Master Index of Archived Threads


All Purpose Shea II, A Work In Progress...

SteveJRogers Jul 26 2006 10:06 PM Edited 5 time(s), most recently on Jul 26 2006 10:28 PM

And So It Begins...

SteveJRogers Jul 26 2006 10:09 PM

Thats Sunday, 7/2 before the Yankee-Met Sunday night game, they apparantly first moved in during that series

KC Jul 26 2006 10:12 PM

Steve, assho, er, I mean buddy .... let's keep the width of pictures at about 500 pixels. That one's like 1500.

SteveJRogers Jul 26 2006 10:14 PM

Yeah, I just tried resizing on Photobucket. I worked on the Met Offense Starters after like 5 minutes it reset itself. I'll take it down and re tried. Photobucket images and tables do not like me on this board

SteveJRogers Jul 26 2006 10:21 PM

Looks like a Triage site set up just beyond Chop Shop City

SteveJRogers Jul 26 2006 10:27 PM

SteveJRogers Jul 26 2006 10:34 PM

According to a blurb in the latest Mets program, Groundbreaking is scheduled "sometime this year" So far the lot behind CF has been blocked off in huge sections.

Nymr83 Jul 27 2006 12:20 AM

parking was a bitch the other night and only looks to get worse. they are pushing the public transportation option hard and io hope all the fuckers who live along the train lines do the right thing and take the train, but i live in SI and public trans to Shea is a mess. (train or bus to the staten island ferry, number 4 train to 42nd street, 7 train to shea- travel time 2 hours compared to a 1 hour drive, and its worse coming home because the ferry runs less frequently at night)

SteveJRogers Jul 27 2006 08:01 AM

I've been parking right around College Point Blvd or underneath the parkway on Roosevelt Ave. Wouldn't be surprised if the Mets started getting into the latter's action during the heavy construction periods

Frayed Knot Jul 27 2006 09:17 AM

Last thing I heard was that the first order of business in the construction time-line is going to be a multi-level parking garage. They'll need that completed first as the stadium construction is going to eat up most of the existing parking. It's still going to be a bitch for much of the next 3 years and then beyond until they old joint is dynamited and cleaned up - but that'll help the drivers at least a bit. The garage then remains for the new place.

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 09:21 AM

On one of my two visits to Yankee Stadium I parked in their garage and getting out of there was a nightmare. I doubt I'll ever drive into the Mets garage. Last time I went to Shea, earlier this year, I parked in Manhattan (on First Avenue) and took the 7 train to Flushing.

metirish Jul 27 2006 09:26 AM

This thread will last for years.....

SteveJRogers Jul 27 2006 09:28 AM

metirish wrote: This thread will last for years..... One would hope

duan Jul 27 2006 10:59 AM

if you've got ANY kind of access to the subway you'd be mad to travel any other way. Ah, taking the subway. oh the memories ... (although for the last 4 1/2 months I've been staying in Milltown in Dublin and getting the [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uT7J0EBRxpA&search=luas%20dublin[/url] LUAS

MFS62 Jul 27 2006 11:07 AM

duan wrote: if you've got ANY kind of access to the subway you'd be mad to travel any other way. And if you have to drive to Shea from far away, check out the public parking a within a few blocks from the Main Street Flushing station. Then, you are only one subway stop from Shea. And after the game when you return to Flushing, try one of the excellent and varied Oriental restaurants near Main Street. Later

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 11:13 AM

I considered that, too, but I've become unfamiliar with Main Street in Flushing and don't know how safe it is at night. (I was with my nine-year-old son, so I really do have to consider such things.) What's Main Street like these days?

