Dodger Stadium vs. Yankee Stadium (ball, star, game, man)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Which of the two true super stadiums do you prefer:
the classic, timeless, original, and ground breaking grandeur of Dodger Stadium
-or-
the corporately cold, dollar sign loaded attempt to replicate a grand old shrine to baseball that couldn't be replicated that we have with the new Yankee Stadium
???????????????
OK, so I made my bias known here. HANDS DOWN: DODGER STADIUM. New York managed to out Disneyland LA's (ok, Anaheim's) very own Disneyland in the new faux YS for millionaires in the Bronx.
But that's just me. It doesn't mean I'm right. What do you think?
In the first place, no stadium put up in the 1950s deserves to be called either "classic" or "timeless." Dodger Stadium was built with one goal in mind and one only: to make use of the space the franchise didn't have when it called Ebbets Field home.
A classic, timeless stadium would've been something like Tiger Field in Detroit (R.I.P.), or one of the last survivors, Wrigley in Chicago.
So when you're comparing Dodger Stadium to the new, corporate-inspired edifice bearing the name of Yankee Stadium, what you have is more like a flat-footed tie. Nobody wins this contest. (And just for the record, I'm no Yankee fan).
I've been to both. I really liked Dodger Stadium (except for the fact you have to climb a large hill outside the stadium to reach the upper deck); it has a great setting and is an aesthetically attractive facility to watch a game. Having said that, I was really, really impressed by Yankee Stadium III (the current version). The Yankees did an excellent job of creating a stadium that looks like Yankee Stadium II (1976-2008 version) when watching the game, that looks like Yankee Stadium I (1923-1973 version) from the outside and when looking at the top of the stadium inside (i.e. the frieze), and IS a modern stadium on the inside. They also incorporated a lot of historical elements that a "Yankee Stadium" should have. The one thing I didn't like is they moved Monument Park from left field to center field; Monument Park should always be in the LF. Personally, I think Yankee Stadium III is much better and actually incorporates history better than Yankee Stadium II.
As much as I would like to vote for anything else vs. Yankees, I find Dodger Stadium repulsive because of the way they destroyed the established community within Chavez Ravine to create their ballpark.
In the first place, no stadium put up in the 1950s deserves to be called either "classic" or "timeless." Dodger Stadium was built with one goal in mind and one only: to make use of the space the franchise didn't have when it called Ebbets Field home.
A classic, timeless stadium would've been something like Tiger Field in Detroit (R.I.P.), or one of the last survivors, Wrigley in Chicago.
So when you're comparing Dodger Stadium to the new, corporate-inspired edifice bearing the name of Yankee Stadium, what you have is more like a flat-footed tie. Nobody wins this contest. (And just for the record, I'm no Yankee fan).
DS was built in the 1960s, not the 50s. Moving up the date doesn't change the classic stature....being around for 50+ years, being the third oldest park in the majors, and having never in any way been duplicated by other parks makes it a classic.
And while you may not be a Yanikee fan, I am indeed a Cub fan and this lover of Wrigley Field very much considers the beautiful sweeping, clean lines of Dodger Stadium to be completely classic.
That Dodger Stadium was part of the greed in sports that became legendary when the Dodgers abandoned Bkyn for LA is obvious. But Walter O'Mally had every desire and plan to build his own ball park in NYC but got no cooperation from the city. That unbuilt ball park and Dodger Stadium itself differ from all other ballparks in MLB besides Wrigley, Fenway, and AT&T: it was constructed with private funds. Sure, the Chavez Ravine land was given to the team, but for what was already the 3rd largest city in the nation and exploding in growth and importance, that gift of land turned out very well for Los Angeles which was already "major league" in everything but name.
Dodger Stadium is a classic. Yankee Stadium is a copy, a poor one at that IMHO. And it is no partisan issue to me. I said I'm a Cub fan. I'm also a White Sox fan and I will admit that, even though somewhat improved with time, new Comiskey/the Cell is anything but a fantastic ballpark. Dodger Stadium is.
In the first place, no stadium put up in the 1950s deserves to be called either "classic" or "timeless." Dodger Stadium was built with one goal in mind and one only: to make use of the space the franchise didn't have when it called Ebbets Field home.
A classic, timeless stadium would've been something like Tiger Field in Detroit (R.I.P.), or one of the last survivors, Wrigley in Chicago.
So when you're comparing Dodger Stadium to the new, corporate-inspired edifice bearing the name of Yankee Stadium, what you have is more like a flat-footed tie. Nobody wins this contest. (And just for the record, I'm no Yankee fan).
Thank you Fred.The poster needs to wait another 20-30 years to ask this question and by that time the Dodgers will be playing in another stadium.So if you want to compare apples to apples the current Dodger stadium has no history or anything else compared to the original Yankee Stadium.
