THE CRANE POOL FORUM thecranepool.net (.com)


Forum Home

Master Index of Archived Threads


NY Mets to get new stadium says Bloomberg

metirish
Jun 12 2005 09:49 PM

Oh no, Mayor Mike now turns to Queens to save Olympic bid,it's not in this article but if the City got the 2012 games then the Mets would give way to the games and share Yankee fucking Stadium for the duration...Stadium to be ready for 09 season, regardles of the Games the Mets are getting this says Bloomie..

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/nyc-olym0613,0,6722380.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

KC
Jun 12 2005 09:55 PM

Never gonna happen

metirish
Jun 12 2005 10:00 PM

This sounds like something only Bloomberg and his crew could dream up, from another article in the Times...

]Bloomberg said the Mets will build the stadium, which will be privately funded, for the 2009 season. The city and state will provide $160 million in infrastructure and $100 million to convert the stadium from 45,000 seats to 80,000 seats if the city is awarded the Olympics. The mayor also said the Mets could play home games at Yankee Stadium in the Bronx during the Olympics.



Seems to me this has everything to do with Bloombergs legacy and the Mets are secondary in all of this.

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 12 2005 10:17 PM

1. 2009 seems awfully soon. No way a new ballpark is ready by then.

2. Why are we censoring the name of the team from the Bronx? It makes for awkward phrasing like in my previous sentence.

KC
Jun 12 2005 10:18 PM

Well, if it's really going to be privately funded ... I may retract the never
going to happen. $160 mil for infrastructure means what? The whole log-
istics of entering and leaving Shea by car sucks. $160 mil is probably a
very low low number to get things even in motion. Too many mouths to
feed on a project like this.

Bloomberg and his crew? Maybe we can get Rev Al on the job ....

metirish
Jun 12 2005 10:23 PM

Yancy I wondered the same thing..damn Yankees.
And the idea that a new Mets stadium could be tranformed form a 45,000 seater into an 80,000 seater makes this project all too complicated.

KC
Jun 12 2005 10:24 PM

>>>Why are we censoring the name of the team from the Bronx? It makes for awkward phrasing like in my previous sentence.<<<

Uh, I don't have the energy.

We're a happy family
We're a happy family
We're a happy family
Me Mom and Daddy

holychicken
Jun 13 2005 08:59 AM

How much would the enjoyment of baseball games by the fans be compromised by building it with the intent to have Olympic games held there as well?

The field level seats at shea are messed up, IMHO, because it was also intended to be a football stadium. I don't want that to happen again just for the Olympics.

seawolf17
Jun 13 2005 09:06 AM

I have only three words on this whole thing:

Bob. Murphy. Stadium.

Anything less is a travesty.

Am I the only one who will actually be sad to see Shea go? I love that park.

Elster88
Jun 13 2005 09:10 AM

I have no problem with Shea being knocked down.

soupcan
Jun 13 2005 09:12 AM

Here's the layout...


sharpie
Jun 13 2005 09:18 AM

Where do people park when they're building the new stadium but using Shea?

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 13 2005 09:22 AM

I posted a nice, lengthy argument on ezBoard for keeping Shea Stadium.

I may go look for it, but I'm guessing it's probably been killed by the hacker.

cooby
Jun 13 2005 09:24 AM

Everybody on the picture looks tres dramatic

metirish
Jun 13 2005 09:26 AM

Lupica has his say.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/318591p-272446c.html

soupcan
Jun 13 2005 09:28 AM

The only objection I have to tearing down Shea is a selfish one.

My brother-in-law and his family have been season ticket holders at Shea since 1964. As a result of this his seats are Amazin'.

He sells me roughly half of his stash every year - I get to see as many games as I want from arguably the best seats in the house.

Should a new stdium go up, odds are that his seats won't be nearly as good and the price of those not-nearly-as-good seats will increase dramatically.

Boo! No new stadium!

sharpie
Jun 13 2005 09:30 AM

Tear it down! Soupcan's brother-in-law is hogging all the good seats.

soupcan
Jun 13 2005 09:41 AM

Hogging or no (it's only 1 box) those seats are always occupied by Mets fans and not corporate VIPs.

In our extended, immediate family which consists of 8 adults and 9 kids there is not one - read: ZERO Yankee fans. All of us are dyed in the wool or in-training Metsians.

Willets Point
Jun 13 2005 09:57 AM
Willets Point revitalization

Looks like in the new plan, I'd be getting the spa treatment. I could really use that.

Frayed Knot
Jun 13 2005 04:41 PM

Freddie & Jeffy haven't released any of the current details yet
*** (SHOW US THE STADIUM PLANS NOW!!!!) ***
but I would think that constructing a building that is intended for
45,000 but is able to be expanded in order to seat 80K pretty much
shoots down the whole sliding roof thingie, no? ... at least for the
time that this Olympic conversion thing is still a possiblity.

