PDA

View Full Version : The House That Jeter Built has a new sign


Fenway
01-16-2008, 02:34 PM
looks impressive

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/news/regionalnews/stadium/photo01.jpg

The House That Jeter Built has a new sign that unmistakably promises great baseball will be played there.

The words "Yankee Stadium," solidly etched in gold-leafed stone, were hoisted by crane onto the team's new South Bronx home this week.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01162008/news/regionalnews/sign_ing_up_315369.htm

Foulke You
01-16-2008, 02:45 PM
The park looks pretty nice so far. With the $1 billion price tag on that ballpark, I'm shocked that they didn't sell the naming rights to offset some of the cost.

RedHeadPaleHoser
01-16-2008, 03:26 PM
The park looks pretty nice so far. With the $1 billion price tag on that ballpark, I'm shocked that they didn't sell the naming rights to offset some of the cost.

Alex Rodriguez Field

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 04:17 PM
That's gonna be a gem. Here's one I took a few weeks ago. Nothing but beams at that point.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c55/ZoSoKarl/DSC00589.jpg

New Comiskey really should've been submerged below street level.

SaltyPretzel
01-16-2008, 04:26 PM
That's gonna be a gem. Here's one I took a few weeks ago. Nothing but beams at that point.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c55/ZoSoKarl/DSC00589.jpg

New Comiskey really should've been submerged below street level.

It wouldn't have been built then because of the price tag.

SaltyPretzel
01-16-2008, 04:30 PM
The park looks pretty nice so far. With the $1 billion price tag on that ballpark, I'm shocked that they didn't sell the naming rights to offset some of the cost.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/sports/baseball/01stadium.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 04:34 PM
It wouldn't have been built then because of the price tag.

God forbid..

doublem23
01-16-2008, 05:02 PM
New Comiskey really should've been submerged below street level.

Why? :dunno:

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 05:25 PM
Why? :dunno:

Much easier access and a better aesthetic profile.

If you've ever been to Ford Field, the upper deck concourse is at street level. You go down one flight of stairs from the grandstand and you can waltz right out. Most new, good parks are set slightly underground.

DSpivack
01-16-2008, 06:04 PM
Much easier access and a better aesthetic profile.

If you've ever been to Ford Field, the upper deck concourse is at street level. You go down one flight of stairs from the grandstand and you can waltz right out. Most new, good parks are set slightly underground.

Ford Field is like that---or Comerica? I can't imagine a football stadium being built into the ground.

EDIT: Just read that both are. For some reason, it seems like a much bigger, and more unusual, job for a football stadium.

jenn2080
01-16-2008, 06:10 PM
That's gonna be a gem. Here's one I took a few weeks ago. Nothing but beams at that point.

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c55/ZoSoKarl/DSC00589.jpg

New Comiskey really should've been submerged below street level.

I think so too.

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 06:13 PM
Ford Field is like that---or Comerica? I can't imagine a football stadium being built into the ground.

EDIT: Just read that both are. For some reason, it seems like a much bigger, and more unusual, job for a football stadium.

A rectangular football only stadium is probably smaller in area than an average baseball stadium as the playing field itself is much bigger for baseball. But nevertheless, it's just a matter of excavation.

But Ford Field is great. I had UD seats for the Bears game and you can go outside to have a smoke without missing a play if you're close enough to the doors. Then when you leave you don't have an endless series of ramps..

Daver
01-16-2008, 06:42 PM
Much easier access and a better aesthetic profile.

If you've ever been to Ford Field, the upper deck concourse is at street level. You go down one flight of stairs from the grandstand and you can waltz right out. Most new, good parks are set slightly underground.

Take a guess how much it costs to pump Lake Michigan 24/7?

Because that is what they would have to do to sink Comiskey Park.

Soldier Field already does this.

veeter
01-16-2008, 06:55 PM
Man, this hit me hard. Even though I'm no Yankee fan, The Babe, Mantle, Maris etc., their yard is history. I'm sure they need a new ball park, but this is a huge progression. Oh well, that's life.

itsnotrequired
01-16-2008, 07:56 PM
Take a guess how much it costs to pump Lake Michigan 24/7?

Does it cost as much as it does to pump my basement after it rains?