Which of the two true super stadiums do you prefer:
the classic, timeless, original, and ground breaking grandeur of Dodger Stadium
-or-
the corporately cold, dollar sign loaded attempt to replicate a grand old shrine to baseball that couldn't be replicated that we have with the new Yankee Stadium
???????????????
OK, so I made my bias known here. HANDS DOWN: DODGER STADIUM. New York managed to out Disneyland LA's (ok, Anaheim's) very own Disneyland in the new faux YS for millionaires in the Bronx.
But that's just me. It doesn't mean I'm right. What do you think?
I just think your jealous that your teams history is nothing compared to ours and by the time it is as old as our previous stadium,your team will be in another one so comparing is ridiculous.Every new stadium adds luxury boxes,or swimming pools,food vendors,etc... Each new stadium tries to do a little more then the last one that opened.Maybe instead of being so biased and such a hater;maybe you need to put that force into supporting your team. You're going to need it.I don't see the Dodgers going far. Lucky for them the rest of the division didn't start playing till after the all star break.
I just think your jealous that your teams history is nothing compared to ours and by the time it is as old as our previous stadium,your team will be in another one so comparing is ridiculous.Every new stadium adds luxury boxes,or swimming pools,food vendors,etc... Each new stadium tries to do a little more then the last one that opened.Maybe instead of being so biased and such a hater;maybe you need to put that force into supporting your team. You're going to need it.I don't see the Dodgers going far. Lucky for them the rest of the division didn't start playing till after the all star break.
I have no jealously. I'm mainly a Cub fan and Wrigley Field and the Cubs are etched into MLB history, the oldest franchise in all of professional sports.
How you could have taken this as a partisan viewpoint on my part is insane. Did I say I was a Dodger fan (I'm not) or from LA (Chicagoan born, proud, and loyal...love the Cubs and Sox). So basically you see me as an LA guy and a Dodger fan when I'm not and I'm not even a Yankee basher (I believe the old Yankee Stadium was a shrine to baseball, even though it was desecrated to a degree by the 1970s remake).
I have no more use for the corporate world that the rest of the new ballparks have created than I do for the over-the-top sterile corporate nature of Yankee Stadium.
And since "classic" and "vintage" are personal perspectives, mine remains the same despite what anybody thinks: Dodger Stadium, IMHO, is a classic, was designed as an original that was not and cannot be duplicated. It earned its title as baseball's Taj Mahal as it was called and retained that honor from its opening in 1962 all the way up to when Camden Yards ushered in the retro era.
LA and the Dodger organization are following the route of only the Cubs and Red Sox in keeping what was because of the treasure that it is.
One last thought on jealousy, Lancet. I come from Chicago where we respect other cities but there isn't one on the planet of which we are jealous because we are so damned enamoured with our town we don't have to bash other cities (or their teams). The great thing about being a Chicagoan is being able to say New York is great (which it is) without any desire to be New York. Or the Yankees. Or Yankee Stadium.
I can't speak for other fans, only for myself, when I say that if you offered me the opportunity to tear down Wrigley Field and give us for free some sort of YS clone, I'd say "no thanks. I prefer keeping what we have. by far." I'd never want to see Wrigley torn down.
I have no jealously. I'm mainly a Cub fan and Wrigley Field and the Cubs are etched into MLB history, the oldest franchise in all of professional sports.
How you could have taken this as a partisan viewpoint on my part is insane. Did I say I was a Dodger fan (I'm not) or from LA (Chicagoan born, proud, and loyal...love the Cubs and Sox). So basically you see me as an LA guy and a Dodger fan when I'm not and I'm not even a Yankee basher (I believe the old Yankee Stadium was a shrine to baseball, even though it was desecrated to a degree by the 1970s remake).
I have no more use for the corporate world that the rest of the new ballparks have created than I do for the over-the-top sterile corporate nature of Yankee Stadium.
And since "classic" and "vintage" are personal perspectives, mine remains the same despite what anybody thinks: Dodger Stadium, IMHO, is a classic, was designed as an original that was not and cannot be duplicated. It earned its title as baseball's Taj Mahal as it was called and retained that honor from its opening in 1962 all the way up to when Camden Yards ushered in the retro era.
LA and the Dodger organization are following the route of only the Cubs and Red Sox in keeping what was because of the treasure that it is.
One last thought on jealousy, Lancet. I come from Chicago where we respect other cities but there isn't one on the planet of which we are jealous because we are so damned enamoured with our town we don't have to bash other cities (or their teams). The great thing about being a Chicagoan is being able to say New York is great (which it is) without any desire to be New York. Or the Yankees. Or Yankee Stadium.
I can't speak for other fans, only for myself, when I say that if you offered me the opportunity to tear down Wrigley Field and give us for free some sort of YS clone, I'd say "no thanks. I prefer keeping what we have. by far." I'd never want to see Wrigley torn down.
As a long time Yankee fan I thought what they did in Baltimore was very nice.As far as any modern stadium they're pretty much the same.One leap frogging the next.Baseball is not what it once was.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
