 AM

It's not a "piece of turd" either. It's like if we say stuff like that we can get ourselves worked up enough to believe it. I don't like outfields without foul terriotry. And I don't like that, after I've mocked the Yankees park for having an internal elevated walking plaza, that the park is going ot have one also. Check out the incredibly bored looking generic (but professionaly looking, and, of course, overwhelmingly white) pedestrians they've photoshopped Mets jerseys onto. ]The evolution of something that could not be done if it was just redressing or touching up something here and there. I don't believe this either.

Johnny Dickshot Apr 07 2006 07:44 AM

Purple shirt: Four hundred bucks for those forged tickets: Dude, you rock! Blue Jean Beer Drinker: Matsui sucks!!! Long-sleeves under Met Jersey: What am I dong wrong? I figured chicks would be lining up by now mistaking me for David Wright... Billy Wagner Family: They were sold out, but fortunately a gentleman in a purple shirt had extras he sold me!

Iubitul Apr 07 2006 07:44 AM

soupcan wrote: Personally I'm more worried about increased ticket prices and seat availability. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! That's exactly why they are making a smaller stadium - Increased demand to jack up ticket prices....

mlbaseballtalk Apr 07 2006 09:24 AM

Edgy DC wrote: It's not a "piece of turd" either. It's like if we say stuff like that we can get ourselves worked up enough to believe it. ]The evolution of something that could not be done if it was just redressing or touching up something here and there. I don't believe this either. Cold hard truth right here: -Shea has been for several decades now considered the worse ballpark by players, media and fans in all of sports, not just baseball. It is not a "cherrished" ground that should be preserverd by conversationalists or other groups -To that point, Shea IS the template that led to other monolithic football/baseball stadiums, or as they were all considered blights, accross America during the 70's, most have FINALLY seen their demise (Riverfront, Three Rivers, Busch II, Vet in Philly, Fulton County in Atlanta, ect) -Difference between Shea and Dodger besides Dodger Stadium being a baseball-only stadium is that Flushing Meadows is a dump. An industrial area in the Northeast that is bordering air fields and a harbor. Not to mention Shea IS built on a land fill! What do you think will happen to a structure after 40+ years? Chavez Ravine? Great weather 365/7, scenic atmosphere, thats a recipe for a ballpark lasting generations. -Shea again was built during an industrial time that wasn't looking for long-term outlooks. This is not a quaint, elegant designed structure built a century ago, this is a building that was built with the "because we can" mentailty of post-WWII "master builders" specifically one named Robert Moses. That alone should tell you that Shea wasn't meant to stand for "A Thousand Years" Moses was a tinkerer. If he thought Shea should have been redone in 74 and something bigger, grander, more monolithic, put in its place, he would have done it. In other words, Shea Stadium has been living on borrowed time for quite a while, time to change with the times and do away with an eyesore that is a symbol of a failed concept and that is hated by the general community. Bottom line. Steve

Benjamin Grimm Apr 07 2006 09:42 AM

mlbaseballtalk wrote: -To that point, Shea IS the template that led to other monolithic football/baseball stadiums, or as they were all considered blights, accross America during the 70's, most have FINALLY seen their demise (Riverfront, Three Rivers, Busch II, Vet in Philly, Fulton County in Atlanta, ect) And that's one of my arguments for keeping it. If Shea were to continue in use for another forty years, it would be every bit as quaint and charming as Wrigley Field. I'm sure Wrigley went through a period when it was considered horribly old fashioned, with obstructed view seats, no modern amenities, etc. It's that mode of thinking that caused Crosley Field, Forbes Field, Shibe Park, Ebbets Field, and many other parks to be torn down. Wrigley and Fenway survived that period, and they're now beloved. The same would happen to Shea. All types of architecture go through an unloved, tear-it-down period in which many examples are torn down. There were actually people who wanted to tear down the Brooklyn Bridge and Independence Hall in the past because the structures were old and ugly.

Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 09:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 07 2006 09:57 AM