They had apparently decided a few years back to do away with the
sliding field idea that was in the orig plans.

Johnny Dickshot
Jun 13 2005 05:18 PM

I wonder whether us fans can get together with a list of demands for the Stadium, or at least get keyed in on the planning process somehow.

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 13 2005 06:05 PM

I hope they ditch the Ebbets Field idea.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 13 2005 06:28 PM

I hope so.

Here's my demands.

1. No retractable roof - it's just two hundred million more in debt for the Mets. A new stadium just doesn't need it. It doesn't rain enough at Shea and it doesn't really snow into May. This isn't Seattle or Minneapolis.

2. A stadium independent in design. I don't want a Camden Yards wannabe and neither do I want a stadium that just apes Ebbets Field - hey Fred, you want the Brooklyn Dodgers so bad, move the team to Brooklyn. I want to see a stadium that looks like New York and specifically Queens. I would argue for a symmetrical field. Ebbets Field had a funny shape because it was crammed into a city block. Space is not a problem for a new Mets stadium.

3. A large stadium with substantial bleachers. 50,000 seats and 5-8,000 bleacher seats. Met fans haven't had real bleachers since the freakin' Polo Grounds, and a New York team should have one of the largest stadiums in their league.

4. A name that demphasizes a corporation and honors a Met. The Mets are probably going to sell their stadium name anyway, but I wouldn't mind if it was Citibank Field at Seaver Stadium or something.

5. A cool roof.

6. A good Mets team in it.

Rotblatt
Jun 13 2005 06:58 PM

I agree about the retracrable roof and the name.

As for Ebbett's Field, I'm actually kind of intrigued by that idea. I like the historic NY stadium concept . . . Although the idea of a really interesting designer taking on our stadium design would be pretty cool. I definitely don't want a cookie-cutter type or anything too "now" that will be dated in 15 years.

Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I'd rather just have an element from Ebbett's Field involved in the design--even just the cornerstone or something, with a little plaque.

Edgy DC
Jun 13 2005 07:10 PM
Edited 3 time(s), most recently on Jun 14 2005 10:14 AM

Interesting about the symmetrical field idea. I think it's unlikely to happen, though. The stadia of Shea's era are referred to with hostility as "Cookie Cutter" stadia, and a disrespect for symmetry has been the easy cheap way in the newer retro-stadia to say "This is not a cookie-cutter field. This is quirky."

It'd be too risky for the architect of the replacement of possibly the last cookie-cutter stadium to put up a symmetrical outfield and have the park labled "neo-cookie cutter." It'll be in the RFP that he or she would have to evade that tag.

I'm on record as (1) supporting the salvation of Shea, and (2) thinking that a nice feature in either a refurbished or new Shea would be future modern design elements that recall the World's Fair era in which the Mets and Shea were born.

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 13 2005 07:20 PM

I also wouldn't mind having something that looks dated in 15 years. The stadium should reflect the time in which it was built. Maybe it'll be dated in 2024, but a cherished architectural treasure by 2050.

I want something modern. Enough with the retro; it's been done to death. Let's put the Mets in the first 21st-Century ballpark.

Get a cutting edge architect. I hope that it's so different that half the people call it an eyesore. (Even if I'm among that half!)

Johnny Dickshot
Jun 13 2005 07:45 PM

Meathead previously suggested Calatrava, but I'm sure Fred won't go for it.

BTW, I'm still certain the '12 games are doomed for NYC anyhow. Way back when talk was first starting a guy inside told me the realistic expectation was 2020, they just put '12' on it so as to create some buzz. So we're looking at a 2016 residence at MFY Stadium at worst.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 13 2005 09:52 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
Meathead previously suggested Calatrava, but I'm sure Fred won't go for it.

BTW, I'm still certain the '12 games are doomed for NYC anyhow. Way back when talk was first starting a guy inside told me the realistic expectation was 2020, they just put '12' on it so as to create some buzz. So we're looking at a 2016 residence at MFY Stadium at worst.

Yeah, Paris is probably getting the bid even if the West Side stadium went through. I think after Athens the IOC is pretty wary of cities who are promising a lot of stuff they haven't built yet, even if NYC would probably do it much quicker than Athens.

Paris has had their Olympic Stadium standing since 1998. They have 80% of their facilities built. The only things that aren't built yet are specialist facilities that will be used once.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 13 2005 10:03 PM

Rotblatt wrote:
I agree about the retracrable roof and the name.

As for Ebbett's Field, I'm actually kind of intrigued by that idea. I like the historic NY stadium concept . . . Although the idea of a really interesting designer taking on our stadium design would be pretty cool. I definitely don't want a cookie-cutter type or anything too "now" that will be dated in 15 years.

Now that I'm thinking about it, maybe I'd rather just have an element from Ebbett's Field involved in the design--even just the cornerstone or something, with a little plaque.