Johnny Dickshot Jul 27 2006 11:21 AM

Very lively -- like I imagine Bejing or something! Really, it's a fun place to take a walk and shop, fascinating grocery stores with all kinds of weird fresh fish and rubber shower slippers. There's a Starbuxx, some department stores, and a nice large library too. It doesn't seem unsafe to me, just ... different. Northwest of Main Street, as I've said before I really dig the Assi Plaza grocery store just over the Roosevelt Ave. bridge (it's next to U-Haul building you can see from Shea). They have everything from gigantic sacks of rice and drums of Kimchee to rice cookers and woks and bamboo floormats. Not just Korean food but Chinese and Japanese too. They also have stations giving away free samples of food and tea, like Costco, prepared foods, a cafe, and a huge produce section.

soupcan Jul 27 2006 11:25 AM

="duan"]if you've got ANY kind of access to the subway you'd be mad to travel any other way. Wellll, there is another way. I played hooky yesterday and went to the game. 3 friends and I planned this at the beginning of the summer and yesterday we did it. One of our friends has a 26' foot boat in South Norwalk CT. Yesterday we sailed it down from there and docked it at the World's Fair Marina which is across the street from Shea. The trip was about 30 miles and took us about an hour and a half. After the game we sailed back home. It was an excellent day all around. The cost and usage of gas makes this only a once a season excursion but still we enjoyed ourselves so much that I think we're going to try and make it an annual thing.

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 11:30 AM

Sounds pretty cool, Johnny. Maybe I'll try that next time I go to a ball game. But given the direction I come from, parking in Manhattan might still be easier. I heard a story on NPR a few weeks ago about an Iranian neighborhood in Los Angeles that sounds like your description of Main Street. All the stores and people are Iranian, most of them speak the language (Farsi, I think) and there's even an Iranian hotel. The neighborhood is called Tehrangeles and if I'm ever in LA again I'll try to check it out. (The article I linked to doesn't make it seem like it's a distinct neighborhood, but the story on NPR did. Hmmmm.)

MFS62 Jul 27 2006 11:43 AM

Yancy, those names may be changing shortly. I used to work with someone who's family came here from Iran. She told me that when the US was pals with the Shah, they were proud to be called Iranians. Then the Ayatollah Kumeini took power and there was the hostage incident, Iranians started to refer to themselves as "Persian" to avoid any stigma. When animosity toward Iran moved to the back burner, they started using Iranian again. Now, with the :Axis of evil" speech, recent developments in the Middle East and nuclear arms threats, they may start using Persian again. Later

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 11:53 AM

Interesting. Maybe when we conquer Iran and make it the 51st state we can call it "Persia." I kind of think of Persia along the lines of Prussia. Besides the similar sounds, they're both place names that were on the map relatively recently, but now are gone. Constantinople, too.

Frayed Knot Jul 27 2006 12:25 PM

The only public parking I ever checked out in/off Main St. in Flushing was what looked like a shoppers lot charging 1.00/hr (25 cts for each 15 minutes) but the problem was the meters only take quarters! So unless you're carrying about 20-some quarters w/you it's not the place to use for a ball game. There might be some other lots besides that one but I'm not all that familiar w/the area.

MFS62 Jul 27 2006 01:54 PM

Just noticed this on the Mets' site: ]Pitcher Friendly: Distinctive asymmetrical outfield walls, along with generous dimensions (LF - 335'; LC - 379'; CF - 408'; RC - 391'; RF - 330') make for a traditional pitcher's park. Since they're starting from scratch, I wonder why the lf/rf dimensions aren't the same. Anybody know? Is it because of the shape of the building lot? Later

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 01:58 PM

Because they want to be "Distinctively asymmetrical" More of the Disneyfication of ballparks. In the old days there was a reason for the asymmetrical dimensions. Now it's done simply to make a new park remind us of the old ones.

ScarletKnight41 Jul 27 2006 02:07 PM

The worst example of that is the stupid hill in centerfield in Houston's new stadium. One day someone is going to get hurt on that thing, and there's absolutely no reason for it to be there.

MFS62 Jul 27 2006 02:16 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote: The worst example of that is the stupid hill in centerfield in Houston's new stadium. One day someone is going to get hurt on that thing, and there's absolutely no reason for it to be there. And it isn't even traditional for Houston. The famous old centerfield hill was in Crosley Field in Cincy. Later

Gwreck Jul 27 2006 02:36 PM

="Yancy Street Gang"]More of the Disneyfication of ballparks. In the old days there was a reason for the asymmetrical dimensions. Now it's done simply to make a new park remind us of the old ones. Do you think it's better for a game to be played in a park with symmetrical or asymmetrical dimensions, and why? I agree as to why parks are built with asymmetrical dimensions these days, but my opinion is also that it's more fun to have games played in such parks. No sense building symmetrical dimensions just because. Unique parks create homefield advantanges, make plays more interesting, etc.