]-Shea has been for several decades now considered the worse ballpark by players, media and fans in all of sports, not just baseball. It is not a "cherrished" ground that should be preserverd by conversationalists or other groups I'm aware that Shea is upopular. Please show the data.for the cold hard truth of "Shea has been for several decades now considered the worse ballpark by players, media and fans in all of sports, not just baseball." I don't know who you're quoting in cliaming that Shea is a "'cherrished' [sic] ground that should be preserverd by conversationalists. ]-To that point, Shea IS the template that led to other monolithic football/baseball stadiums, or as they were all considered blights, accross America during the 70's, most have FINALLY seen their demise (Riverfront, Three Rivers, Busch II, Vet in Philly, Fulton County in Atlanta, ect) They are not the issue, and I'd rather they weren't dragged into it. ]-Difference between Shea and Dodger besides Dodger Stadium being a baseball-only stadium is that Flushing Meadows is a dump. An industrial area in the Northeast that is bordering air fields and a harbor. Not to mention Shea IS built on a land fill! What do you think will happen to a structure after 40+ years? Chavez Ravine? Great weather 365/7, scenic atmosphere, thats a recipe for a ballpark lasting generations. Dodger Stadium is, also, definitely not the issue. Shea is not a dump. A dump is where you dump stuff. This is a metaphor, not a cold hard truth. ]Shea again was built during an industrial time that wasn't looking for long-term outlooks. This is not a quaint, elegant designed structure built a century ago, this is a building that was built with the "because we can" mentailty of post-WWII "master builders" specifically one named Robert Moses. That alone should tell you that Shea wasn't meant to stand for "A Thousand Years" Moses was a tinkerer. If he thought Shea should have been redone in 74 and something bigger, grander, more monolithic, put in its place, he would have done it. A lack of quantness is not a death-sentence. The presence of quaintness is not a pardon from a death sentence. Much suppossed quaintness in ballparks is absolutely faux crap that willl get it tagged as a dump within a generation, at which point another ill-advised movement will be afoot to rob the public coffers. Quaintness is also not the issue. Shea was also built in conjunction with a futurist World's Fair, that gave it's architecture a future-modern excitement, at least by intention. This cold hard fact, though representative of a deluded --- though optimistic --- view of history and industry, makes Shea a rather important relic of history. ]In other words, Shea Stadium has been living on borrowed time for quite a while, time to change with the times and do away with an eyesore that is a symbol of a failed concept and that is hated by the general community. Eyesore --- that's a legitimate issue. But what indeed do you think makes it an eyesore? Can these things be fixed or improved. That's what we should be arguing about. I think brick buildings are lovely, but a brickface façade on a non-brick building that is borrowed from a building representing a community ballpark on a city street corner is nothing but a false quaintness that is an aesthetic annoyance that allows people to live the lie that neightborhoods and downtowns and cultural niches are flourishing in our cities, when it's Walmart and Disney making everything the same, destroying cultural variation, and making us vulnerable to cultural viriuses like, um, Christina Aguilera. I've said too much. ]Bottom line. Opinions are fine. Too many of them are masquerading as fact though.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 07 2006 09:54 AM

Iubitul wrote: ="soupcan"]Personally I'm more worried about increased ticket prices and seat availability. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! That's exactly why they are making a smaller stadium - Increased demand to jack up ticket prices.... Not just hike in ticket prices, concession prices, parking prices, and prices in general, but more expensive luxury boxes come with less seating as well! Thats where the real Ding! Ding! Ding! KA-CHING! is coming from

mlbaseballtalk Apr 07 2006 10:04 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Brooklyn Bridge and Independence Hall in the past because the structures were old and ugly. We are talking about a ballpark though. Something only a small segment of the society (okay not THAT small, but it is a segment) uses and/or wants Not a place where this country's very history was forged, and not a structure meant for use by everyone who travels through New York. And I'll give you the bridge considering that it has withstood the test of time while bridges constructed during the Moses expansion era are detoriating rapidly, leaving more congestion and roadwork that seems to never be completed all over the 5 boroughs and Westchester

Elster88 Apr 07 2006 10:04 AM

Here's one reason not to get a new stadium. I'm not going to like telling people that I'm headed to Walmart Stadium. Maybe they can just suck it up and spend the extra dollars and not sell the name.

soupcan Apr 07 2006 10:06 AM

That ain't gonna happen. The best we can hope for is 'MET-Life Stadium'

mlbaseballtalk Apr 07 2006 10:25 AM

Edgy DC wrote: I'm aware that Shea is upopular. Please show the data.for the cold hard truth of "Shea has been for several decades now considered the worse ballpark by players, media and fans in all of sports, not just baseball." I don't know who you're quoting in cliaming that Shea is a "'cherrished' [sic] ground that should be preserverd by conversationalists. Every year there are polls listing Shea as one of, if not the worse ballpark, this is going back to the 70's. By fans, players and media. And the second part I meant Shea should not be considered a ground targeted by the landmark preservation (word I was actually looking for but conversationalists came out) community. ]They are not the issue, and I'd rather they weren't dragged into it. Dodger Stadium is, also, definitely not the issue. So your point is the Mets should exist inside a vacum? Stadiums going up with more luxury boxes and less seats. I'll grant you it's a flawed business model if you want to make it a money generator (bad team, no people, no money) but it is the way the "winds of change" are blowing ]Shea is not a dump. A dump is where you dump stuff. This is a metaphor, not a cold hard truth. Shea was built on top of a land fill, not as metaphorical as you'd think. It really was built on a dump. ]A lack of quantness is not a death-sentence. The presence of quaintness is not a pardon from a death sentence. Much suppossed quaintness in ballparks is absolutely faux crap that willl get it tagged as a dump within a generation, at which point another ill-advised movement will be afoot to rob the public coffers. Re-read what I said about Fairfield University. The campus center, radio station, the student government offices and other student organizations had the same look as they probably looked in 1969. Quant, but not what a modern college campus should be. Now they do. Yes tuition was probably increased a lot, but things do need to change. ]Shea was also built in conjunction with a futurist World's Fair, that gave it's architecture a future-modern excitement, at least by intention. This cold hard fact, though representative of a deluded --- though optimistic --- view of history and industry, makes Shea a rather important relic of history. Do you want people to forever be reminded of a deluded, failed vision? Important relic of history? I'll give you the site of the first stadium rock concert, but thats about all I'll give you. ]I think brick buildings are lovely, but a brickface façade on a non-brick building that is borrowed from a building representing a community ballpark on a city street corner is nothing but a false quaintness that is an aesthetic annoyance that allows people to live the lie that neightborhoods and downtowns and cultural niches are flourishing in our cities, when it's Walmart and Disney making everything the same, destroying cultural variation, and making us vulnerable to cultural viriuses like, um, Christina Aguilera. That I'll agree with. Freddie should have moved off his "Ebbetts II" idea after that retractable dome idea fell by the wayside. But what do you suggest? The monolith that is coming to DC? Steve

Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 10:56 AM

]Every year there are polls listing Shea as one of, if not the worse ballpark, this is going back to the 70's. By fans, players and media. And the second part I meant Shea should not be considered a ground targeted by the landmark preservation (word I was actually looking for but conversationalists came out) community. Now it's "one of" the worst and not the worst. I'd like to discuss the actual polls, and address the issues cited. ]So your point is the Mets should exist inside a vacum? Stadiums going up with more luxury boxes and less seats. I'll grant you it's a flawed business model if you want to make it a money generator (bad team, no people, no money) but it is the way the "winds of change" are blowing My point is that I don't know what your poiint is. I'll agree that Shea is not Dodger Stadium if you'll agree that it's not Riverfront Collisseum. And the Empire State Building isn't the Leaning Tower of Pisa (and God help us if it was). To Heck with winds of change. Champions sail to their own wind. ] Shea was built on top of a land fill, not as metaphorical as you'd think. It really was built on a dump. And how is that an issue? Is rusted metal coming up through the ground and threatening the ballplayers. This new park is going to be built about 30 feet away, so I can't see how this complaint can damn the old park and not the new. ]Re-read what I said about Fairfield University. The campus center, radio station, the student government offices and other student organizations had the same look as they probably looked in 1969. Quant, but not what a modern college campus should be. Now they do. Yes tuition was probably increased a lot, but things do need to change. Good architects can upgrade facilities without razing the building. A successful (to your eyes, at this point) rebuild doesn't mean a successful renovation would have been impossible, only that somebody determined the costs of such a thing outweighed the benefits.* But I want a ball team (and a university, for that matter) that boldy zags when everybody else zigs, and therefore have a large unique market niche in a sea of sameness. ]Do you want people to forever be reminded of a deluded, failed vision? Important relic of history? I'll give you the site of the first stadium rock concert, but thats about all I'll give you. Well, gee, sight of a lot more than that. The vision isn't quite failed either. Jetson-like techno-idealism still flourishes in many corriders, is just that information technology has replaced the autmation technology in these visions. To the extent that it hasn't succeeded, yeah, let it be memorialized, for the energy, ambition, excitement, innocence, and hope it embodied. Dreams of the future-modern were as much to credit as the Beatles for keeping our country trom falling into a cultural/industrial maliase after Kennedy died. And they got Neil Armstrong's ass to the moon, didn't they? Didn't they? ]That I'll agree with. Freddie should have moved off his "Ebbetts II" idea after that retractable dome idea fell by the wayside. But what do you suggest? The monolith that is coming to DC? What I'm suggesting is improving Shea in a way that honors the past and the better and best ideas of the future. What's coming to DC is a travesty. I'm used to economic and cultural and architectural travesties in DC, and I don't freaking care about the Nationals. Not so New York. Not so the Mets. ____________________________ *Universities, I suspect. are at a disadvantage here, because the family of a rich alumn from 1957 who donates a new building gets his name on it, the famiy of a rich alumn who donates money to renovate a building already named for a rich alumn of 1906 doesn't, and those folks are perhaps less inclined to donate without a building/monument to Papa. Just a specualtive footnote there.

soupcan Apr 07 2006 11:15 AM

I think they'd be remiss in not including the scoreboard skyline in the new place. Ever since they put it up its been one of my favorite things. The apple in the hat they can feel free to shitcan however.