The Mets aren't a Brooklyn team, though. Leave a potential Brooklyn team (because NYC can still easily support three teams) to build an Ebbets Field clone.

Let the Mets build something that looks towards the future and not the past, because the Mets don't really have much of a past compared to other teams. There's still plenty of people around before the Mets were born.

Besides, I think this team kinda inherits the legacy of the Giants more than the Brooks, but that's just me..

SI Metman
Jun 13 2005 10:04 PM

NYC will be in the same situation as Paris. Paris submitted for the 2008 games and was a finalist, but lost since 2006 will also be in Europe (as was 2004). NYC will lose since 2010 is in North America.

I bet it'll definately be 2012 Paris and 2016 NYC.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 13 2005 10:08 PM

SI Metman wrote:
NYC will be in the same situation as Paris. Paris submitted for the 2008 games and was a finalist, but lost since 2006 will also be in Europe (as was 2004). NYC will lose since 2010 is in North America.

I bet it'll definately be 2012 Paris and 2016 NYC.

I think NYC will definitely get the games eventually - the lure of the Olympics in the Big Apple will be too much for the IOC to look over, and the bid isn't THAT bad. This, in a way, is probably a test run.

Frayed Knot
Jun 13 2005 10:54 PM

1) No HR haven please. Keep it at least a neutral park, or even one favoring pitchers at least slightly.

2) The only nod to Ebbits field was supposedly the outside architecture design -- it's not like they were intending to mimic the whole park.

3) It doesn't need to be perfectly symmetrical, but some of the newer parks seemed all tricked up just so they can claim it's quirky.

4) 45K seats sounds a bit small. Lots of the new parks in the smaller cities have gone this way but that's in part to create a kind of artificial demand by intentionally limiting supply. A good team here doesn't need that. It doesn't need to be 55K+ but it seems to me it should be more than 45.

5) I'm not a big fan of indoor ball but if a removeable roof prevents rainouts, helps out those who have distances to travel in iffy weather, and increases the attendance in those early-April games, I think they believe it'll worth the cost. It also allows the stadium to be used for other things in the off-season.
Put it in if you want - just promise to only use it if neccesary.

6) It's going to have a corporate name folks. Just hope it's not one of those fugly-off-the-tongue hi-tech corporate monikers.

sharpie
Jun 13 2005 11:10 PM

No giant intrusive advertising gimmick like that Coke bottle in San Fran.

metirish
Jun 13 2005 11:10 PM

i have long wanted a new stadium to be named after Bob Murphy but in reflection it should still be named Shea Stadium, I think there would be pressure to keep it at that, Bob Murphy could probably get streets named around the new place after him,Shea Stadium reflects the history and the man who did so much to get the NL back in town, a NY team that will have it's own Network by then doesn't need to sell naming rights to Bank Of America and get called "the BOA for short....long live Shea.


Selig said to be shocked

]
Field not just a dream
Word of Mets’ new stadium shocks Commissioner Selig, who says it’s overdue

BY KEN DAVIDOFF
STAFF WRITER

June 14, 2005

The news shocked Bud Selig, just as it did everyone else. On Saturday night, the baseball commissioner received a call from his friend and ally, Mets principal owner Fred Wilpon. Suddenly, the Mets had themselves a deal for a new stadium.

And once the shock wore off, Selig again experienced the same reaction as virtually everyone else.


"There's no question that the Mets desperately need a new stadium," Selig said. "With all respect to Shea, all one has to do is walk through it to realize that. Having said all that, this is very important. It's a great day for the Mets. It is incredible."

The incredible became reality Sunday night when Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced the stunning development in his quest to land the 2012 Olympic Games, less than a week after his vision for a stadium on the West Side of Manhattan fell apart.

The Mets will pay for the 45,000-seat ballpark -- Wilpon said Sunday that it will cost about $600 million, although another person with knowledge of the discussions disputed that figure yesterday -- and the city and state will kick in $180 million for infrastructure improvements around the stadium.

Selig communicates regularly with most of his owners and is known for being on top of everything in the industry, even devouring all of the newspaper coverage. But the talks between the city and the Mets began a week ago tonight, according to an official in the loop, and four days passed before Selig was notified.

"I was startled," Selig said, "and I think [Wilpon] was, too."

The Mets had been holding quiet talks for the past three months, without much urgency. But on June 6, State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver voted against the West Side stadium -- which would have served as the main Olympic venue and as home to the Jets -- crippling the city's Olympic hopes.

The Jets' misfortune turned into the Mets' bonanza. The city followed its call last Tuesday with another Wednesday morning; the "official" call from the mayor's office came Thursday. That set into motion the frenzied negotiations that concluded with Sunday's news conference.

