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.
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'm a lifelong Mets fan (grew up in a household that was loyal to the Dodgers. I mean of course, the real Dodgers--from Brooklyn) and I second the thought. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't have had a problem if the Mets had continued to play in the Polo Grounds, which for those who don't know it, they did in 1962-63.
Citifield, incidentally, incorporates a lot of Ebbets Field. And you'll never hear me complain about that.
I'm a lifelong Mets fan (grew up in a household that was loyal to the Dodgers. I mean of course, the real Dodgers--from Brooklyn) and I second the thought. As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't have had a problem if the Mets had continued to play in the Polo Grounds, which for those who don't know it, they did in 1962-63.
Citifield, incidentally, incorporates a lot of Ebbets Field. And you'll never hear me complain about that.
For what it is worth, I'd say the Mets did a pretty good job with CitiField (name excluded, of course). What is incomprehensible to me, though, is how much the team has embraced its Dodger roots and completely disregarded its Giant roots. That Brooklyn and Queens share a LI location is the only real Met-Dodger link. The original team, as you noted, played in the PG and really was more connected to the Giants power structure and the notion of representing all New York than having anything to do with the Dodgers. In fact, in a less auto driven world than the 1960s (and more akin to the world of downtown ballparks in the retro era), Shea Stadium might easily have been built in Manhattan itself.
I have been to Dodger Stadium and thought it was very nice. I have been to old Yankee Stadium and appreciate its historical significance, but as far as actual experience, it was clearly time for a new one. I have yet to go to Yankee Stadium (although I am going tommorow). I hate to say this without going there, but I doubt that Dodger Stadium is nicer. You can talk all day about the history, but from all I've heard and seen, Yankee seems one of a kind.
For what it is worth, I'd say the Mets did a pretty good job with CitiField (name excluded, of course). What is incomprehensible to me, though, is how much the team has embraced its Dodger roots and completely disregarded its Giant roots. That Brooklyn and Queens share a LI location is the only real Met-Dodger link. The original team, as you noted, played in the PG and really was more connected to the Giants power structure and the notion of representing all New York than having anything to do with the Dodgers. In fact, in a less auto driven world than the 1960s (and more akin to the world of downtown ballparks in the retro era), Shea Stadium might easily have been built in Manhattan itself.
There used to be a tradition at Shea Stadium called Cap Day. Whenever the Mets ran it, one thing was a given: there were going to be at least twice as many Dodger caps handed out as Giant caps. I couldn't tell you why, but it's always been a given that the Mets were descended from the Dodgers. It's true that the Giant roots have been ignored, but that's been the reality.
Also, I doubt that Manhattan was ever even considered as a possibility for a new stadium. It's got nothing to do with automobiles; there just isn't a patch of land big enough to accommodate a stadium there. If not for Robert Moses, of course, there would have been a stadium erected at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues in Brooklyn...and baseball history since 1958 would have been very different, indeed.
There used to be a tradition at Shea Stadium called Cap Day. Whenever the Mets ran it, one thing was a given: there were going to be at least twice as many Dodger caps handed out as Giant caps. I couldn't tell you why, but it's always been a given that the Mets were descended from the Dodgers. It's true that the Giant roots have been ignored, but that's been the reality.
Also, I doubt that Manhattan was ever even considered as a possibility for a new stadium. It's got nothing to do with automobiles; there just isn't a patch of land big enough to accommodate a stadium there. If not for Robert Moses, of course, there would have been a stadium erected at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues in Brooklyn...and baseball history since 1958 would have been very different, indeed.
Fred you nailed it.My grandfather was a Giants fan,my father and me Yankees,and my brother a Mets fan.My grandfather even stayed a fan until he passed in the 90's.Even though Mets roots can be conflicting with the Dodgers and Giants,they were and are their own team.
There used to be a tradition at Shea Stadium called Cap Day. Whenever the Mets ran it, one thing was a given: there were going to be at least twice as many Dodger caps handed out as Giant caps. I couldn't tell you why, but it's always been a given that the Mets were descended from the Dodgers. It's true that the Giant roots have been ignored, but that's been the reality.
Also, I doubt that Manhattan was ever even considered as a possibility for a new stadium. It's got nothing to do with automobiles; there just isn't a patch of land big enough to accommodate a stadium there. If not for Robert Moses, of course, there would have been a stadium erected at the intersection of Flatbush and Atlantic Avenues in Brooklyn...and baseball history since 1958 would have been very different, indeed.
You're right. Moses never would have put a stadium in Manhattan. In fact, Flushing was the place he wanted the Dodgers to play which is why O'Malley came up with the notion that as far as he was concerned, Queens might as well have been Los Angeles from a Brooklyn Dodger perspective.
My mentioning of Manhattan only relates to the current group of MLB parks that are generally speaking back in the heart of the city. Moses and NYC were definitely going in a car and expressway direction in the late 50's (Giants, Dodgers) and early 60's (Mets).
Many who have posted in this thread probably already know this, but the Mets' blue and orange colors were chosen as a nod to the Dodgers (blue) and Giants (orange).
With Citi Field (which I've also been to once so far), not only did the ballpark not do a good job of incorporating Giants history, it didn't do a good job of incorporating Mets history, and the Mets are the team that plays home games there! I know the Mets have added some Mets historical stuff to the ballpark as the 2009 season went along, but I know the lack of attention to the Mets history in favor of a team that hasn't called New York home for over 50 years really annoyed some Mets fans, especially those under 55 years old.
Good point. I haven't been to any Mets game this season ( can you blame me? ), but I heard it is a beautiful park, but it doesn't feel as if the Mets play there.
Even the seats, aren't a Mets color ( green! ). I hear that Citi, might go through some changes for the 2010 season. I hope they will incorporate some more Mets history!
Even the seats, aren't a Mets color ( green! ). I hear that Citi, might go through some changes for the 2010 season. I hope they will incorporate some more Mets history!
Well, Shea went through several different color schemes for its seats over the years. I myself would prefer one major change for Citifield: ticket prices that approach reasonable.
The history of the ballpark--or the effort to create same--doesn't mean as much to me. If it's still home to the Mets in 50 years, it will have acquired history of its own...just as Ebbets Field had, over the years.
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.
Blah blah blah, a couple of old farts talking about what's classic and what's not. Dodger Stadium is older than The Beatles and The Godfather. Are those not revered as "classic" in their respective fields? Yankee Stadium in any form was/is an oppressive dump.
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.
