PDA

View Full Version : New Shea Stadium looks pretty good!


Chip Z'nuff
03-03-2006, 10:09 AM
The proposed new Shea Stadium really looks good. It has an "old Comiskey" feel to it. But I think they were going after an "ebbets field" feel

check it out
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/nymbpk.htm

Baby Fisk
03-03-2006, 10:12 AM
These photos have been around for some time. The Mets have reportedly scrapped the idea for a retractable roof.

EDIT: this link (http://www.grandslamsingle.com/forum/showthread.php?t=9404) has some current info.

0o0o0
03-03-2006, 10:36 AM
good thing they scrapped the retractable roof idea. those stadiums all look the same. in fact, aren't miller park and bank one ballpark almost identical from what i recall? besides, if you're gonna have a roof, go all out like the beautiful tropicana field. what baseball needs is not players representing their respective countries in tournament, what it needs is more stadiums that look like my basement.

voodoochile
03-03-2006, 10:42 AM
Don't show that to George, he will have a fit when he sees all those arched windows...:wink:

D. TODD
03-03-2006, 10:43 AM
I've been to Shea and it is terrible. They need a new place, good for them. I

batmanZoSo
03-03-2006, 10:43 AM
Parts of that site are over 5 years old, including that one I think. The outside is a nice tribute to Ebbets field. Kind of strange since the Mets were never the Brooklyn Dodgers, but whatever. The inside is grotesque, though. It's all fake character and needless angles in the fence. Blech..

I liked the Minnesota proposal they put up. The roof would retract completely off the seating area and hang over a plaza type area. It would be a lot less depressing to watch the Sox play there 10 times a year.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/minbpk03.jpg

rdivaldi
03-03-2006, 10:44 AM
good thing they scrapped the retractable roof idea. those stadiums all look the same. in fact, aren't miller park and bank one ballpark almost identical from what i recall?

No, not at all. The roofs retract in different manners which give them different shapes. I've been to both and Miller Park has a much nicer ambiance to it. BOB is probably the most sterile, bland ballpark I've ever been to. Feels like a huge airplane hanger with a basball field in the middle of it.

batmanZoSo
03-03-2006, 10:57 AM
Never saw this one before, I haven't checked the site in a long time. This is a great looking proposal, though. It's for the Oakland A's. Looks like half Fenway, half Petco.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/oakbpk02.jpg

Baby Fisk
03-03-2006, 10:57 AM
I liked the Minnesota proposal they put up. The roof would retract completely off the seating area and hang over a plaza type area. It would be a lot less depressing to watch the Sox play there 10 times a year.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/minbpk03.jpg

That looks like Jacobs Field in a mirror. :?:

0o0o0
03-03-2006, 11:17 AM
yeah that oakland one is soooooooo cool, especially the half christmas tree in left field. no teal.

Baby Fisk
03-03-2006, 11:24 AM
yeah that oakland one is soooooooo cool, especially the half christmas tree in left field. no teal.
Lots of weird **** in that design, but at least it is UNIQUE. The new parks in Philly, Cincy, St. Louis, don't seem very creative (cookie cutters all over again).

0o0o0
03-03-2006, 11:36 AM
i still think pnc in pittsburgh is the best looking park out there. it's too bad, you know, it's the pirates. at least the sox get to play there this year...:D:

Huisj
03-03-2006, 11:38 AM
yeah that oakland one is soooooooo cool, especially the half christmas tree in left field. no teal.

I don't know, I think it kind of looks like something a kid would design for his new playstation franchise. Too many different things going on, and none of it seems tied together at all.

Baby Fisk
03-03-2006, 11:39 AM
i still think pnc in pittsburgh is the best looking park out there. it's too bad, you know, it's the pirates. at least the sox get to play there this year...:D:
PNC looks very purty. And kudos to them for not renaming the place repeatedly (looking at you, San Francisco)...

Hangar18
03-03-2006, 11:41 AM
Never saw this one before, I haven't checked the site in a long time. This is a great looking proposal, though. It's for the Oakland A's. Looks like half Fenway, half Petco.

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/american/oakbpk02.jpg


Yup. FenCo Field. I do think its ironic that in 60's, that Pittsburgh, Cincinnati built those duplicate cookie-cutter bland stadiums, then, in the 21st century, built themselves the same duplicate retro-cutter stadium,
facing the river.

C-Dawg
03-03-2006, 11:48 AM
yeah that oakland one is soooooooo cool, especially the half christmas tree in left field. no teal.

