PDA

View Full Version : Mets, Yankees Ballpark Deals Set


Jerry_Manuel
12-28-2001, 09:12 PM
By TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) - The New York Yankees and Mets reached tentative agreement with the city Friday to build a pair of $800 million, retractable-roof stadiums.

Incoming Mayor Michael Bloomberg will have final word on the agreements, which were announced by current Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.

"You can't underestimate the the effect on civic pride and the economy of the city,'' Giuliani said less than four days before leaving office.

The $1.6 billion cost of the proposed new ballparks, believed to be the largest private-public venture in baseball history, would be divided evenly between the city and the two teams, Giuliani said.

The baseball-crazy mayor insisted that no new taxes would be necessary to build the new stadiums at sites adjoining the current facilities - Yankee Stadium in the South Bronx, and Shea Stadium in Queens.

Bloomberg, speaking before Giuliani's announcement, insisted the final word on the stadiums still belongs to him.

``The issue is really, `Can we afford them?''' Bloomberg said. ``I will have to take a look down the road as the economy develops. Nobody knows today how deep or how protracted the current economic downturn is.''

Projections following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks showed the city facing serious financial problems as it rebuilds lower Manhattan and battles a faltering economy.

Officials estimated that the World Trade Center attack will cost the city $1 billion and 100,000 jobs in the current fiscal year. And the estimated the construction cost in lower Manhattan, including its subway lines and train connection to New Jersey, could run as high as $34 billion.

But the stadiums were among Giuliani's pet projects, and the devastation of the terrorist attacks didn't change the longtime Yankee fan's mind.

``We're happy to be able to do this for New York,'' Yankees principal owner George Steinbrenner said. ``Hopefully, the new administration will believe in the value of these two stadiums for New York.''

Dave Howard, senior vice president with the Mets, said the new deal ``demonstrates our love for the city and for our home borough of Queens.''

Under the deal, the Yankees would stay in the South Bronx - a neighborhood that Steinbrenner had threatened to flee for most of the last decade. The new Yankee Stadium would be built across the street on city-owned parkland, while the new home of the Mets would be built on the parking lot of the existing Shea Stadium.

If the deal goes forward without delay, the Mets could open their new park in 2006, while the Yankees' new stadium would be ready in 2007.

The state would pick up a $150 million tab for infrastructure improvement around Yankee Stadium - including parking and a new commuter train station in the South Bronx, the mayor said.

Under the plan, the city would finance the stadiums by issuing $1.6 billion in bonds, and the teams would have to reimburse the city.

Gov. George Pataki, who will run for re-election next year, has already said the state will kick in no money toward the stadiums. Construction costs would be covered

The city would issue tax-exempt construction bonds to cover the construction costs, with the teams and the city dividing the $50 million-a-year debt service.

According to Giuliani, the teams would sign 35-year leases with no escape clauses. The Yankees' current lease with the city expires after the 2002 season.

The outgoing mayor insisted the stadium deal would pay for itself. Administration members said the roofs would allow year-round use of the stadiums, and would help lure major events to the city.

New York is one of the four finalists to make the U.S. bid for the 2012 Olympics.

According to the mayor, the stadium proposals would not create any new taxes.

Yankee Stadium, opened in April 1923, remains one of the sport's sacred cathedrals - a direct link through baseball history, from Ruth to DiMaggio to Mantle to Jackson to Jeter.

Although renovated in the mid-1970s, it has remained in the same location at 161st Street in the Bronx. The Yankees have repeatedly complained about traffic and parking problems with that site, although the complaints waned as the team attendance climbed above 3 million the last three seasons.

Shea's history is less illustrious. Opened in April 1964, it became home to the National League expansion team created to fill the void left when the Brooklyn Dodgers and New York Giants abandoned the Big Apple in 1957.