Willets Point Jul 27 2006 02:42 PM

I think whether the dimensions are symmetrical or asymmetrical are irrelevant. I just think that the reasons why old ballparks were asymmetrical is that they were built on oddly shaped parcels of lands, whereas building ballparks with asymmetrical dimensions for a stadium in the middle of a parking lot or other open space is artificial. Actually, I just don't like stadiums that are not built into the fabric of the city as much, one of Shea's great failings that will be continued in the new venue. In Baltimore and San Francisco they built ballparks into the neighborhoods and things like the warehouse and McCovey Cove affect the symmetry but it works because it is both natural and aesthetically pleasing.

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 02:46 PM

It doesn't really mean that much to me. Looking at those dimensions, it looks lefty hitters will be better off pulling the ball (for a home run, anyway) than righties will. Right field will be closer at the corner and deeper in the alley than left field will. I think it would have bugged me if Shea in the 1980's favored right handed sluggers while the Mets had Darryl Strawberry. And if it was the opposite, it would bother me that it was hampering David Wright. All things considered, I think I'd prefer a balanced park. The pleasure of the game doesn't derive (for me anyway) from ballpark quirks.

SteveJRogers Jul 27 2006 02:50 PM

MFS62 wrote: ="ScarletKnight41"]The worst example of that is the stupid hill in centerfield in Houston's new stadium. One day someone is going to get hurt on that thing, and there's absolutely no reason for it to be there. And it isn't even traditional for Houston. The famous old centerfield hill was in Crosley Field in Cincy. Later Thats the comical thing about both the Astros and Rangers home. Since there wasn't much big league history in Texas they both took just about every old idea and meshed it into their ballparks.

MFS62 Jul 27 2006 02:52 PM

]Actually, I just don't like stadiums that are not built into the fabric of the city as much, one of Shea's great failings that will be continued in the new venue. WP, by fabric, do you mean style or location? The retro, Ebbets Field-like exterior of the new Mets park may address some of the style concerns. There's little they can do about location in a different neighborhood now. I like the asymmetrical parks, especially after the "all purpose" monstrosities build a generation ago. At least if you're kidnapped, blindfolded and dropped into a baseball staduim(a personal fear of mine), you can pretty much figure out where you are in the asymmetrical ones*. In those cookie cutter parks, you couldn't. * (EDIT: After they remove the blindfold) Later

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 02:56 PM

That has nothing to do with symmetry. Wrigley Field is symmetrical and distinctive.

MFS62 Jul 27 2006 03:00 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: That has nothing to do with symmetry. Wrigley Field is symmetrical and distinctive. Not exactly. I believe ther is a two foot difference between the left and right field line distances at Wrigley(or there used to be). So it's not truly symmetrical. But I get your point. Later

Willets Point Jul 27 2006 03:57 PM

] WP, by fabric, do you mean style or location? The retro, Ebbets Field-like exterior of the new Mets park may address some of the style concerns. There's little they can do about location in a different neighborhood no Location. I like that at Fenway, Wrigley, Camden Yards, and whatever-they-call-it-now ballpark in San Francisco you can just walk along the sidewalk and the ballpark is one of the buildings in the neighborhood. Shea and the future Mets home are divorced from the city by their location. The problem with the Ebbets Field retro-look is that it is a style for a neighborhood ballpark being used on a ballpark that's not in a neighborhood. The artificiality of it is unappealing.

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 04:05 PM

I totally agree with that.

G-Fafif Jul 27 2006 05:06 PM

Agree that the hill in Houston is stupid but there is a reason behind it. It's a tribute of sorts to the longtime Astro exec (advisor by the time Enron Field was being built) Tal Smith and his Cincinnati background/fondness for the hill at Crosley. Not much of a reason, but it wasn't ordered up at random from the Ballpark Quirks catalogue.

ScarletKnight41 Jul 27 2006 05:25 PM

G-Fafif wrote: but it wasn't ordered up at random from the Ballpark Quirks catalogue. Hmmm - do I see a topic for a FAFIF column?