Sure looks cluttered!

Someday the retro look will get tiresome and the clean lines of the Cell will be more appreciated.

0o0o0
03-03-2006, 11:56 AM
but for now...

Chip Z'nuff
03-03-2006, 11:57 AM
Sure looks cluttered!

Someday the retro look will get tiresome and the clean lines of the Cell will be more appreciated.
http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/nymbpk02.jpg
Thats what I like about the NYM proposal, (minus the roof), very clean, doesn't have stupid speed bumps in center field, the seating also looks traditional which is nice to see.
Notice the rear concouse, very U.S. Cellularish

Baby Fisk
03-03-2006, 12:05 PM
Those seats that overhang CF are pretty cool.

Monster HRs could be dubbed "hitting one into the pool"...



http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/future/athletics700.jpg

itsnotrequired
03-03-2006, 12:22 PM
Monster HRs could be dubbed "hitting one into the pool"...

"monster HRs" would be an understatment...

Baby Fisk
03-03-2006, 12:27 PM
"monster HRs" would be an understatment...
I don't think actually hitting the pool would be possible... :o:

voodoochile
03-03-2006, 12:28 PM
I don't think actually hitting the pool would be possible... :o:

I'm still waiting for the first "Field Goal" at USCF...:D:

ComiskeyBrewer
03-04-2006, 02:28 AM
good thing they scrapped the retractable roof idea. those stadiums all look the same. in fact, aren't miller park and bank one ballpark almost identical from what i recall?

I am pretty sure Miller Park has the only fan-shaped convertible roof in North America. All the rest seem to be exactly the same tho. They all come from one side to the other.

Parrothead
03-04-2006, 04:04 AM
I am pretty sure Miller Park has the only fan-shaped convertible roof in North America. All the rest seem to be exactly the same tho. They all come from one side to the other.

That is true but it does not work properly and they will try to fix it next season.

0o0o0
03-04-2006, 11:05 AM
i just noticed the capacity for that new a's stadium is only 35,000 :?:

TheOldRoman
03-04-2006, 11:24 AM
Yup. FenCo Field. I do think its ironic that in 60's, that Pittsburgh, Cincinnati built those duplicate cookie-cutter bland stadiums, then, in the 21st century, built themselves the same duplicate retro-cutter stadium,
facing the river.
Still crazy after all these years, eh Hangar?
PNC is NOTHING like GABP. NOTHING. You don't have to disparage other great parks just to prove that the Cell is great.

oeo
03-04-2006, 12:21 PM
Lots of weird **** in that design, but at least it is UNIQUE. The new parks in Philly, Cincy, St. Louis, don't seem very creative (cookie cutters all over again).

Eh, I think it looks a lot like Petco, just with even more dumb **** all over the place.

With all this other crap like a swimming pool, when is there time to actually watch baseball? Some of these proposals are getting kind of ridiculous, they're not even baseball stadiums anymore.

voodoochile
03-04-2006, 12:31 PM
Eh, I think it looks a lot like Petco, just with even more dumb **** all over the place.

With all this other crap like a swimming pool, when is there time to actually watch baseball? Some of these proposals are getting kind of ridiculous, they're not even baseball stadiums anymore.

My guess is that is the top of a hotel. Incorporating hotels into ballparks has become very trendy. So they put a pool on the roof. It may just be an apartment complex though, I don't know. It clearly is a building that is part of the park but serves another purpose.

0o0o0
03-04-2006, 01:12 PM
Eh, I think it looks a lot like Petco, just with even more dumb **** all over the place.

With all this other crap like a swimming pool, when is there time to actually watch baseball? Some of these proposals are getting kind of ridiculous, they're not even baseball stadiums anymore.


i have just the stadium for you...

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/3river01.jpg

MRKARNO
03-05-2006, 11:44 AM
My guess is that is the top of a hotel. Incorporating hotels into ballparks has become very trendy. So they put a pool on the roof. It may just be an apartment complex though, I don't know. It clearly is a building that is part of the park but serves another purpose.

That building with the swimming pool on top is going to be a condo building if the plan goes through.

oeo
03-05-2006, 11:51 AM
i have just the stadium for you...

http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/national/3river01.jpg

:?:

I wasn't implying that at all, but some of these stadiums are losing the interest of baseball. Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does that reply to my post?