In 1998, Wilpon revealed the model for the Mets' new home, one designed to pay homage to Ebbets Field. That model has to be dusted off and tweaked; for one thing, that featured a retractable roof, and this won't. But the reminders of the Brooklyn Dodgers' old home should stay intact.

The new design should be revealed in about a month.

A modern ballpark, combined with the kickoff of their own television network next season, should put the Mets in excellent economic position. Shea Stadium, the Mets' home since 1964, is currently the sixth-oldest stadium in baseball, behind Fenway Park (1912), Wrigley Field (1914), Yankee Stadium (1923), Dodger Stadium (1962) and RFK Stadium (1962).

Spacemans Bong
Jun 14 2005 12:39 AM

Frayed Knot wrote:
1) No HR haven please. Keep it at least a neutral park, or even one favoring pitchers at least slightly.

2) The only nod to Ebbits field was supposedly the outside architecture design -- it's not like they were intending to mimic the whole park.

3) It doesn't need to be perfectly symmetrical, but some of the newer parks seemed all tricked up just so they can claim it's quirky.

4) 45K seats sounds a bit small. Lots of the new parks in the smaller cities have gone this way but that's in part to create a kind of artificial demand by intentionally limiting supply. A good team here doesn't need that. It doesn't need to be 55K+ but it seems to me it should be more than 45.

5) I'm not a big fan of indoor ball but if a removeable roof prevents rainouts, helps out those who have distances to travel in iffy weather, and increases the attendance in those early-April games, I think they believe it'll worth the cost. It also allows the stadium to be used for other things in the off-season.
Put it in if you want - just promise to only use it if neccesary.

6) It's going to have a corporate name folks. Just hope it's not one of those fugly-off-the-tongue hi-tech corporate monikers.


1. Yeah, I hope it's a pitcher's park too. Ex-pitcher here.

2. The outside architecture shouldn't evoke Ebbets Field either. The retro architecture trend is played out, and the Mets are not a Brooklyn team, and their lineage really isn't Brooklyn either.

3. I'd like a symmetrical park. Having the same dimensions as Shea wouldn't be terrible.

4. I think the new park should hold 50,000. On the dot.

5. It does open the stadium to off-season events like the Final Four, and it will prevent rainouts. But I don't think that justifies the cost, which will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. I don't think an extra 1,500 people for an April game is going to justify the cost and not the Final Four either.

The money could be better spent on having the best drainage system in the game, if you want to lessen the chance of rainouts.

6. Yeah, probably.

Willets Point
Jun 14 2005 09:19 AM

Yancy Street Gang wrote:
I also wouldn't mind having something that looks dated in 15 years. The stadium should reflect the time in which it was built. Maybe it'll be dated in 2024, but a cherished architectural treasure by 2050.

I want something modern. Enough with the retro; it's been done to death. Let's put the Mets in the first 21st-Century ballpark.

Get a cutting edge architect. I hope that it's so different that half the people call it an eyesore. (Even if I'm among that half!)


Does Frank Gehry do sporting venues?

Elster88
Jun 14 2005 09:30 AM

4) I kind of like the capacity as it is now.

Rotblatt
Jun 14 2005 09:44 AM

Regarding the Brooklyn thing, I think we absolutely have Brooklyn roots. At the very least, it's why we have blue in our unis (orange for Giants). I think we really need to incorporate the history of the Dodgers & Giants into the new stadium, although I'm open to non-architectural ways of doing it. Maybe a mini museum, or a small park with tributes to the Dodgers or Giants . . . Those teams are an integral part of New York baseball, and as the team that rose out of their ashes, we should keep the torch burning.

On a selfish note, since I started finding out about the Brooklyn Dodgers, I've always been sad that I couldn't visit Ebbets' Field--the parking lot mural doesn't really cut it for me, although I suppose it's better than nothing.

Edgy DC
Jun 14 2005 10:19 AM

Instead of Yankee Stadium during the build, can we play at, I don't know, East Meadow High?

Actually, if the park is going to be built nearby, isn't there no need to demolish the old home until after the new one is finished? I mean, parking will be an aggravation, but that's nothing new.

I'm not so sure I'd trust Met fans to treat Yankee Stadium well for 81 games.

silverdsl
Jun 14 2005 10:29 AM

Whether it's at a new Mets stadium or a new Yankee stadium what I want is very simple and probably very insignificant in the grand scheme of things - better concessions. I hear all these stories about the wonderful food that is available at other team's stadiums and I'd like to be able to have something better than a boxed pizza if I'm not in the mood for a hot dog at a game. Granted, I haven't been to Shea for a year or two so I'm not 100% sure what is being served there but it's awful at Yankee Stadium.

Johnny Dickshot
Jun 14 2005 10:30 AM

I think it's obvious that Fred sees the Mets as carrying the tradition of the Dodgers in NYC and himself (thru his relationship with Koufax) as the link between the two.