:redneck

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 08:27 PM
They could've let some of the water in to soften the field when a speedy team came to town. Or when a sinkerballer was throwing for the Sox.

Daver
01-16-2008, 08:31 PM
They could've let some of the water in to soften the field when a speedy team came to town. Or when a sinkerballer was throwing for the Sox.

Alright, now we are down to 23 hours 59 minutes, 7 days a week.


The Hitachi pumps at Soldier Field pump over a million gallons an hour.

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 09:23 PM
Daver,

"Attendent" is spelled wrong in your title.

Lip

Daver
01-16-2008, 09:26 PM
Daver,

"Attendent" is spelled wrong in your title.

Lip

Zoso,

I did that on purpose.

Brian26
01-16-2008, 10:22 PM
Alright, now we are down to 23 hours 59 minutes, 7 days a week.


The Hitachi pumps at Soldier Field pump over a million gallons an hour.

To put this in perspective, the average person uses 100 gallons of water per day (between flushing the toilet, washing hands, showering, cooking, drinking tap water).

In one hour, Soldier Field pumps the equivalent of 240,000 people's daily water usage.

itsnotrequired
01-16-2008, 10:29 PM
Alright, now we are down to 23 hours 59 minutes, 7 days a week.


The Hitachi pumps at Soldier Field pump over a million gallons an hour.

Hitachi always wins the big pumping contracts.

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 10:30 PM
Hitachi always wins the big pumping contracts.

Sony is gaining on them.

Daver
01-16-2008, 10:31 PM
Hitachi always wins the big pumping contracts.

I have a friend that works for the MWRD that might be able to get a deal on one of the pumps similar to what they use in deep tunnel. You could use it.




:)

Daver
01-16-2008, 10:33 PM
Sony is gaining on them.

Contrary to what you have read, the Playstation 3 does not pump water, no matter how you pipe it.

itsnotrequired
01-16-2008, 10:35 PM
I have a friend that works for the MWRD that might be able to get a deal on one of the pumps similar to what they use in deep tunnel. You could use it.




:)

My 1/4 hp Zoeller is right now cycling every 6 minutes. It was cycling about once an hour yesterday.

:dunno:

itsnotrequired
01-16-2008, 10:36 PM
Contrary to what you have read, the Playstation 3 does not pump water, no matter how you pipe it.

It does, however, play Blu-Ray discs, something Hitachi pumps have always had a problem with.

I blame their impeller design.

palehozenychicty
01-16-2008, 10:36 PM
Man, this hit me hard. Even though I'm no Yankee fan, The Babe, Mantle, Maris etc., their yard is history. I'm sure they need a new ball park, but this is a huge progression. Oh well, that's life.

I think that for a park that's been drastically renovated, it's in solid shape. The sightlines in some places are awful in the lower deck, but the UD seats behind the foul pole are decent. The bleacher seats aren't bad either, but the fans are still vicious if you wear the opposing team's gear. That's with an alcohol ban! :o:

Now the food...Oh, it's garbage. In fact, just take the 4 to 125th street and eat in Harlem. I hope they improve the quality of concessions.

batmanZoSo
01-16-2008, 10:47 PM
It does, however, play Blu-Ray discs, something Hitachi pumps have always had a problem with.

I blame their impeller design.

Impeller? Sounds made up.

DoItForDanPasqua
01-16-2008, 11:56 PM
I guess Yankee Stadium hasn't really been the same since the rehab in the 70s, but it still makes me sad that the old park is being replaced. A tremendous amount of history has taken place in that park. We are such a disposable society. It's amazing that we can just build another structure that looks like the old one and that's good enough. The old Yankee Stadium could have been returned to its past glory.

palehozenychicty
01-17-2008, 12:00 AM
I guess Yankee Stadium hasn't really been the same since the rehab in the 70s, but it still makes me sad that the old park is being replaced. A tremendous amount of history has taken place in that park. We are such a disposable society. It's amazing that we can just build another structure that looks like the old one and that's good enough. The old Yankee Stadium could have been returned to its past glory.

Indeed.

batmanZoSo
01-17-2008, 12:52 AM
I guess Yankee Stadium hasn't really been the same since the rehab in the 70s, but it still makes me sad that the old park is being replaced. A tremendous amount of history has taken place in that park. We are such a disposable society. It's amazing that we can just build another structure that looks like the old one and that's good enough. The old Yankee Stadium could have been returned to its past glory.