mlbaseballtalk Apr 07 2006 12:09 PM

="Edgy DC"] ]Now it's "one of" the worst and not the worst. I'd like to discuss the actual polls, and address the issues cited. Shea and Candlestick were usually one and two. Look at any players polls done by SI, TSN, MLB and other organizations. And yeah I'm basing the media and fans from various "Stadium Tour books" (Dodger Dogs and Fenway Franks is one of the better ones, outdated by almost two decades now though) through the years and NYC cranky media (Wally Matthews being a prime example) and fans calling radio shows ]My point is that I don't know what your poiint is. I'll agree that Shea is not Dodger Stadium if you'll agree that it's not Riverfront Collisseum. And the Empire State Building isn't the Leaning Tower of Pisa (and God help us if it was). To Heck with winds of change. Champions sail to their own wind. Heh, good point. My point was more that Dodger Stadium was a baseball-only, older than Shea and is still considered one of the best, if not THE best in all of baseball. Riverfront and dual stadiums that came after Shea have met their ends, and most of them existed in the same environment that Shea did. Not sure that the Murph needed to be replaced is more along that point. ]And how is that an issue? Is rusted metal coming up through the ground and threatening the ballplayers. This new park is going to be built about 30 feet away, so I can't see how this complaint can damn the old park and not the new. I'm giving reasons why there is sepages all over Shea, and why its wasn't exactly the best place to put a ballpark in the first place. Yes in 20-30 years the new place will probably face the same issues. ]Good architects can upgrade facilities without razing the building. A successful (to your eyes, at this point) rebuild doesn't mean a successful renovation would have been impossible, only that somebody determined the costs of such a thing outweighed the benefits.* Heh. Actually thats what Fairfield did. Just turned a 30 year old campus center into something that resembles a modern office complex/hotel convention center with a collegite charm and threw all the aforementioned organizations into offices in the new lobby of the building (old lobby still looks relativly the same as it used to) ]But I want a ball team (and a university, for that matter) that boldy zags when everybody else zigs, and therefore have a large unique market niche in a sea of sameness. Alright, so why are we letting our closer use the MFY closer's music, and why are our bleacher denziens co-opting the MFY Bleacher Bum's Roll Call. Small potatoes comparitivly speaking, but you better be against those two issues. ]Well, gee, sight of a lot more than that. The vision isn't quite failed either. Jetson-like techno-idealism still flourishes in many corriders, is just that information technology has replaced the autmation technology in these visions. To the extent that it hasn't succeeded, yeah, let it be memorialized, for the energy, ambition, excitement, innocence, and hope it embodied. Dreams of the future-modern were as much to credit as the Beatles for keeping our country trom falling into a cultural/industrial maliase after Kennedy died. And they got Neil Armstrong's ass to the moon, didn't they? Didn't they? Fair point. I just disagree that Shea emboddies that spirit though. Steve Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 12:22 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 07 2006 10:36 PM ]Shea and Candlestick were usually one and two. Look at any players polls done by SI, TSN, MLB and other organizations. Please don't ask me to figure out what your supporting documentation is and find it. ]And yeah I'm basing the media and fans from various "Stadium Tour books" (Dodger Dogs and Fenway Franks is one of the better ones, outdated by almost two decades now though) I'll read it. ] through the years and NYC cranky media (Wally Matthews being a prime example) and fans calling radio shows To Hell with the cranky media. Their point is to complain. Radio callers whining about the entitlements they don't get cut no ice with me also. They're far from objective. ]I'm giving reasons why there is sepages all over Shea, and why its wasn't exactly the best place to put a ballpark in the first place. Yes in 20-30 years the new place will probably face the same issues. So newer isn't better, and they can either solve this for under a half billion dollars or perhaps spend that money only to have the problem return. I'm not quite sure what seepages you're referring to. On the field? In the foundation? In the parking lot? ]Alright, so why are we letting our closer use the MFY closer's music, and why are our bleacher denziens co-opting the MFY Bleacher Bum's Roll Call. Small potatoes comparitivly speaking, but you better be against those two issues. Better I? That music is no-way/uh-huh/sorry/doesn't-compute/not "the MFY closer's music." I don't even like it but c'mon. I'm not sure what "co-opting the MFY Bleacher Bum's Roll Call" is, but I imagine it's something I'm on record as against. mlbaseballtalk Apr 07 2006 12:38 PM ]Better I? That music is no-way/uh-huh/sorry/doesn't-compute/not "the MFY closer's music." I don't even like it but c'mon. I'm not sure what "co-opting the MFY Bleacher Bum's Roll Call" is, but I imagine it's something I'm on record as against. In MFY Stadium, as the MFY are taking the field for the top of the first the entire Bleachers will do a "Roll Call" untill the player acknowledges them. First-Second-Third-Short-Left-Center-Right I believe. I.e. "JA-SON G-IAMBI! RO-BIN-SON CA-NO! AL-EX ROD-RI-GUEZ! DER-RCK JE-TER!..." and so on Well it seems to have made it way to Shea with the fans doing it to the Mets and absolutly sickens me. Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 12:44 PM Yeah, sounds like something I'd be against. I'd be dicking around going JAY-SON HARDT-KE! DICK-KEE GONZAL-EZ! Elster88 Apr 07 2006 12:45 PM I've never figured out how to do the chant (in my head) for a name with more than four total syllables. Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 12:47 PM You see how I merged the unstressed GON into the stressed ZAL? Elster88 Apr 07 2006 12:48 PM JA-SON isRING-hauSEN Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 12:59 PM Doomed to never be a Yankee. Frayed Knot Apr 07 2006 02:02 PM Not brought up in all of this discussion (unless I missed it) is that there are LOTS of bad seats at Shea; between the orignial multi-purpose design of it pushing all but the field level way back from the field, to a good chunk of the upper-deck seats which are halfway to Brooklyn, to the back sections of both of the middle decks and their letter-box views, to the fact that many of the seats are oddly aligned towards the outfield. There is much room for improvement and I for one will not be upset to see the old building replaced. Elster88 Apr 07 2006 02:28 PM The seats are aligned that way b/c Shea was originally designed as a multi-purpose building. You're right FK. Anyone who sits first row on the field in the outfield, which should be a good seat, will have a neck injury by the third inning. Edgy DC Apr 07 2006 03:02 PM Edited 2 time(s), most recently on Apr 08 2006 06:26 AM And what's the most responsible response a public official can offer: realign the outfield box seats for $175,00 or raze and rebuild the building and the neightboorhood for $444,400,000? By the way, will the Mets won't be playing in Yankee Stadium for a year, will they? They'll carry on at Shea as this place goes up, right? Frayd Knot wrote: Not brought up in all of this discussion (unless I missed it) is that there are LOTS of bad seats at Shea; between the orignial multi-purpose design of it pushing all but the field level way back from the field, to a good chunk of the upper-deck seats which are halfway to Brooklyn, to the back sections of both of the middle decks and their letter-box views, to the fact that many of the seats are oddly aligned towards the outfield. There is much room for improvement The obvious response is, "So let them improve it." ="Elster88"]The seats are aligned that way b/c Shea was originally designed as a multi-purpose building. I think all of us, and clearly Frayed Knot, are aware of this. Elster88 Apr 07 2006 10:29 PM Edgy DC wrote: ="Elster88"]The seats are aligned that way b/c Shea was originally designed as a multi-purpose building. I think all of us, and clearly Frayed Knot, are aware of this. Sheesh. Just trying to help. Willets Point Apr 07 2006 10:47 PM ]*Universities, I suspect. are at a disadvantage here, because the family of a rich alumn from 1957 who donates a new building gets his name on it, the famiy of a rich alumn who donates money to renovate a building already named for a rich alumn of 1906 doesn't, and those folks are perhaps less inclined to donate without a building/monument to Papa. Just a specualtive footnote there. Nice speculation, but university buildings in my experience are renamed all the time when someone forks over a load of dough. Or they get the awkward combined name such as W&M's Cary Field at Zable Stadium. And my own recently renovated library is now (Original Name) Library in the (Name of rich benefactor's father) Center. Edgy DC Apr 08 2006 06:28 AM Just guessing. I wish some alumnus would've turned on the heat in the dorms while I was at college. Benjamin Grimm Apr 08 2006 08:58 AM I was thinking about this, and I think the new stadium will make me, in the long run, less likely to go and attend a game. I know I'm in a small minority here, but I don't live close to Queens, and it's a bit of an effort to get there. And when I do go, it's as much for the nostalgia of being at Shea, a place that meant so much to me growing up, as it is to see the actual game being played. In 2009 I'm sure I'll be motivated to see the new ballpark, but by 2011 or 2012 I suspect I'll be much less interested in going. Frayed Knot Apr 08 2006 11:16 AM I like baseball more than I like buildings. And if the building where they're playing the game has better seats, better views, is nicer to look at, and has extras that could make the game nicer to attend then I'll probably enjoy it more. Benjamin Grimm Apr 08 2006 11:26 AM If I went frequently might very well feel the same way. But I only go a few times a decade, so I'd just as soon see Shea remain. Edgy DC Apr 08 2006 06:08 PM ]I like baseball more than I like buildings. And if the building where they're playing the game has better seats, ... I'll ask again: and what's the most responsible response a public official can offer: realign the outfield box seats for $175,000 or raze and rebuild the building and the neightboorhood for $444,400,000? ]better views, On views: 1) The raising of the stadium isn't necessary to changeing the view. 2) The new stadium being mostly enclosed appears to make the issue of views mostly irrelevant, save from a few narrow angles and/or high on the horizon. 3) I thought you liked basedball more than buildings, anyhow. ]... is nicer to look at, 1) This also flies in the face of baseball over buildings. 2) I do think Shea is, in many ways, nice to look at, and could be made nicer for a tiny fraction of the project they're planning. 3) What's so great about the look of the new stadium? ]and has extras that could make the game nicer to attend then I'll probably enjoy it more. 1) Again, baseball allowing secondary attractions to intrude upon the issue of baseball. 