I'm OK with that.

I also think Fred will want to take care that the "new Shea" is his legacy to the city. Seems to me all successful NY real estate developers are big-ego guys, and tho Fred is one can any of us attach his name to any one building? I know his company owned the Eastside apt. tower where Hernandez used to live, but I couldn't tell ya what it looks like.

A modern ballpark, combined with the kickoff of their own television network next season, should put the Mets in excellent economic position.

No doubt. As the MFYs know, building a new stadium also excuses a team from luxury-tax responsibilities for a period.

willpie
Jun 14 2005 10:38 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
Seems to me all successful NY real estate developers are big-ego guys


I don't know what you could be talking about; why that Lefrak fellow never felt the need to take credit for his projects or even name things after himself.

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 14 2005 11:35 AM

We may have to prepare ourselves for the possiblity that the Mets will play their home games at Wilpon Park.

Also, as much as I revere Bob Murphy, Tom Seaver, Gil Hodges, etc. I don't think any of them warrant having a stadium named after them.

I'd be happy with a name that has local meaning. Call it Flushing Meadows Park, the original name for Shea. That would be fine.

SI Metman
Jun 14 2005 11:39 AM

And throw away those millions of dollars from Pepsi who would love to slap their name on the new stadium?

metirish
Jun 14 2005 11:44 AM

Yeah kinda naive of me to think they wouldn't sell the naming rights, from an article in today's Daily News..



]Some experts estimate the Mets could get up to $15 million a year for the naming rights for their new park, although Howard says $5 million to $10 million a year is more likely.



Howard = University of Oregon sports business professor .

ABG
Jun 14 2005 12:13 PM

One thing not yet mentioned--if NYC gets the Olympics for 2012, or intends to compete for 2016 or 2020, I'd think our new stadium might avoid a corporate name for fear of looking cheap or petty against other competitors as it will be the centerpiece of the games.

Either that, or the spectre of naming rights for the olympic centerpiece will greatly improve the Mets bargaining position for naming rights (the $$$ from which I'm CERTAIN will go directly towards top-tier FA's)

sharpie
Jun 14 2005 12:24 PM

You'd probably have to buy the Olympic year separately. It would be Pepsi Stadium except that the puffed-up 85,000 seat place would be Citicorp Olympic Field and then it would go back to charming Pepsi.

SI Metman
Jun 14 2005 12:44 PM

ABG wrote:
One thing not yet mentioned--if NYC gets the Olympics for 2012, or intends to compete for 2016 or 2020, I'd think our new stadium might avoid a corporate name for fear of looking cheap or petty against other competitors as it will be the centerpiece of the games.

Either that, or the spectre of naming rights for the olympic centerpiece will greatly improve the Mets bargaining position for naming rights (the $$$ from which I'm CERTAIN will go directly towards top-tier FA's)


Wasn't every other thing in the '96 games named Coca Cola this and Delta that?

Willets Point
Jun 14 2005 12:58 PM

SI Metman wrote:

Wasn't every other thing in the '96 games named Coca Cola this and Delta that?


Except for the Greco-Roman Wrestling Pavilion which was named for the Varsity Drive-In.

ABG
Jun 14 2005 01:04 PM

I thought about that--as far as I can recall, the main stadiumn (opening/closing ceremonies, t&f, etc) has never had a corporate name.

I'm sure everything else will be the pepsi pavillion this and GE equestrian center that.

metsmarathon
Jun 14 2005 07:22 PM

it'd be kinda cool if they were able to design a modern stadium with an exterior that is somewhat evocative of good ol' ebbets.

but in a totally modern, new, non-retro kind of way.

i dont want a ford mustang kind of stadium.

ScarletKnight41
Jun 14 2005 07:28 PM

With our luck it'll be a De Lorean.

Iubitul
Jun 14 2005 07:31 PM

ScarletKnight41 wrote:
With our luck it'll be a De Lorean.

Hey - The De Lorean was a cool car.

Let's see you go back in time in your Subaru...

Spacemans Bong
Jun 14 2005 07:49 PM

Rotblatt wrote:
Regarding the Brooklyn thing, I think we absolutely have Brooklyn roots. At the very least, it's why we have blue in our unis (orange for Giants). I think we really need to incorporate the history of the Dodgers & Giants into the new stadium, although I'm open to non-architectural ways of doing it. Maybe a mini museum, or a small park with tributes to the Dodgers or Giants . . . Those teams are an integral part of New York baseball, and as the team that rose out of their ashes, we should keep the torch burning.

On a selfish note, since I started finding out about the Brooklyn Dodgers, I've always been sad that I couldn't visit Ebbets' Field--the parking lot mural doesn't really cut it for me, although I suppose it's better than nothing.