I love ballparks. I can tell any one from another just by looking at the cut of the infield or the backstop. Unfortunately, you can't just keep bandaging a 90 year old cantilevered structure. Eventually it becomes dangerous. In fact Yankee Stadium has been dangerous in the past. Part of the beauty of these things is that they don't last forever, so you enjoy them while you still can and save certain monuments like we did with home plate at Comiskey.

In time, all these new parks will have their own stories and memories. I mean wouldn't you take those two weeks or so in '05 over the final 50 years of the old park? No one ever could've foreseen Konerko's grand slam when the wrecking ball was slamming into Old Comiskey.

skobabe8
01-17-2008, 10:25 AM
Take a guess how much it costs to pump Lake Michigan 24/7?

Because that is what they would have to do to sink Comiskey Park.

Soldier Field already does this.

Would they really need to do this as far inland as Comiskey Park?

Also, it looks like Yankee Stadium is about the same distance inland from the Hudson River(?). Will they need to pump all the time?

itsnotrequired
01-17-2008, 11:42 AM
Would they really need to do this as far inland as Comiskey Park?

Also, it looks like Yankee Stadium is about the same distance inland from the Hudson River(?). Will they need to pump all the time?

Dropping the stadium as deep as ZoSo is suggested would drop it down, what, 100 ft? Once you thrown in all the drains, catch basins, pumps, etc. under the stadium, it goes even deeper. It would be well into the water table and thus require round-the-clock pumping.

Luke
01-17-2008, 11:49 AM
Would they really need to do this as far inland as Comiskey Park?

Also, it looks like Yankee Stadium is about the same distance inland from the Hudson River(?). Will they need to pump all the time?

It would depend on the soil conditions, and permeability. The water table is still probably pretty high there. It may not be as bad as Soldier Field, but it wouldn't be good.

Another thing to keep in mind is the size and depth of excavation. Even if they used slurry walls, there would have been a sizable risk of upsetting the soil under the foundation of the old park.

I don't know about Yankee Stadium, the river won't impact the characteristics of the soil as much as the lake, but that doesn't mean they won't be pumping.

Red Barchetta
01-17-2008, 12:13 PM
It would depend on the soil conditions, and permeability. The water table is still probably pretty high there. It may not be as bad as Soldier Field, but it wouldn't be good.

Another thing to keep in mind is the size and depth of excavation. Even if they used slurry walls, there would have been a sizable risk of upsetting the soil under the foundation of the old park.

I don't know about Yankee Stadium, the river won't impact the characteristics of the soil as much as the lake, but that doesn't mean they won't be pumping.

They must do something similar for Jacob's Field (or whatever they now call it) in Cleveland as the upper deck outfield in left is street level.

Regardless, it's a great design. Wish the Sox weren't so penny foolish when they built Comiskey II. It was great, at the time, being the first of the new ballparks, however as we have debated on numerous threads, it would have been nice to have waited a few years. I'm sure once the retro's hit the market nestled into city skylines, etc, there would have been a hard re-look at developing on 35th Street. :whiner:

Fenway
01-17-2008, 12:35 PM
Would they really need to do this as far inland as Comiskey Park?

Also, it looks like Yankee Stadium is about the same distance inland from the Hudson River(?). Will they need to pump all the time?

Ummm Yankee Stadium is on the banks of the HARLEM River

batmanZoSo
01-17-2008, 12:37 PM
Dropping the stadium as deep as ZoSo is suggested would drop it down, what, 100 ft? Once you thrown in all the drains, catch basins, pumps, etc. under the stadium, it goes even deeper. It would be well into the water table and thus require round-the-clock pumping.

Not that deep. Ball parks that are sunk are usually such that the lower concourse is about at street level, so that means the playing field is about 20 feet below street level.

I don't believe Ford Field isn't sunk to the height of the upper concourse all around. One side of the stadium has a higher street which allows practically walk in access to the upper concourse. Chicago has no such things as "hills."