Here are some photo's:
New Yankee Stadium
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20011228/lthumb.1009582520nyc_stadiums_xnyr510.jpg

New Shea Stadium
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20011228/lthumb.1009582811new_york_stadiums_xnyr509.jpg

Viva Magglio
12-28-2001, 11:23 PM
Wow. The facade of the new Yankee Stadium looks like that of the pre-renovated Yankee Stadium that exists today. Meanwhile the facade of the new Mets' stadium looks like that of Ebbetts Field.

PaleHoseGeorge
12-28-2001, 11:33 PM
How long before "You Know Who" starts whining about what he hasn't got?

:reinsy
"I'm preparing my notes right now."

danman31
12-28-2001, 11:41 PM
Them's are some big ass ballparks.

Jerry_Manuel
12-29-2001, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
How long before "You Know Who" starts whining about what he hasn't got?

:reinsy
"I'm preparing my notes right now."

I can see it now.

:giangreco
The Cubs and the city of Chicago have agreed on a new stadium deal worth 500 million dollars. While on the other side of town the city has bought the White Sox a tarp to cover up the upper deck seats.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2001, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I can see it now.

:giangreco
The Cubs and the city of Chicago have agreed on a new stadium deal worth 500 million dollars. While on the other side of town the city has bought the White Sox a tarp to cover up the upper deck seats. Jerry shoots and scores. LMAO!!!!!

Jerry_Manuel
12-29-2001, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Jerry shoots and scores. LMAO!!!!!

I'm still quite a few goals behind Sox00.

FarWestChicago
12-29-2001, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I'm still quite a few goals behind Sox00. Yeah, but that was a helluva slapshot! :smile:

Jerry_Manuel
12-29-2001, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Yeah, but that was a helluva slapshot! :smile:

Thank you, your to kind.

GASHWOUND
12-30-2001, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I can see it now.

:giangreco
The Cubs and the city of Chicago have agreed on a new stadium deal worth 500 million dollars. While on the other side of town the city has bought the White Sox a tarp to cover up the upper deck seats.

Now thats funny! :smile:

cheeses_h_rice
12-30-2001, 02:11 PM
All I can say after reading this article is:

Must be nice.

Paulwny
12-31-2001, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
All I can say after reading this article is:

Must be nice.

Not if you're a NY taxpayer like me.

mrwag
12-31-2001, 04:36 PM
Makes the price of New Comiskey look like pocket change. I guess you get what you pay for. I didn't notice any hideous walking ramps outside their ballparks either.

Spiff
12-31-2001, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Jerry_Manuel


I'm still quite a few goals behind Sox00.

Yeh but mine aren't from jokes they're just from educated guesses that happen to be right.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-01-2002, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by mrwag
Makes the price of New Comiskey look like pocket change. I guess you get what you pay for. I didn't notice any hideous walking ramps outside their ballparks either.

Sad but true, wag. However, in spite of the relatively small price tag compared to today's "amusement park" ballparks, there is one design element New Comiskey does not take a backseat to any ballpark: diamond suites. It has room for over 100 of them--and they are all big and well-appointed compared to those in other stadiums.

To my knowledge, no ballpark has more diamond suites than New Comiskey. Can anyone verify this?

:reinsy
"Take care of the dollars, and the pennies will take care of themselves."

:ohno
"Where's the championship in this equation?"

:hurt
"Yeah, where's the championship? I've been playing for this loser outfit twelve seasons and I've got two lousy playoff wins to show for it. I've put up Ted Williams-like numbers, but now I'm getting old. How much longer do you think I'm going to be around to lead you numbskulls to a championship?"

:reinsy
"Don't worry. I'll dream up an excuse."

:ohno
"At least you've never failed us for that."

Huisj
01-01-2002, 04:27 PM
Oh, here it goes again, the comiskey park bashing. Well, from what i can tell, there's no problem with comiskey park that prevents fans from enjoying a game there. I've been in the worst seats at the far end of the upper deck at times, and even from there, i could see everything just fine. i don't get what is so stinking bad about it. and what is wrong with walkways outside??? who gives a crap, it doesn't make it harder to watch a game.