The Mets have some Brooklyn roots. I think it's fair to say the Mets have more Giant roots. The logo. The road uniforms are a dead ringer for the Giant road unis (just switch the blue to black). Joan Payson once owned a small stake in the team. M. Donald Grant was the sole vote on the Giant board against moving the team from NY. The Mets were born at the Polo Grounds. The Dodgers gave the Mets Gil Hodges and Duke Snider (briefly); The Giants gave Willie Mays.

I think an interesting theory of why there seems to be so few Giants fans wailing about the loss of their team compared to Dodger fans is that many more Giant fans immediately became Met fans. I think the Mets clearly rose from the ashes of the Giants.

I'm not advocating the Mets ignore New York's National League history, I just am not a fan of building an Ebbets Field replica or an Ebbets Field facade. To be fair, I am against building a Polo Grounds replica as well.

I'd like a modern stadium, with the homages to the past kept indoors.

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 14 2005 08:07 PM

I see more Dodgers in the Mets than I do Giants.

The Mets tradition seems more an extension of that of the Dodgers than of the Giants.

The Mets are more Wilbert Robinson than John McGraw. The whole lovable loser schtick that the Mets had going could never have applied to the Giants, not with their background of Mathewson, Ott, Terry, etc. It does apply to a team that became affectionately known as the "Bums."

The Mets have Dodger and Giant roots to be sure. The reason that the Dodgers are more missed than the Giants is because they were more popular in those final years, especially in the wake of the 1955 championship.

When the Dodgers left, they were at their apex. The Brooklyn team had never been better. And although the Giants had had some recent success (1954!) their glory years were decades behind them.

ScarletKnight41
Jun 14 2005 08:16 PM

I come from Brooklyn Dodgers stock. The Mets are way more Brooklyn than Upper Manhattan, IMO.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 14 2005 08:56 PM

="Yancy Street Gang"]I see more Dodgers in the Mets than I do Giants.

The Mets tradition seems more an extension of that of the Dodgers than of the Giants.

The Mets are more Wilbert Robinson than John McGraw. The whole lovable loser schtick that the Mets had going could never have applied to the Giants, not with their background of Mathewson, Ott, Terry, etc. It does apply to a team that became affectionately known as the "Bums."

The Mets have Dodger and Giant roots to be sure. The reason that the Dodgers are more missed than the Giants is because they were more popular in those final years, especially in the wake of the 1955 championship.

When the Dodgers left, they were at their apex. The Brooklyn team had never been better. And although the Giants had had some recent success (1954!) their glory years were decades behind them.

Perhaps, but I practically never hear whining from old Giant fans. They just all became Met fans. And those 80s Mets were all in the tradition of Muggsy McGraw and the swaggering Giants. ;)

By the way, I come from Giants/Red Sox stock.

Alright, time for me to go to the park. Pedro t-shirt: check. Blue Mets hat: check. New York Giants pullover with New York and the NY logo: check.

Nymr83
Jun 14 2005 09:57 PM

if you're going to name the stadium Bob Murphy stadium is the way to go, otherwise justr go for the corporate sponsor. I have no interest in seeing a "seaver stadium"

soupcan
Jun 14 2005 10:57 PM

1. Symmetrical - it should be a pitcher's park with at least the same dimensions as Shea has now. Pitching and defense is, after all, our tradition.

2. Don't mind the retro look. I'd rather have that then a SkyDome type of structure.

3. Ideally I'd like it to be called Shea Stadium but that's not gonna happen. So if I have to pick a sponsor let's pick one with a 'real' name. Like Miller Park or Coors Field. Not necessarily a beer (Rheingold Field would be pretty fucking cool, no?) but a company with a name instead of Citicorp Park or MetLife Stadium.

4. I did like the model they wheeled out a few years back sans the roof. What is so bad about this...?







Edgy DC
Jun 14 2005 11:03 PM

Look at the sparsely filled lot. It's like they're only drawing about 50 fans.

Frayed Knot
Jun 14 2005 11:10 PM

MFYs are going to release the plans for their new crib tomorrow (Wed) - also due to open in '09.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 15 2005 02:17 AM

="soupcan"]1. Symmetrical - it should be a pitcher's park with at least the same dimensions as Shea has now. Pitching and defense is, after all, our tradition.

2. Don't mind the retro look. I'd rather have that then a SkyDome type of structure.

3. Ideally I'd like it to be called Shea Stadium but that's not gonna happen. So if I have to pick a sponsor let's pick one with a 'real' name. Like Miller Park or Coors Field. Not necessarily a beer (Rheingold Field would be pretty fucking cool, no?) but a company with a name instead of Citicorp Park or MetLife Stadium.

4. I did like the model they wheeled out a few years back sans the roof. What is so bad about this...?








Every other team in baseball with a new stadium has a park that looks exactly like that?

That left field double notch thing makes me want to puke. Old parks were asymmsterical because of space constraints and the fact they were continually added onto over time. New Shea will have neither of these.