0o0o0
03-05-2006, 03:02 PM
:?:

I wasn't implying that at all, but some of these stadiums are losing the interest of baseball. Maybe I'm missing something here, but how does that reply to my post?

come on, it's the 21st century, what do you expect? don't get me wrong, a swimming pool in a stadium is pretty weird but i don't think its taking away from the game at all. in this day and age, it's just not realistic to expect a new stadium to be built without without anything flashy or unique. besides, those waterfalls at kauffman stadium haven't exactly ruined baseball.

TheOldRoman
03-05-2006, 03:30 PM
come on, it's the 21st century, what do you expect? don't get me wrong, a swimming pool in a stadium is pretty weird but i don't think its taking away from the game at all. in this day and age, it's just not realistic to expect a new stadium to be built without without anything flashy or unique. besides, those waterfalls at kauffman stadium haven't exactly ruined baseball. In a way, the economics of baseball have necessitated it. Look at MLB attendance for every team. Even the worst team in attendance last year would have very good attendance 50 years ago. The Sox didn't go over the 1 million mark until 1951. The Yankees didn't go over the 3 million mark until 1999. Attendance has skyrocketed across the boards. 1.5 million would have been considered great at any other time in history, but it is now considered a failure for most teams. That is because of the astronomical salaries of players today. In order to have high payrolls, teams need to have very good attendance. You can say swimming pools have no place in ballparks, and I agree, but if they bring in a few thousand extra faux-fans a year, they are worth it.
No city has enough knowledgeable die-hard fans to be able to sell out every single game without any semi-fans in the stands, it's just how it works. In order to reach 2 and 3 million a year, teams have to make an artificial environment; an "experience" rather than just a game. Baseball has evolved into more of an entertainment event than a game, but I can live with it. Look at how some of the old timers and the terminally insane (Hangar) whined about the FUNdamentals when it was announced. To them, it was just as bad as a swimming pool. If the FUNdamentals deck means 20 or 30 thousand more families come to a game every year, I am all for it. Today's fairweather fans can be tomorrow's die-hards.

hsnterprize
03-05-2006, 03:49 PM
Yup. FenCo Field. I do think its ironic that in 60's, that Pittsburgh, Cincinnati built those duplicate cookie-cutter bland stadiums, then, in the 21st century, built themselves the same duplicate retro-cutter stadium,
facing the river.Oakland is trying to start a new trend in modern baseball stadia...they're trying to have small facilities instead of the ones that have been out since the early 90's. That's part of the reason why they're closing off the upper deck at McAfee Coliseum. They want to see how well the place will fill up with only 2 decks of seating instead of 3.

TheOldRoman
03-06-2006, 12:32 AM
Oakland is trying to start a new trend in modern baseball stadia...they're trying to have small facilities instead of the ones that have been out since the early 90's. That's part of the reason why they're closing off the upper deck at McAfee Coliseum. They want to see how well the place will fill up with only 2 decks of seating instead of 3.
Actually, most of the "retro" parks replaced parks with much greater capacities. PNC is way down from 3Rivers, Busch III is down from Busch II, the Jake is way down from the mistake, and both of the new NY parks will have smallers capacities than their predecesors. They do this to create ticket scarity. If people think games might sell out, they buy tickets early to make sure they get them. That is the reason why mindless blue sheep buy tickets to see them play the Pirates in April, becuase they feer they won't be able to get tickets to many other games, and beer just doens't taste as good if you aren't standing in urine.

ComiskeyBrewer
03-06-2006, 12:46 AM
That is true but it does not work properly and they will try to fix it next season.

Yes(Thanks a lot mitsubishi!), but that has nothing to do with my point.:?:

ComiskeyBrewer
03-06-2006, 12:49 AM
Actually, most of the "retro" parks replaced parks with much greater capacities. PNC is way down from 3Rivers, Busch III is down from Busch II, the Jake is way down from the mistake, and both of the new NY parks will have smallers capacities than their predecesors. They do this to create ticket scarity. If people think games might sell out, they buy tickets early to make sure they get them. That is the reason why mindless blue sheep buy tickets to see them play the Pirates in April, becuase they feer they won't be able to get tickets to many other games, and beer just doens't taste as good if you aren't standing in urine.


Not to mention Miller park has 10K fewer seats than Co. Stadium.

SouthSide_HitMen
03-06-2006, 01:02 AM
In a way, the economics of baseball have necessitated it. Look at MLB attendance for every team. Even the worst team in attendance last year would have very good attendance 50 years ago. The Sox didn't go over the 1 million mark until 1951. The Yankees didn't go over the 3 million mark until 1999. Attendance has skyrocketed across the boards.

Most of this has to do with increase in population and relocation.