I originally just meant that it would've been a big improvement if they'd been able to excavate and sink the stadium. I have no idea if they are are were from a geological standpoint but naturally I attribute it JR being TOO CHEAP heh heh heh.

doogiec
01-17-2008, 12:56 PM
I don't have anything to prove this, but I remember hearing during the early stages of planning/construction of the new park that there were significant issues with the level of the water table in that area. In fact, those issues were a significant factor in the decision to reverse the direction of the park to face southeast rather than the traditional northeast.

itsnotrequired
01-17-2008, 01:07 PM
Not that deep. Ball parks that are sunk are usually such that the lower concourse is about at street level, so that means the playing field is about 20 feet below street level.

I don't believe Ford Field isn't sunk to the height of the upper concourse all around. One side of the stadium has a higher street which allows practically walk in access to the upper concourse. Chicago has no such things as "hills."

I originally just meant that it would've been a big improvement if they'd been able to excavate and sink the stadium. I have no idea if they are are were from a geological standpoint but naturally I attribute it JR being TOO CHEAP heh heh heh.

Even if they sunk it so street level was the same as the lower concourse, you would still be talking about 30 feet or so. Throw another 5 feet on for drainage and you are already pretty deep.

skobabe8
01-17-2008, 08:32 PM
Ummm Yankee Stadium is on the banks of the HARLEM River

Hence the ? after Hudson River. Ive never been there so I dont know.

SORRY!!!!!!!

DSpivack
01-17-2008, 10:20 PM
Not that deep. Ball parks that are sunk are usually such that the lower concourse is about at street level, so that means the playing field is about 20 feet below street level.

I don't believe Ford Field isn't sunk to the height of the upper concourse all around. One side of the stadium has a higher street which allows practically walk in access to the upper concourse. Chicago has no such things as "hills."

I originally just meant that it would've been a big improvement if they'd been able to excavate and sink the stadium. I have no idea if they are are were from a geological standpoint but naturally I attribute it JR being TOO CHEAP heh heh heh.

It's apples and oranges, and a stadium has a much larger footprint, but if they can build a 2,000-foot tall building yards away from the lake why couldn't they build a stadium a few miles away?

Kogs35
01-17-2008, 10:41 PM
Ummm Yankee Stadium is on the banks of the HARLEM River

i passed by it today, for some odd reason i felt it had an old roman feel to it.

batmanZoSo
01-17-2008, 10:41 PM
Even if they sunk it so street level was the same as the lower concourse, you would still be talking about 30 feet or so. Throw another 5 feet on for drainage and you are already pretty deep.

That's still a far cry from 100.

But given the layout of the park (35ish rows and thus a fairly high rise for the LD), it would've probably if anything been close to concourse level but not all the way, so maybe 20 something feet. I'm pretty sure Comerica Park is about at street level when you walk into the park. I've never been though, so I can't be sure at the moment.

It's apples and oranges, and a stadium has a much larger footprint, but if they can build a 2,000-foot tall building yards away from the lake why couldn't they build a stadium a few miles away?

Well they did excavate for new Soldier, but I guarantee that if it weren't for the landmark status and the constraints of building a modern, skybox fielled stadium within existing walls, they would would not have sunk the new playing field at all.

As for Comiskey, it's considerably farther from the lake than Soldier and I don't know either way whether there are, in fact, water pockets underneath or if excavation was even considered for aesthetic and convenience purposes. Although I would guess not because clearly not a whole lot was considered when they built that park. But if there are water issues, the benefits of excavating aren't nearly enough to pump water 24/7 for the next 90 years. You only do it if you have to.

Nellie_Fox
01-18-2008, 12:59 AM
I don't know either way whether there are, in fact, water pockets underneath or if excavation was even considered for aesthetic and convenience purposes. Although I would guess not because clearly not a whole lot was considered when they built that park. They considered trying to keep the cost to something that could get approved by the legislature.

batmanZoSo
01-18-2008, 01:13 AM
Yeah, that's about it. They didn't consider that they were building the blandest looking thing made in 20 years, missing out on building a landmark stadium that could've begun the wave of great new parks that's been going on for 15 years.

skobabe8
01-18-2008, 11:46 AM
Even if they sunk it so street level was the same as the lower concourse, you would still be talking about 30 feet or so. Throw another 5 feet on for drainage and you are already pretty deep.

How many feet below street level is the Dan Ryan?