And with Skydome I raise thee with Miller Park.

Iubitul
Jun 15 2005 06:34 AM

Joan Whitney Payson Park.

Johnny Dickshot
Jun 15 2005 07:09 AM

The Times today sez the Mets and Yanxxx will use the same firm to design the parks -- HOK Sports, which designs all the other parks.

One thing to watch over the next 4 years will be the competition between them to create the better facility.

ABG
Jun 15 2005 09:55 AM

]The Times today sez the Mets and Yanxxx will use the same firm to design the parks -- HOK Sports, which designs all the other parks.

One thing to watch over the next 4 years will be the competition between them to create the better facility.
The Yankees are going to be using the same dimensions as they currently have, so that will be a substantial difference.

One of the things that really works about some of the new stadiums and not others is the "believability" of nooks and crannies. The right field just at PacBell works because it's pushed up against the wharf (as does the short porch at Camden because of the warehouse), whereas the stupid CF in Houston is just there to be there.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 15 2005 10:59 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote:
The Times today sez the Mets and Yanxxx will use the same firm to design the parks -- HOK Sports, which designs all the other parks.

One thing to watch over the next 4 years will be the competition between them to create the better facility.

HOK's designs have gotten continually worse. Optimistic, I am not.

]One of the things that really works about some of the new stadiums and not others is the "believability" of nooks and crannies. The right field just at PacBell works because it's pushed up against the wharf (as does the short porch at Camden because of the warehouse), whereas the stupid CF in Houston is just there to be there.

One of the interesting things about Pac Bell is that it really is a ballpark modeled after old ballparks. It's actually crammed into a city block. Most parks are between 14-16 acres, Pac Bell is just 12 1/2.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 15 2005 04:17 PM



Wow. The Yanks are going to build a new Comiskey Park.

I'd rather have Ebbets Field Jr in Queens than this.

Rotblatt
Jun 15 2005 04:20 PM

I like that they have not one but two places that fans have to queue at before they can enter the Stadium's hallowed grounds.

That's awfully convenient.

Do you think its nickname will be "The House That Cano Built"?

metirish
Jun 15 2005 04:35 PM

What's the horrible tent like structure in CF?, maybe George's office ,anway not one bit impressed with that, and the same company is going to build the Mets new place.....interesting

soupcan
Jun 15 2005 04:37 PM

]And with Skydome I raise thee with Miller Park.




Are you saying that you like this place? Holy crap - it looks a Giant Squidlike Creature is having sex with it.







As to this piece of ugliness - it looks like a giant toilet bowl inside a train station

Vic Sage
Jun 15 2005 04:40 PM

the 160$M the city will have to kick in actually SAVES the city money, because otherwise we're contractually bound to provide upgrades for Shea that have been estimated at $200m. So, since Freddie is paying, I'm all for a new stadium. Because, as i've said on many occasions, Shea is a shithole.

as for the look of the new stadium --

I'm against arbitrary asymmetry. Thats justa lotta crap.

I'm for a dome, so i don't broil in July-august or freeze on opening day and during playoffs.

I'm for a pitcher's park, but with very little foul territory, so the seats can be close to the action. This means deep fences.

I'm for parking closer to the stadium, with multiple multi-level garages with numerous entrances/exits.

I'm for a 45,000-50,000 capacity, as long as the seats all face the infield, and aren't so far under an overhang as to create obstructed views.

I'm for an authentic multi-ethnic food court (like Eutaw St at Camden, but better) located where the chop shops are now, to add a requisite Queensian element.

I'm for naming it Rheingold Park, but howabout Kiner's Korner? I frankly don't care what they name it if selling the naming rights generates significant enough revenue to pay for better players.

Whether the stadium ends up being labeled "modern" or "retro" or is something indescribable doesn't really matter to me, as long as the design recalls both the Dodger/Giants roots of the team (celebrating the history of NL baseball in nyc), the uniquely Metsian early 60s World's Fair design concepts in which the team originated, and 21st century technology for comfort and utility.

Spacemans Bong
Jun 15 2005 04:49 PM

]Are you saying that you like this place? Holy crap - it looks a Giant Squidlike Creature is having sex with it.

More like that's a stadium which is unquestionably uglier than SkyDome.

Something I find kinda interesting is that HOK hasn't had a hit ballpark in years, and people keep going to them.

The Mets really need to use someone new that will design a fresh ballpark.

ScarletKnight41
Jun 15 2005 04:57 PM

soup - I scrolled down quickly so the little guy wouldn't see your description of Miller Park (but I think it's freakin' hysterical!), but he totally agrees with your assessment of the proposed new home for the MFYs.

Willets Point
Jun 15 2005 05:23 PM

Artist's rendition of Steinbrenner's new Yankee Stadium during construction, circa 2007-08






ABG
Jun 15 2005 06:26 PM

It looks exactly like Soldier Field in Chicago. Which is hideous.

