Stadium Showdown: Mets Finally Beating Yankees
Thursday, September 20, 2007, by Joey
The Mets and Yankees are currently locked in a death match to see which team can complete its expensive new stadium first (combined price tag: $2 billion) in advance of both parks' April 2009 openings, and the Sun has an update on both as construction ramps up in advance of winter. The Mets' Citi Field seems to be ahead, as the brick, limestone and steel stadium already has half its bricks, 65% of its concrete foundation and 75% of its steel installed. But, much like the team, be wary of a late-season collapse. As for the new Yankee Stadium, the facade has large swaths of nothingness, the interior looks bare, and the team is denying interview requests on the topic. Hmm. But, much like the team, it'll probably all come together in the end. For visual confirmation, we decided to check out Flickr and grab some of the most recent shots of both projects. The Mets are definitely looking good, but we're not ready to call this race just yet.
[Yankee Stadium photo via popcultrejnkie]
[Yankee Stadium photo via peterkreder]
[Citi Field photo via williamhartz]
[Citi Field photo via williamhartz]
· Approach of Winter a Big Factor in Stadiums Race [NYSun]
no way that water near shea is that blue
I hate the Mets, but I'll be the first to admit both stadiums look great. Thank god they didn't build any space alien blob stadiums. Just good classic ballparks.
that water is what's known in geological circles as a puddle. it is blue because it is reflecting the color of an entity known to meteorologists as the sky.
By the way, the Mets rule, and the Yankees are going to take their mighty late-season surge full-speed into a brick wall known as the Angels. Enjoy the illusory glory now, Yankees fans!
Wow, #3. So witty. The Mets have been incredible lately. You must be very proud of the fact that they blew their huge lead and are in significant danger of not being in the playoffs.
The pictures of Citi don't represent how far the construction has come. There are areas with the brick up, and frankly it looks like it will be ready in the middle of next season at this point.
hey genius (#3)
im referring to the rendering
NY1 had a good story yesterday about CITI Field (Mets). They are about 2-3 months ahead of schedule. Unless something devistating happens they are planning to have spring training in that stadium.
Pedro, the Mets hold spring training in Florida, not Queens.
If you look closely at the Citi Field rendering, the scoreboard reads: Philadelphia 7 - Mets 3
it always amazes me how people get so caught up with 'classic' stadiums and architecture in general (Lower East Side, etc). Why is it that this irrational collective have decided on the early 20th century as when time should have stopped? We're living in a time when people are finally waking up to the damage buildings impose on our environment (more then automobiles) and there is a sense of urgency to make change and look to technology and advanced building systems for the solution. But then you get these nostalgic fucks that insist we REPEAT the mistakes and horrors of tenement architecture and 'classic' ball parks! The irony is that New York lost the Brooklyn Dodgers because the people objected to Walter O'Malley's desire to build a MODERN, forward thinking stadium designed by Buckminster Fuller. And what do we have now with the Mets and CitiField? A lame attempt at recreating Ebbets field. What a missed opportunity.
#10, wtf? It's a baseball stadium, not a fucking coal mine.
Uh, no, we lost the Dodgers because Moses wasn't receptive to anything on the Atlantic Yards site. It had nothing to do with the style of the building. The horrors of tenements weren't due to cornices and lintels. The buildings that have damaged our environment have all been due to hair-brained modernist and post-modernist experiments. Better to stick to 2000 years of what we know looks good and works fine.
#7, Considering the stadium is in Queens and not Port St. Lucie, Florida, I highly doubt the Mets are going to go through Spring Training in the freezing climes of New York City in February and March. Maybe they'll host a very-late March exhibition game, but not Spring Training.
wasted 2 billion for this stupid sport? what the hell!
#12 why don't you get your head out of your ass and think about what you're saying? "...just fine."? are you kidding me? Is that what you're suggesting we do as a society? just do the same shit over and over again while the rest of the world leaves us behind? maybe you drive around town in a horse and buggy? travel around the world in sail boat? do you use an out house too? You should check out Lancaster PA because its sounds like its just your speed.
Why don't you think about what you are saying? By your logic we should change the rules of baseball completely every 10 years. The game is the same, there is no reason why the stadiums should be messed with arbitrarily when they serve their function very well. Your objections are about cosmetic issues anyway, which are purely subjective and a matter of taste.
Lets see. Has baseball changed through the years?
1. 1857 the concept of 9 innings is introduced
2. 1863 bat size is regulated + pitchers mound height increased
3. 1872 ball size and weight are regulated
4. 1887 pitchers mound altered again
5. 1889 4 balls became base on balls
6. Pitching distance increased from 50' to 60'6"
7. 1904 pitching mound changed AGAIN
8. 1910 cork center added to official bat
9. 1959 minimum boundaries set up for all ball parks
10. 1971 helmets required
and lets not forget integration. these are only a few of many changes made to the game. and if you're a baseball fan you're well aware of 'hitters parks' vs. 'pitchers parks'. Progressive architecture is much more then just cute cladding (at least good architecture). using antiquated materials (such as brick) are purely taste and subjective as you've mentioned which is one of the reasons i object to it.
Exactly - almost all of your changes are over a hundred years old. Two of the three recent ones concern minor changes to equipment, and the last one is really minor too. The point is, the game has barely changed, the mechanics of sitting in a seat, watching a baseball game and buying a hotdog have barely changed, and so the function of stadiums has barely changed. That's why no supposedly "progressive" architecture is necessary. If you have a subjective preference for experimental rather than traditional architecture that's fine, but don't try to pass it off as something more than that.
Full content feed