2) What extras? Can Shea not handle improved and increased restrooms? (When the place opened, it was frequently remarked how many restrooms were available.) Can concessions not be improved? Can a new Hall of Fame not be added? I dunno. Take out the the worst 10,000 seats up top in favor of an extra-wide upper-tier concourse of fun. Voila. Extras. Four hundred million, please. Check out the design on The Incredibles and tell me the future modern look doesn't still have something to offer the world. Zvon Apr 08 2006 10:27 PM I finally found time to read that blog. It was poignant in many ways. I have so many Shea memories. Well, they cant rip them down. Frayed Knot Apr 09 2006 08:51 AM ]what's the most responsible response a public official can offer: realign the outfield box seats for $175,000 or raze and rebuild the building and the neightboorhood for $444,400,000? This is the 2nd time you've printed these numbers. Where do you get the idea that $175K is sufficient to fix the outfield boxes (as if that's the only problem w/the current seats)? Edgy DC Apr 09 2006 10:14 AM Well, that's what was complained about --- s start by re-aligning the field level boxes and pulling out the worst 10,000. That's obviously just a guess at the price. I'm certain it's nowhere in the neighborhood of the alternative. apmorris Apr 09 2006 01:41 PM it looks a little too post-modern mall of america minute maid enron field - unoriginal, unspectacular - they could've incorporated the mid century design that Shea has in spades, which's more now and foward thinking, with Worlds Fair flavor, coupled with the new fan-friendly seating, design, and technology that this proposal has (check the new Cardinals Stadium (its football but its def. not 1990s post-mall)) but basically I dont care as long as they still call it "Shea Stadium" Edgy DC Apr 09 2006 01:43 PM It would have blown minds. Frayed Knot Apr 09 2006 07:04 PM Well I realize you're against this project but stop making up numbers simply because they happen to fit your argument. You wouldn't put up with that if these were baseball stats someone was inventing so stop doing it with dollars. And while we're on the $400mil+ number that you concocted, please realize that the team is paying the lion's share of this deal with the obvious implication that they think they can make it back. It's not like that money - as you're implying - is coming out of Johnny Lunchbucket's pocket while there's some easily workable alternative which accomplishes the same thing at approx 1/2,500th of the cost. Edgy DC Apr 09 2006 07:07 PM Making up numbers. Absolutely guilty. The $444.4 million comes from them and the city, though. Frayed Knot Apr 09 2006 07:13 PM But that's not the city's share of it. The whole project is only in the 550-ish range. metsmarathon Apr 09 2006 07:21 PM i'm sorry, and maybe its a failure of my own imagination, but i cannot conceive of a way for shea herself to be renovated in such a fashion as to cost-effectively bring her in line with modern stadia, in terms of seating, amenities, etc. i also, not that this should really have any bearing on it, cannot fathom how such a maneiver would NOT get derided as the move of a lousy cheapass organization. mlbaseballtalk Apr 09 2006 07:32 PM metsmarathon wrote: i'm sorry, and maybe its a failure of my own imagination, but i cannot conceive of a way for shea herself to be renovated in such a fashion as to cost-effectively bring her in line with modern stadia, in terms of seating, amenities, etc. i also, not that this should really have any bearing on it, cannot fathom how such a maneiver would NOT get derided as the move of a lousy cheapass organization. Heh! Listening to Michael Kay on Friday and he was using that agrument (lousy cheapass organization) allready because of the lack of the other 10,000 seats in a New York City ballpark and suggested that the real reason is that we really don't have the funds for it! Edgy DC Apr 09 2006 08:01 PM ="Frayed Knot"]But that's not the city's share of it. The whole project is only in the 550-ish range. I'm not sure what the 550 number represents, or even how many zeros you're implying. The Village Voice puts it at: Start with $85 million in city money (since no Queens parks would have to be moved, the Mets would use it for such things as driving pilings to keep the stadium from sinking into the Flushing muck), plus $75 million from the state, with no garage revenue to recoup the public outlay. The Wilpons, who own the team, would get the same breaks on rent, property taxes, and construction sales tax as the Yankees (net loss to the city: $124 million), tax-exempt bond benefits ($55 million), plus a kickback of $7 million a year in parking revenues that currently go to the city (present value: $96 million). Survey says: $435 million. ="metsmarathon"]i'm sorry, and maybe its a failure of my own imagination, but i cannot conceive of a way for shea herself to be renovated in such a fashion as to cost-effectively bring her in line with modern stadia, in terms of seating, amenities, etc. You may be right. It's not like I don't know this is a losing battle. But to pull it off would be a far greater accomplishment. ="metsmarathon"]i also, not that this should really have any bearing on it, cannot fathom how such a maneiver would NOT get derided as the move of a lousy cheapass organization. ="metsmarathon"]Heh! Listening to Michael Kay on Friday and he was using that agrument (lousy cheapass organization) allready because of the lack of the other 10,000 seats in a New York City ballpark and suggested that the real reason is that we really don't have the funds for it! You're probably right there also. It's sad that the nature of art (such as architecture) is such that the terms of judgment it is submitted to are so nebulous to almost always allow judges to vote their prejudice no matter what the product. I still hope for an organzation that thinks unconventionally, operates in the vanguard, and is so justifiably secure in it's self-image that it fears no spin --- particularly from a source like Michael Kay. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2006 01:42 PM Sixty more home wins, between now and the end of the 2008 season, and the Mets clinch an all-time winning record at Shea Stadium. Should be easy enough to do. If they don't do it, we're talking about a miserable few years coming up. Frayed Knot Apr 17 2006 02:32 PM So that's just 60 out of 236 (by my count) home games ... well I should certainly hope they'd nail that one. It makes sense that the home record would be better than the road and that tracking the 'Shea' portion of it eliminates the two worst years ('62 & '63) but I'm surprised the record's that good seeing as how we're nowhere near a .500 record overall. Which reminds me that I read somewhere that the Astros/Colts franchise has a chance to go above .500 for their existance this year. They'll need another approx 90-win season but they're knocking at the door either way. Intereting hwo the routes of the two expansion cousins have differred: - one franchise has little hope of sniffing .500 unless they ring up about 15 consect winning seasons ... but has 2 WS championships and 2 other NL Pennants - while the other is on the verge of evening-up their record; but has never won a championship and, until 2 years ago, were without even a playoff series victory. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2006 02:35 PM The Mets are 1,726 and 1,611 and 5 at Shea Stadium. Mets record by ballpark Edgy DC Apr 17 2006 02:38 PM Can you sort out net hits and homeruns at Shea? Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2006 02:38 PM Actually, even if you counted the games at the Polo Grounds, the Mets would still have a winning home record. At the old ballpark they were 56 and 105. Add that to the Shea games and you get 1782 and 1716. Unless I'm overlooking something, the only other place the Mets ever played an official home game is in the Tokyo Dome, where they lost their home game and won their away game. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2006 02:39 PM Edgy DC wrote: Can you sort out net hits and homeruns at Shea? Not at the moment, but yes, I could. Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 02:41 PM Frayed Knot wrote: ]what's the most responsible response a public official can offer: realign the outfield box seats for $175,000 or raze and rebuild the building and the neightboorhood for $444,400,000? This is the 2nd time you've printed these numbers. Where do you get the idea that $175K is sufficient to fix the outfield boxes (as if that's the only problem w/the current seats)? obviously he's guessing, but i'll do him one better: you can rip out ALL the seats and put new ones in facing wherever you want for a relative pittance (relative to the cost of a new park that is.) Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2006 02:41 PM Actually, you can do it yourself (at least for the hits) but copying and pasting into a spreadsheet from this page and this page. Edgy DC Apr 17 2006 02:49 PM Well, cool. If I have it right, we're coming up on round numbers across board. Hits:27,507 Doubles: 4,595 Triples: 588 Homers: 2,492 Our team, our time. Benjamin Grimm Apr 17 2006 02:52 PM Those stats, by the way, are through Saturday's game. I haven't pasted Sunday's box score yet. sharpie Apr 17 2006 03:20 PM Since Steve Trachsel just got the Mets' 10,000 double, it would appear that the Mets are a better road than home doubling team. Edgy DC Apr 17 2006 03:31 PM Say it now: Who gets the Mets 2,500th Shea homerun? I'll put my marker on Nady. He's meaty, beaty, big, and bouncy. Frayed Knot Apr 17 2006 07:52 PM "you can rip out ALL the seats and put new ones in facing wherever you want for a relative pittance (relative to the cost of a new park that is.)" And then all you'll have to deal with is the rows of seats in the back of the Loge section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the rows in the back of the Mezzanine section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the vast sections of the Upper Deck where the seats are in a different zip code. Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 07:55 PM ="Frayed Knot"]"you can rip out ALL the seats and put new ones in facing wherever you want for a relative pittance (relative to the cost of a new park that is.)" And then all you'll have to deal with is the rows of seats in the back of the Loge section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the rows in the back of the Mezzanine section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the vast sections of the Upper Deck where the seats are in a different zip code. if you're going to take out 10,000 seats in a new park anyway you can eliminate the back 3 rows of loge and mezzanine all together and not lose nearly as many seats. Frayed Knot Apr 17 2006 08:09 PM This discussion is getting very silly. Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 08:12 PM I don't think it is silly, I think it is pretty obvious to everyone but the politicians getting the kickbacks that the Mets don't need a new stadium. Frayed Knot Apr 17 2006 08:19 PM Not obvious at all. The silly part is pretending that re-jiggering a few thousand seats will provide the team with the same benefits as a new park. Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 08:22 PM ]The silly part is pretending that re-jiggering a few thousand seats will provide the team with the same benefits as a new park. emphasis added. who cares what benefit Wilpon gets from it? there is public money going into the project so the only real question should be what benefit do WE, the taxpayers, get out of it? *62 Apr 17 2006 08:28 PM Having lived in Denver when the Rockies were awarded to the city and until their first two or three Coors Field seasons were finished, I can say that when a new ballpark goes in the peripheral improvements are often the most noticeable elements of the redevelopment. LoDo in Denver already had the 16th Street Mall area, as well as Writer and Larimer Squares, thriving but adding the stadium at Blake Street virtually doubled the actual social area in LoDo. Whether or not the Rockies ever win a penant the area thrives all year long, with good bumps on baseball nights. All manner of small businesses benefit. Frayed Knot Apr 17 2006 08:37 PM "what benefit do WE, the taxpayers, get out of it?" A better ballpark that the team owners are paying for most of. Perfect? Probably not, but a damn sight better than the deal most cities have struck with teams. Johnny Dickshot Apr 17 2006 08:44 PM You'll just have to take my word for it since I can't really cite my work but most studies I've seen on stadium impacts & surrounding retail pretty much shows that a park basically serves mainly to move sales around moreso than spark new businesses, and that pound for pound, the overall gain is minimal especially without an accompanying rise in residential & other stuff like that. Flushing might be a good example where they'll try to credit the stadium with new development in the iron triangle, but really that's stuff that best plans suggest would happen with or without a new park. Another antecdotal example: I lived in Wilmington, Del. when a new minor league park "sparked" new development on former industrial wasteland. And it did, but somewhat to the detriment of downtown where more or less, a like number of extablishments went bellyup and others relocated to the new area. Nymr83 Apr 17 2006 09:25 PM exactly JD. I'm not talking about the benefits of bringing a team into town as was done in Denver (and i assume the stadium deal was part of getting the team and mile high was just a convenient place to play in the mean time.) I'm talking about the public benefits to buildig a new stadium when a functional one still exists. seawolf17 Apr 18 2006 06:29 AM ="Nymr83"]exactly JD. I'm not talking about the benefits of bringing a team into town as was done in Denver (and i assume the stadium deal was part of getting the team and mile high was just a convenient place to play in the mean time.) I'm talking about the public benefits to buildig a new stadium when a functional one still exists. I think the largest public benefit is that it will reduce back injuries, because our wallets get to be a lot lighter from spending twice as much on tickets. Nymr83 Apr 18 2006 10:33 AM well put. This past weekend the upper deck seats were TWO DOLLARS against the Brewers! What are the chances of seeing a promotion like that at the new ballpark? i'd say about 1,000,000,000 to 1 Edgy DC Apr 18 2006 10:43 AM And so, what makes seats "in a different area code" (making up numbers goes both ways) a lesser sin better than pricing them down to their actual value. Architectually creative ways to upgrade (like pulling the last three rows out of loge) can all be dismissed cynically. The point is that architectually creative ways to upgrade would be cheaper, fairer, and more distinctive. Build a big glass tower beyond the outfield wall and filli that with boxes for the corporate swells. Move the unisphere within the vicinity of the stadium and change the all-important outfield view that way. Heck pull up the World's Fair towers and stick them out there beyond the wall also, salvaging another Queens landmark (and pretty much an exact contemporary) before it crumbles beyond restoration. metirish Apr 18 2006 11:13 AM The NY Post in yesterdays editorial pushed that the new place should be named Jackie Robinson Stadium, or " the jack" for short. http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/67157.htm Edgy DC Apr 18 2006 11:20 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Apr 18 2006 11:56 AM There seems to be a non-organized grass roots movement for that. I suggested it in this space a while back. Edgy DC Apr 18 2006 11:28 AM The tough part is that not long ago we were mocking teams and municipalities for selling out when the corporatons were paying only about a million per for the naming rights. Recent deals, however, have been for much more. Check out what the Panthers' and the Texans' stadia have netted: http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/stadiumnames.html Benjamin Grimm Apr 18 2006 11:39 AM I think I may have brought that up. Some arenas get about $1 million per year for the naming rights; which is what the Mets are paying Jose Valentin. Not nearly enough to sell your soul for. If it's closer to $10 million, I can better understand the temptation. I'd still like to see them resist, though. The Yankees will, but they have all the money. Nymr83 Apr 18 2006 03:07 PM if a municipality is shelling out tax dollars for a stadium they should be ENCOURAGED to recoup some of it by selling the naming rights, to not do so would be irresponsible. Edgy DC Apr 18 2006 03:10 PM Municipalities have other interests besides recouping dollars. Otherwise, why not sell naming rights to Van Cortland Park, Rockaway Beach Boardwalk, Seventh Avenue, Martin Luther King Boulevard and other things the city builds and maintains? Willets Point Apr 18 2006 08:00 PM I'm Down Rockin' Doc Apr 18 2006 08:04 PM Nice find Willets. Edgy DC Apr 27 2006 12:58 PM John seems intent on cracking up the others. Meanwhile, funding approved. old original jb Apr 27 2006 01:16 PM Edgy DC wrote: Municipalities have other interests besides recouping dollars. Otherwise, why not sell naming rights to Van Cortland Park, Rockaway Beach Boardwalk, Seventh Avenue, Martin Luther King Boulevard and other things the city builds and maintains? What makes you think this won't be happening someday soon? "Tonight's Exxon/Mobil State of the Union Address is brought to you live from the Microsoft wing of the Haliburton Capitol Building here in Washington DC....." Willets Point Apr 27 2006 01:31 PM Well that would just be making transparent what already is true.