Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so why are they really tearing down old Yankee Stadium?
Sure, I've heard reasons that seem "valid":
1. maintainance to keep it up as a show place is too expensive
2. parkland replacement was promised when the new Yankee Stadium took up its present site
But I suspect there is another very real reason:
The Yankee organization wants the present Yankee Stadium to be the only Yankee Stadium. And it knows that the original has all the history, a far greater history than the new one ever would, and that the original literally screams "original" as the new one screams "copy".
If the Yankees wanted to incorporate elements of the old park into the new, provide a luxurious setting that brings comfort and convience to their fans, and design and construct a quality new stadium, they have succeeded. There is little I can see in Yankee Stadium that in any way is worse than any of the other new parks that came on line since Camden Yards began the retro-era. Most carry "quirkiness" to insanity and few are straight forward and quirkly not by choice but by necessity (China Basin forces AT&T into a tight space that cuts down right field and affects the feel of the park in as authentic way as Fenway's odd shade was dictated by its ancient boundaries...but there aren't many PacBell/SBC/AT&T/Phone-Company-of-Choice parks out there)
If they tried to build a new landmark with a monumental nature and an architectural gem, IMHO, they failed miserably. For all you can say about it in an over-the-top way, it really comes off as, well, mediocre. And hardly even the better deal in its own city when it goes up head to head with Citi Field.
Yankee Stadium is a good stadium. It does not distinguish itself as a great one by any means, nor could it, given its charge to duplicate as much of the old as was possible. The freize may be back on the upper deck, but looks like an add on compared to the way the old one soared above field before the 1970s renovation. That one fit.
If you compare the only two real "stadiums" in MLB, the one in the Bronx and the one in Chavez Ravine, the Dodgers' comes across as genuine and classic (again: IMHO) more than the Yankees'.
Let me end my rant this way: Soldier Field's exterior has nothing to do with the structure of the current Bears stadium. That building sits inside of the old exterior and does not rely on it in any structural way. But if was important to Chicago for the old exterior with its classic colonades to stand and to continue to be identified with the city. Was the combination of old and new great architecture? Hardly. Some consider it absurd. But its ability to connect past, present, future, and city together is unquestionable.
Don't tell me that, despite no new structure behind it, many elements of the old stadium couldn't have survived and been incorporated into the new park...instead of the current plan to keep the infield in tact.
The Yankees, I sincerely believe, wanted all traces of this old structure gone and forgotten about and none left to compare...and compete...with the new one across the street.
If you think that keeping an unused stadium around for no reason other than history makes any sense whatever, then you're facing just about 180 degrees in the wrong direction. (Plus, stop and think about it: the stadium that the Yankees just abandoned wasn't the original anyway. That one came down a little more than 30 years ago. Remember when it was gutted and completely rebuilt, leaving only the facade?) Please don't try to make some kind of conspiracy about this.
If you think that keeping an unused stadium around for no reason other than history makes any sense whatever, then you're facing just about 180 degrees in the wrong direction. (Plus, stop and think about it: the stadium that the Yankees just abandoned wasn't the original anyway. That one came down a little more than 30 years ago. Remember when it was gutted and completely rebuilt, leaving only the facade?) Please don't try to make some kind of conspiracy about this.
Next case...
the exterior was pretty much the same; it was the interior that got changed. I didn't say keep it in tact, fred. I said at least preserve much of the interior. I gave Soldier Field as an example. The parts retained have nothing to do with the structure of the new stadium and everything to do with preserving and respecting the past. I'm hardly alone in feeling that it was a desecretion tot he game of baseball to tear down the old stadium completely.
and where did I say "conspiracy". I didn't. I'm just saying the Yankees wanted to see the old stadium go away. That's hardy a conspiracy.
MLB is a game of tradition and it, the Yankees, and NYC would have been better served if parts of the exterior (again...these were the original ball park, not the 1970s renovation) were retained.
Let's turn it over to you: why do you think it would have been a bad idea to keeps some elements alive with no real footprint taken away from park space in order to preserve and keep as an attraction a place that was intricitly tied with the game? I would never have suggested keeping this building in place exactly like it was. I merely suggest keep the outer parts and incorporate them into the new park...very Soldier Field like and I see no problem in how Soldier Field was handled. Hell, I'm a Chicagoan and I like the fact that the old shell was left. And I think, even though it wouldn't have surrounded the new park, NY would have been better served by keeping part of the YS exterior in place...just as Chicago was at Soldier FIeld
If you think that keeping an unused stadium around for no reason other than history makes any sense whatever, then you're facing just about 180 degrees in the wrong direction. (Plus, stop and think about it: the stadium that the Yankees just abandoned wasn't the original anyway. That one came down a little more than 30 years ago. Remember when it was gutted and completely rebuilt, leaving only the facade?) Please don't try to make some kind of conspiracy about this.
Next case...
Correct.
And that land will eventually be turned over to the community as per the agreement.
The City of New York and even the Yankees themselves don't get nostalgic, nor do they have any interest in keeping something up or taking it away based on how people will feel about it.
It's all about the bucks, and leaving the old (but not oldest as you pointed out) version of Yankee Stadium serves no purpose to anyone involved.
Most of what will be left after the dismantling will actually go to people who want to be nostalgic about it, but only the highest bidders.
And that land will eventually be turned over to the community as per the agreement.
The City of New York and even the Yankees themselves don't get nostalgic, nor do they have any interest in keeping something up or taking it away based on how people will feel about it.
It's all about the bucks, and leaving the old (but not oldest as you pointed out) version of Yankee Stadium serves no purpose to anyone involved.
Most of what will be left after the dismantling will actually go to people who want to be nostalgic about it, but only the highest bidders.