Gwreck Jul 27 2006 05:29 PM

="Willets Point"]Location. I like that at Fenway, Wrigley, Camden Yards, and whatever-they-call-it-now ballpark in San Francisco you can just walk along the sidewalk and the ballpark is one of the buildings in the neighborhood. Shea and the future Mets home are divorced from the city by their location. The problem with the Ebbets Field retro-look is that it is a style for a neighborhood ballpark being used on a ballpark that's not in a neighborhood. The artificiality of it is unappealing. I can appreciate the point, but it seems to me like a pretty empty complaint. The Mets don't now nor have they ever had the opportunity to place this ballpark in any sort of "neighborhood." WIth that in mind, what exactly should the stadium look like?

SteveJRogers Jul 27 2006 05:35 PM

="Gwreck"] ="Willets Point"]Location. I like that at Fenway, Wrigley, Camden Yards, and whatever-they-call-it-now ballpark in San Francisco you can just walk along the sidewalk and the ballpark is one of the buildings in the neighborhood. Shea and the future Mets home are divorced from the city by their location. The problem with the Ebbets Field retro-look is that it is a style for a neighborhood ballpark being used on a ballpark that's not in a neighborhood. The artificiality of it is unappealing. I can appreciate the point, but it seems to me like a pretty empty complaint. The Mets don't now nor have they ever had the opportunity to place this ballpark in any sort of "neighborhood." WIth that in mind, what exactly should the stadium look like? I think there has been a consensus in these parts that the Mets "Don't need no stinkin' new stadium" and would rather have done some upgrading to Shea

KC Jul 27 2006 06:02 PM

Do you ever go outside? Sleep? It's like everytime I visit here you're logged in and yappin'.You're like a freakin' poodle on mescaline nippin' on everything. I hope everyone's happy, we fed him and now we'll never get rid of him.

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 06:49 PM

To Gwreck's question: I'd rather see them build the first 21st Century style stadium (whatever that is) than build the 15th ripoff of Camden Yards.

SteveJRogers Jul 27 2006 06:52 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: To Gwreck's question: I'd rather see them build the first 21st Century style stadium (whatever that is) than build the 15th ripoff of Camden Yards. The sad thing is, I think the "retro-chick" is the 21st Century style

Yancy Street Gang Jul 27 2006 06:52 PM

Only because nobody's been daring or creative enough to do anything different.

SteveJRogers Jul 27 2006 06:59 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: Only because nobody's been daring or creative enough to do anything different. Shouldn't we have those flying cars by now? We need some real Reed Richards in this world!

cooby Jul 27 2006 10:14 PM

="soupcan"] ="duan"]if you've got ANY kind of access to the subway you'd be mad to travel any other way. Wellll, there is another way. I played hooky yesterday and went to the game. 3 friends and I planned this at the beginning of the summer and yesterday we did it. One of our friends has a 26' foot boat in South Norwalk CT. Yesterday we sailed it down from there and docked it at the World's Fair Marina which is across the street from Shea. The trip was about 30 miles and took us about an hour and a half. After the game we sailed back home. It was an excellent day all around. The cost and usage of gas makes this only a once a season excursion but still we enjoyed ourselves so much that I think we're going to try and make it an annual thing. I'm sorry soupcan, but I just can't read this without picturing a Flomax ad. But since you are my friend, I will picture you as the guy who never has to pee. PS, sounds like fun :)

metirish Jul 27 2006 10:22 PM

In the english premeir league Arsenal just moved out of the great Highbury Stadium with all it's history into a new one called Emirates Stadium, yeah it's great that they have a new stadium but Highbury was old, very old, the new one is great but........change is fine but at what cost...Shea is old and horrible but it has it's charm...very little but i would hate to see a place like the phillies have....I don't know really, Shea is a dump but it has served the Mets well.

Gwreck Jul 27 2006 10:22 PM

Yancy Street Gang wrote: To Gwreck's question: I'd rather see them build the first 21st Century style stadium (whatever that is) than build the 15th ripoff of Camden Yards. I'll admit to knowing crap all about architecture, but isn't this Potter Stewart reasoning (ie. "I don't know what pornography is, but I know it when I see it")?