1950 - 149,895,183
2005 - 295,734,134 - about double

Chicago's population (metropolitan area - not city limit) increased about 25% during the period.

In 1950, two teams were competing for fans in St. Louis, Philadelphia and Boston and three in New York City. Currently 5 teams (4 less or close to half) play for a larger population base in those same cities. Supply = Demand.

The interstate highway system and massive increase in roads allow fans 60 - 90 miles away to get to games on a worknight.

Also, attendance is less of a factor driving salaries at the top pay scale. The Yankees mega YES contract allows them far more revenue than if Kansas City sells out every seat.

I do agree attendance drives what an individual team will spend on a specific season. The White Sox record payroll this season (inflation adjusted and total $) is due to a record season ticket base. Cleveland had one of the top payrolls in baseball in the 1990s. Their season ticket base was cut in half by 2005 and so was their payroll. the sport as a whole, however, is at the mercy of their dumbest competitor (someone once noted).

http://www.georgeblowfish.com/Steinbrenner%20smile.jpg

"Are you talking about me again, Reinsdorf?"

:reinsy

"All this cash gives us this smug look, what was your question again?"

http://www.georgeblowfish.com/Steinbrenner%20smile.jpg

"Do you want a calzone?"

:reinsy

"Only if you're buying."

AZChiSoxFan
03-06-2006, 04:26 PM
In a way, the economics of baseball have necessitated it. Look at MLB attendance for every team. Even the worst team in attendance last year would have very good attendance 50 years ago. The Sox didn't go over the 1 million mark until 1951. The Yankees didn't go over the 3 million mark until 1999. Attendance has skyrocketed across the boards. 1.5 million would have been considered great at any other time in history, but it is now considered a failure for most teams. That is because of the astronomical salaries of players today. In order to have high payrolls, teams need to have very good attendance. You can say swimming pools have no place in ballparks, and I agree, but if they bring in a few thousand extra faux-fans a year, they are worth it.
No city has enough knowledgeable die-hard fans to be able to sell out every single game without any semi-fans in the stands, it's just how it works. In order to reach 2 and 3 million a year, teams have to make an artificial environment; an "experience" rather than just a game. Baseball has evolved into more of an entertainment event than a game, but I can live with it. Look at how some of the old timers and the terminally insane (Hangar) whined about the FUNdamentals when it was announced. To them, it was just as bad as a swimming pool. If the FUNdamentals deck means 20 or 30 thousand more families come to a game every year, I am all for it. Today's fairweather fans can be tomorrow's die-hards.

You make some good points. Take for instance the pool they have at Chase Field (formerly known as BOB) here in Phx. Is it goofy? Yes. Does it bother me when I go to games there? No. It's been rented out for every game they've every played there so it brings in a lot of money.

On a separate note: poor Hangar, the guy gets ripped on by everybody!!

Hangar18
03-06-2006, 04:33 PM
Still crazy after all these years, eh Hangar?
PNC is NOTHING like GABP. NOTHING.


Nothing. Except for the fact that they BOTH face the river in RF.

Hangar18
03-06-2006, 04:40 PM
...................... Baseball has evolved into more of an entertainment event than a game, but I can live with it. Look at how some of the old timers and the terminally insane (Hangar) whined about the FUNdamentals when it was announced. To them, it was just as bad as a swimming pool. If the FUNdamentals deck means 20 or 30 thousand more families come to a game every year, I am all for it. Today's fairweather fans can be tomorrow's die-hards.

Excuse me Mr. Morrissey. What I complained about, regarding the Fundamentals deck, was the fact it was jutting out over the concourse, obscuring views underneath it, and for fans who want to see the scoreboard behind them. I was ok with the Playpen as long as it was back over those buildings. Our scoreboard isnt really a scoreboard anymore, just a TV with giant billboards on it, and a Playpen in LF that obstructs the real scoreboard in LF. Thats what I didnt like about
the Fundamentals area. on the plus side, it does provide more shade ...........

Hangar18
03-06-2006, 04:54 PM
The proposed new Shea Stadium really looks good.... But I think they were going after an "ebbets field" feel


I think its great that the Dodgers are embracing their past and looking to their past. Baseball is all about....
wait a second, is this the LA Dodgers new stadium or the Mets new Stadium?