At least with Soldier Field, they built a crappy bowl inside of an EXISTING outside structure.

Lousy cheap ass org--hire a real architectural firm NOW!!!!!!!!!!

Frayed Knot
Jun 15 2005 11:07 PM

I just remembered one other thing I don't want in the new stad ... a situation where there are numerous disputed HR calls because you're not sure whether the ball crossed "over the yellow line" or met some other such idiotic condition. Make it have fences where either it's a fargin HR or it's not. I don't want any conferences of umps flipping coins.



Not only is that Miller Park roof ugly - but it doesn't work either.
It leaks, plus the mechanism is screwed up to the point where it takes so long to open/close that they have to make the call before the game starts.

Edgy DC
Jun 15 2005 11:19 PM
Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Jun 16 2005 07:44 AM

How perfect that the Yankees have a stadium concept that (1) includes a façade that is purely image and has nothing to do with the infrastructure behind it, and (2) has an open raised concourse inside the façade that allows the Yankee fan, for $49, to stroll in the Bronx, without having to, you know, stroll in the Bronx -- perched elitely above it all.

Leave it to them to turn the freaking complex into a gated community.

metsmarathon
Jun 16 2005 12:01 AM

="Edgy DC"]How perfect that the Yankees (1) have a stadium concept that includes a façade that is purely image and has nothing to do with the infrastructure behind it, and (2) has an open raised concourse inside the façade that allows the Yankee fan, for $49, to stroll in the Bronx, without having to, you know, stroll in the Bronx -- perched elitely above it all.

Leave it to them to turn the freaking complex into a gated community.


ding! we have a winner!

Frayed Knot
Jun 16 2005 12:08 AM

]What's the horrible tent like structure in CF?, maybe George's office



More likely some restaurant/lux suites area.

Edgy DC
Jun 16 2005 01:40 AM

Thanks, but my syntax was awful.

Nymr83
Jun 16 2005 01:56 AM

]the 160$M the city will have to kick in actually SAVES the city money, because otherwise we're contractually bound to provide upgrades for Shea that have been estimated at $200m.


An interesting point which i had not heard before. I'm always in favor of saving taxpapyer money, though i usually have no problem with the city providing infrastructure improvements as long as they aren't paying for the park itself.


heres my wish-list:
1. pitcher's park with at least the same dimensions as Shea to all fields. deeper is fine too.
2. open-air in the outfield (ie..not a football stadium) so that the wind can kill fly-balls as it always has and always should.
3. lots of foul ground. i can't afford front row anyway so what do i care how far away it is? the view from the upper deck will be the same either way, and the view from the mound will be much nicer when balls that should be long strikes become outs instead.
4. bleacher seats open to the public more than one night a week.
5. some sort of tribute to Murphy (and eventually Kiner)
6. a place for Seaver's number that actually has room next to it for other numbers...you know, as if we are actually gonna retire one again some day.
7. affordable tickets, currently $5 upper deck seats are available to select (read: shitty) weeknight games. this had better continue, its a welcome change and as a real fan i could care less about the opponents, i'm fine with seeing the brewers at $5 over seeing the Yankees or Giants at $18 a seat.

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 16 2005 06:30 AM

You can't honor Murphy and Kiner without honoring Lindsey Nelson, too.

A relief sculpture of the three of them together, holding microphones, would be a nice thing to have in the stadium lobby somewhere.

metsmarathon
Jun 16 2005 09:12 AM

Edgy DC wrote:
Thanks, but my syntax was awful.


syntax, shmyntax. you got the funny-looking "ç" in "façade" - that's good enough for me.

metirish
Jun 27 2005 09:59 PM

A first look at the new Mets stadium...I really hope we don't get the 2012 games, this thing looks horrible..

Yancy Street Gang
Jun 27 2005 10:07 PM

That's one deep left field.

Maybe HOK needs to get out of the stadium business.

They should hire I.M. Pei or someone like that.

Edgy DC
Jun 27 2005 10:40 PM

I.M. Pei is a fraud.

That leftfield part of that stadium is to be temporary -- only for the Olympics. It's to be reconstructed after the Olympics to configure more with the needs of it's permanent tenants.

metirish
Jun 27 2005 10:44 PM

true Train,I'd like to see a drawing of the Stadium that's just for baseball.

Johnny Dickshot
Jun 27 2005 11:00 PM

I read somewhere that the HOK guys the Mets are talking to is the same "team" that did Turner Field. Not sure if that's true.

From an article:

The stadium would be located a projected 17 minutes from the proposed Queens West Olympic Village site.

If the 7 runs express and skips every station.

SI Metman
Jun 27 2005 11:39 PM



Dark Blue is Baseball infrastructure, purple is Olympics infrastructure.