G-Fafif Jul 28 2006 01:22 AM

What do you suppose they'll do wrong? I don't mean what architectural flair won't be to one's respective liking, but what do you suppose they'll out and out screw up? 'Cause you know something will go awry. Seats not facing home plate? Forget the press box? No bullpens or commensurate relief warmup space? Build a monument or statue with some key fact misstated? Put the outfielders in the sun? All of the above have happened elsewhere. It's hard to imagine the Mets being perfect at a craft that has eluded others. I'm guessing they'll spell Shea wrong when they name it, but that's another story.

Iubitul Jul 28 2006 06:44 AM

They'll screw up the scoreboard. We'll get one of those scoreboards with rotating out of town scores...

Iubitul Jul 28 2006 06:52 AM

="soupcan"] ="duan"]if you've got ANY kind of access to the subway you'd be mad to travel any other way. Wellll, there is another way. I played hooky yesterday and went to the game. 3 friends and I planned this at the beginning of the summer and yesterday we did it. One of our friends has a 26' foot boat in South Norwalk CT. Yesterday we sailed it down from there and docked it at the World's Fair Marina which is across the street from Shea. The trip was about 30 miles and took us about an hour and a half. After the game we sailed back home. It was an excellent day all around. The cost and usage of gas makes this only a once a season excursion but still we enjoyed ourselves so much that I think we're going to try and make it an annual thing. Would you like a fifth? That's only a mile from my office..

seawolf17 Jul 28 2006 07:47 AM

Dude, that sounds like so much fun, I would ferry across to Bridgeport just to take the boat back across.

HahnSolo Jul 28 2006 11:59 AM

]They'll screw up the scoreboard. We'll get one of those scoreboards with rotating out of town scores... Good point. I am so used to the current Shea scoreboard that it will take some getting used to a new one.

Willets Point Jul 28 2006 01:59 PM

="Gwreck"] ="Willets Point"]Location. I like that at Fenway, Wrigley, Camden Yards, and whatever-they-call-it-now ballpark in San Francisco you can just walk along the sidewalk and the ballpark is one of the buildings in the neighborhood. Shea and the future Mets home are divorced from the city by their location. The problem with the Ebbets Field retro-look is that it is a style for a neighborhood ballpark being used on a ballpark that's not in a neighborhood. The artificiality of it is unappealing. I can appreciate the point, but it seems to me like a pretty empty complaint. The Mets don't now nor have they ever had the opportunity to place this ballpark in any sort of "neighborhood." WIth that in mind, what exactly should the stadium look like? Well that's part of the problem, I don't like stadiums in a sea of parking lots. I suppose they could build on the edge of the property closest to Corona and make it old style and just have a lot of parking on the other side. My main point is that it shouldn't be made to look like something it isn't. I suppose Dodgers and Royals Stadiums are fine models for (lack of a better term) a "suburban" stadium. Or they could have a contest to come up with something completely new, originally New York. Or they could have the first Frank Gehry-designed stadium in the world. Seriously though, Shea's biggest flaw is that it was built as a multi-purpose stadium, but wasn't too good for either purpose. Any baseball-only structure that doesn't have some of the obvious goofs mentioned earlier in this thread will be fine.