The Mets have no business building a park like this. What is it with that organization that they have no clue who they are? First they forget what theyre uniforms are supposed to look like.........now this? According to Mets media guide, the reason they started putting BLACK in their uniforms is in reference to their "past" and the NY Giants. Mr. Wilpon, lose the Giants uniforms and Dodgers stadium designs and embrace .....METS history.

thepaulbowski
03-06-2006, 04:59 PM
Nothing. Except for the fact that they BOTH face the river in RF.

PNC is the best ballpark I've been to. Handsdown, no competition.

TheOldRoman
03-06-2006, 05:09 PM
I think its great that the Dodgers are embracing their past and looking to their past. Baseball is all about....
wait a second, is this the LA Dodgers new stadium or the Mets new Stadium?

The Mets have no business building a park like this. What is it with that organization that they have no clue who they are? First they forget what theyre uniforms are supposed to look like.........now this? According to Mets media guide, the reason they started putting BLACK in their uniforms is in reference to their "past" and the NY Giants. Mr. Wilpon, lose the Giants uniforms and Dodgers stadium designs and embrace .....METS history.
Well, the Mets' history includes a horrible stadium, which they are rectifying now. I explained this before, but the reason they are building the park to looks like Ebbets from the outside (and I haven't heard it will have similar dimensions) is to appeal to the people who watched games there when they were children. The same people who used to go to Dodgers games, although much older now, go to Mets games. I see nothing wrong with this.

Put it this way, Hangar. Lets say the 11th hour stadium bill fails and the Sox move to Tampa. The south side fans never accept cutsey losing baseball, and a big movement starts to bring an expansion team to the south side. MLB awards a new team, but a new park must be built before the team can start play in 98 (Comiskey was torn down in 91).

Now, would you be up in arms if this expansion team made a replica of Comiskey Park? I doubt it, and I know I wouldn't. It would be paying homage to the park where the fans of this new team grew up watching baseball. Granted, less fans saw Ebbets than Comiskey (it was torn down 48 years ago), but it is the same concept. Ebbets was a great, picturesque park; it isn't like they are rebuilding it just for the sake of mimicing an old park. Ebbets is widely considered one of the best parks ever. Its rotunda at the main entrance is legendary, and that is what the Mets aim to recreate. I see nothing wrong with this.

skobabe8
03-06-2006, 06:25 PM
I think its great that the Dodgers are embracing their past and looking to their past. Baseball is all about....
wait a second, is this the LA Dodgers new stadium or the Mets new Stadium?

The Mets have no business building a park like this. What is it with that organization that they have no clue who they are? First they forget what theyre uniforms are supposed to look like.........now this? According to Mets media guide, the reason they started putting BLACK in their uniforms is in reference to their "past" and the NY Giants. Mr. Wilpon, lose the Giants uniforms and Dodgers stadium designs and embrace .....METS history.

Thats such BS. The Mets originally took the orange from the Giants and the blue from the Dodgers to make their color scheme. They were already acknowledging the past every day of their existence through their uniforms. The only reason they added that hideous, god-awful black was to sell jerseys in retail stores. So they now have 2 colors from the Giants and 1 from the Dodgers....do they plan on implementing red numbers on their uni's like the Dodgers do anytime soon?

And whoever was the genious that thought mixing blue and black was a good look anyway?

illinibk
03-06-2006, 10:59 PM
No, not at all. The roofs retract in different manners which give them different shapes. I've been to both and Miller Park has a much nicer ambiance to it. BOB is probably the most sterile, bland ballpark I've ever been to. Feels like a huge airplane hanger with a basball field in the middle of it.
Whenever I go to a game at Miller Park it feels like I am watching a game in a giant warehouse or factory. There is nothing special about it. Even when the roof and panels in the outfield are open, it still feels like I am indoors. Retractable roofs are the new age cookie cutters. They feel very sterile, and there really isn't a whole lot that is unique about each one, other than the way the roof opens. The pool at Bank One is nothing more than a gimmick. One of my biggest pet pieves about going to sporting events, is the amount of people not even paying attention to the game being played. This goes for all parks, not just retractable roofs or retro stadiums. If someone pays as much as they do for tickets, they should enjoy the action, rather than just chat or swim or wahtever it is that people do rather than watch the game being played.

ComiskeyBrewer
03-07-2006, 12:57 AM
Whenever I go to a game at Miller Park it feels like I am watching a game in a giant warehouse or factory.

I used to feel that way too. But it slowly grows on you. Personally, i love knowing that i don't have to worry about the game being rained out, and having driven 45 mins one way just to turn around. Also, it provides a bit of a "home field advantage" during afternoon games(shadows play a huge part at Miller Park around 4pm).