That's business.
I disagree. We see so much of Ebbets Field as part of Citi Field because there was no effort to save any of it. And nothing is really left of the Polo Grounds. What makes it worse is that Yankee Stadium is far more into the lore of MLB than even either of those two iconic ballparks.
Shea was built to be torn down. Neither Ebbets Field, the Polo Grounds, and certainly not Yankee Stadium should have completely disappeared.
We are rapidly becoming a nation without roots. The markers of our past do belong. I really would have liked to see parts of YS's exterior remain, but to remain in a way that did not tie the hands of the way the new park would function. I also think there are lot of New Yorkers and people across the nation who would have liked to see that happen. I've read a number of their comments on the subject.
Shea was built to be torn down. Neither Ebbets Field, the Polo Grounds, and certainly not Yankee Stadium should have completely disappeared.
This is where you make your basic mistake. None of these stadia were built to be permanent monuments. Shea wasn't meant to be torn down any more than any other facility...but when the Mets made the decision for a new ballpark, the handwriting was on the wall. You can say precisely the same thing for every sports stadium that has ever been built.
I disagree. We see so much of Ebbets Field as part of Citi Field because there was no effort to save any of it.
You see so much of Ebbets Field in Citi Field because someone is having a great time trying to relive their childhood. You would be surprised to know what a lot of people have to say about Ebbets Field who remember it for what it really was when they were there, and most of it is not flattering. The ballpark is very nice, but the Ebbets Field connection is the product of one person's vision who had the means of making it come to life. Most of the feedback is that the place is nice, but there's too much Dodgers and not enough Mets.
Quote:
Shea was built to be torn down.
When Shea was new it wasn't seen that way. It was, at least for a while, considered state of the art. It was a considerable upgrade over the parks that came before.
Quote:
We are rapidly becoming a nation without roots.
Everything is about development now. The answer from the people who tear things down these days is that you can take a piece of whatever was there home with you for the right price. At least that's how things are being done in NYC. You can buy every seat, you can buy bricks from the stadium, and you can even buy the MEN and WOMEN signs from the restrooms.
Nobody who gets to make the decision is going to leave something up when they can tear it down, sell it in small parts to people who care about it, and put something new in its place. And they're not sacrificing one square inch.
I'm not saying it's right, just that it's the thing things are.
The current Yankee Stadium looks A LOT more like the original Yankee Stadium (1923-1973 version), at least on the outside, than Yankee Stadium II (1976-2008 version) ever did. I personally believe if the rebuilt, 1970's-era Yankee Stadium had resembled the original stadium more (in particular with its limestone outer facade and the frieze hanging from the upper deck, rather than above the back fence in the outfield), Yankee Stadium II would still be a MLB facility.
Incidentally, both Ebbets Field and especially the Polo Grounds were decaying by the time the Dodgers and Giants left New York in the late 1950's. In fact, that decay was one of the primary reasons why those teams left.
The current Yankee Stadium looks A LOT more like the original Yankee Stadium (1923-1973 version), at least on the outside, than Yankee Stadium II (1976-2008 version) ever did. I personally believe if the rebuilt, 1970's-era Yankee Stadium had resembled the original stadium more (in particular with its limestone outer facade and the frieze hanging from the upper deck, rather than above the back fence in the outfield), Yankee Stadium II would still be a MLB facility.
i agree. unfortunately, its reconstruction took place during the worst era of ballpark history. A rehab like that could never have taken place once Camden Yards was built.
There is no question that the new Yankee Stadium shares a number of qualities with the original one that the reconstruction does not share with it. And it certainly was a good thing to get the freize back up on the roof where it belongs.
But I still personally find something very sad about the new Yankee Stadium. It doesn't have the shape of the old and that shape was there for the reconstructed version.
It's not that I question the Yankees' move to new digs. That was their call and they had every right to make an economic choice in so doing. That neither the Cubs or Red Sox or arguably the Dodgers chose to go the route of a new park has no bearing on the Yankees choice.
And the park they built is not a problem. It is a fine ballpark, I suppose.
But to me the idea of a redesigned Yankee Stadium was a poor route to go. Yes, as noted, it shares elements with original, but it looks like a rather soulless place in comparison. It is cold and corporate and designed to be the money machine it is. And if that's what the economics of Yankee Stadium was about than the team got what it wanted. But it not good architecture and comes across totally disneyesque in its efforts to rebirth the original YS. Its timing couldn't be worse: this over-the-top monument to conspicuous consumption and capitalism gone awry came aboard at a time when the economic is tanking big time and the era of greed that built the new YS is over and not coming back as the reality slap of supply-and-demand and global consequences for our waste becomes unescapable. In that sense, Yankee Stadium carries an obscenity to it that will the new Cowboys stadium (and, for that matter, the Giant/Jet one) will only add to.
MLB is not our most popular sport. But it is our most cherished one based on its history and traditions. That's my only point here and few seem to agree with me (that's fine...it's their opinions). So, yes, I would have liked to see some of the old YS stand as testiment to that past and while I fully agree that both the Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field had turned into dumps, I wish they could have stood in part, too. Not whole. Just reminders of what was there. Like small parts of Braves Field still stand in Boston or parts of the original Busch Stadium/Sportsman's Park still stand in St. Louis. And like I'd like to have seen the rehabbing of Tiger Stadium into a new use, a plan that is basically dead.
In essence, I'm all for progress. But I see very little progress in what the Yankees gave us in their new stadium or in completely tearing down the old. As noted, since this is a matter of opinion and not fact, I respect the posters here disagree with me on this issue. But, to me, I regret the soul being pulled out of the one professional sport with the lineage and the tradition to be so based on soul and history and context. To me, it's a shame.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