SteveJRogers Aug 04 2006 10:47 PM

Could be worse you know, from another board digging through some of Bryan Hoch's old archives found this from the winter of 1997: [url]http://web.archive.org/web/19990422191550/icu.com/mets/articles/arti0070.html[/url] ]Mets future: High-tech Ebbets By Lawrence Rocca - April 24, 1997 NEW YORK -- While the Yankees continue to posture about a new stadium on the west side of Manhattan, the Mets have made finite plans for a new ballpark just a few hundred feet from Shea Stadium, their current home. Yesterday, Mets president and co-owner Fred Wilpon unveiled a working model of that proposed new stadium, an Ebbets Field-like structure with a retractable roof. Wilpon hopes the new structure will be open for the 2002 season. "I think this is one of the most fantastic stadiums that's ever been planned," said Wilpon, clearly pleased with himself and his son Jeff, who has headed the stadium project for the past two years. The proposed stadium features a grass field that can be rolled completely out of the stadium in 15 minutes, ensuring the field will get the proper amount of sunlight when the roof is closed. The roof will be closed when the Mets are not playing to protect the stadium's structure. "As you know, with some stadiums in the northeast, they start falling apart," Wilpon said. When the field is rolled out -- on a unique system of rollers that Wilpon has had patented -- a concrete surface that can accommodate concerts, tennis matches, basketball games and many other events will be exposed. Capacity for the yet-to-be-named ballpark will be 45,000 seats with 78 luxury boxes. Seating for other events could be expanded to as many as 60,000. The stadium will feature all sorts of modern amenities, said Wilpon, but it is clear that he considers its most important feature its similarity to Ebbets Field, where he often pitched batting practice as a youth in Brooklyn. There were several reminders of Ebbets Field at the news conference, including pictures, models and the new ballpark model itself. The outside design will include red brick and limestone, there will be a rotunda behind home plate and the seats will be close to the field. Wilpon boasted that many of the seats in the new stadium's upper deck will be closer to the field than mezzanine seats at Shea Stadium. "If anything feels like a park you can put your arms around, memories of Ebbets Field, that's what we did here," Wilpon said. The new ballpark will not include one Ebbets Field feature: columns that obstructed the view of spectators. "The sight lines for this stadium will be as good, if not better, than any structure that exists today," Wilpon said. National League president Leonard Coleman, who grew up a Dodgers fan and attended his first game at Ebbets Field in 1953, was on hand yesterday. He clearly admired the design of the new park, which for him evoked memories of Buckminster Fuller and the geodesic dome he designed for Walter O'Malley in hopes of keeping the Dodgers in Brooklyn in 1957. "I think this is it, 40 years later," Coleman said. "This is clearly a park for the new millennium." Wilpon said the total price tag for the ballpark will fall somewhere between $450 and $500 million and that some of the money will be raised by the Mets. He said that Shea Stadium either will be torn down when the new park is completed or remodeled for a potential NFL tenant. Though no one from Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's office was present, Wilpon said the mayor's office has been involved in the planning of the park and supports the steps the Mets have taken. If a deal with the city is reached within a few months, Wilpon said, construction can begin late in 1999 and the park will be ready for Opening Day 2002.

SteveJRogers Aug 04 2006 10:52 PM

You know, what does everyone think of a dome? I have a cranky 62 year old pop (and his friends) who think its a neccessity in New York because of all the different weather cilmates. Of course are there any dome baseball or football stadiums in the North East US?

SteveJRogers Aug 04 2006 11:03 PM

]Yesterday, Mets president and co-owner Fred Wilpon unveiled a working model of that proposed new stadium, an Ebbets Field-like structure with a retractable roof. Wilpon hopes the new structure will be open for the 2002 season Quick math, 97 to 02 was about 5 years 06-10 4 years (well really 5 since the new plans started last year) I guess the Dome added an extra year to the project! ]The proposed stadium features a grass field that can be rolled completely out of the stadium in 15 minutes, ensuring the field will get the proper amount of sunlight when the roof is closed. The roof will be closed when the Mets are not playing to protect the stadium's structure. This is what they have in Arizona for the new Cardinals stadium. Wilpon with the forward thinking! Though, if parking is bad the next few years at Shea for the very open air stadium, I wouldn't want to know what the plan was back then! Pretty sure improvements on the team also quelched the ideas at the time as well. Okay, think of it this way, this was before Piazza. Piazza's last year the project ideas start getting greenlighted again and this time all the ducks are in rows and they'll start building later this year? Hmmm, quite X-Files-esque... I'll stick with the theory that it was tied up in City Hall and never did get off the ground, not due to lack of funds from the Mets, though the fact that SNY went through before the new plans were drafted does add to that "Nothing in this particular coffiers" argument. Of course, as I go into another tangent, whos to say the money allocated wasn't slashed and the project turned into what is now Keyspan Park in Coney Island and the current New Shea is a different project entirely Interesting stuff to think about.

Willets Point Sep 05 2006 05:16 PM

bump