Huisj
01-01-2002, 05:58 PM
and i forgot to mention the multitude of easy parking around comiskey. what a terrible thing that is.

mrwag
01-02-2002, 01:33 PM
Unfortunately, I have a degree in architecture, so I am a little biased towards some things. Yes, the parking setup is excellent. Couldn't be better. And yes, the view is great from every seat. But, from a traditional standpoint (which is where baseball pulls dearly from), New Comiskey fails. The blue seats are an eye-sore. The ramps are hideous, although convenient. And, as the father of a 2 year old, the upper deck is flat out dangerous. I know, I know, every other new ballpark has a steep upper deck. But couldn't they have lowered it some and put the exits half-way up or something? The lower deck is awsome, but what does a bleacher seat cost these days? like 20bux? Don't get me wrong - N.C. is a great place to watch a game and fireworks, but it has some major ailements as well for the average working class Joe with a family.

Daver
01-02-2002, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
Unfortunately, I have a degree in architecture, so I am a little biased towards some things. Yes, the parking setup is excellent. Couldn't be better. And yes, the view is great from every seat. But, from a traditional standpoint (which is where baseball pulls dearly from), New Comiskey fails. The blue seats are an eye-sore. The ramps are hideous, although convenient. And, as the father of a 2 year old, the upper deck is flat out dangerous. I know, I know, every other new ballpark has a steep upper deck. But couldn't they have lowered it some and put the exits half-way up or something? The lower deck is awsome, but what does a bleacher seat cost these days? like 20bux? Don't get me wrong - N.C. is a great place to watch a game and fireworks, but it has some major ailements as well for the average working class Joe with a family.

The next renovation phase,which is tentatively scheduled for the winter 2002-2003,will be removing the top ten rows of the upper deck and putting an awning over it.

PaleHoseGeorge
01-02-2002, 02:20 PM
What I find fascinating about these Comiskey Park arguments is how Sox Fans get blamed regardless what viewpoint you take.

Those who say the ballpark is just fine (for any of dozens of reasons) blame the fans for not showing up. The hypocrisy of this position reaches epic proportions when Reinsdorf suggests this. He forgets (and hopes we do, too) that this ballpark was built precisely to his specifications. The only thing he didn't get was the suburban Addison location he originally wanted. The new ballpark's South Side location was the "price" Reinsdorf paid to the politicians to get taxpayer-financed construction approved.

Then there are those who say the ballpark is lousy (for any of dozens of reasons) and they ultimately blame the fans, too. Only a winning team can attract fans to the ballpark, and the Sox are hopelessly stuck in mediocrity because they can't afford to sign/retain the most-talented ballplayers. This is another excuse Reinsdorf loves reaching for. Again he hopes nobody remembers it was his ballpark design that left the team with nothing but winning as an option for attracting fans.

How is any of this our fault? More precisely, what has Reinsdorf done to make (in some people's minds) Sox Fans the scapegoat for the team's ills, rather than Reinsdorf's own actions?

I have no answer for that.

CubKilla
01-02-2002, 04:16 PM
While I agree that the upper deck is STEEP and that the overall sterility of the ballpark has led the casual fan to the "Friendly Confined," one only has to look to the new designs of ballparks since the New Comiskey Park was built to realize that New Comiskey is a complete and utter failure. I mean, who's bright idea was it to build pedestrian walkways OUTSIDE of the ballpark, ruining the arch window design barely seen on the New Comiskey but so prominent on the Old Comiskey Park? The only part of Old Comiskey brought in to the New ballpark is supposed to be the infield. But, if you look at an aerial photo of the Old and New during the last game at Old Comiskey Park, you will see an infield already in place at the New ballpark. The inside of the New ballpark has none of the charm of it's predecessor. I remember as a kid with my dad going to a game and walking up an incline where the ball park would gradually come into view. I could go on and on, but if there is nothing wrong with the New Comiskey like Reinsdorf says, then why aren't any of the new ballparks copying New Comiskey's design? Let me also add that as a White Sox fan, I would go see the White Sox play in any stadium. But JR should pay for the restructuring out of his own pockets since he was the one who chose this flawed design.