Could they still be at 155th and Eighth?

[EbtsFldGuy]

Here's a question for you Giants fans that we have teased on the Brooklyn Dodgers board in different forms:

With the benefit of 48 years' hindsight, do you believe that anyone (NYC, Stoneham, others/all?) could have done anything do retain the Giants at the Polo Grounds and keep them there to this day?

What say ye?

[rcl986@aol.com]

Stoneham could have sold the team to Bill Terry who wanted to buy them and relocate them to Yankee Stadium. I'm sure that eventually Shea would have been built to accomodate them.

[rcl986@aol.com]

Whoops, Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I think eventually the polo grounds would have been razed no matter what. The area, lack of parking, stadium age and design (I think) all would have contributed to it's ultimate demise. I'm also not sure who actually owned the park and the land on which it stood but seem to recall that the Giants would have had to leave in any case at the end of there lease which I believe would have taken them into the early Sixties. Any similar recollections out there?

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Whoops, Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I think eventually the polo grounds would have been razed no matter what. The area, lack of parking, stadium age and design (I think) all would have contributed to it's ultimate demise. I'm also not sure who actually owned the park and the land on which it stood but seem to recall that the Giants would have had to leave in any case at the end of there lease which I believe would have taken them into the early Sixties. Any similar recollections out there?
One thing that pisses me off is when people say the giants left the polo grounds because of its age.the giants played at 155th and 8th ave since 1891 that does not mean that the polo grounds was that old.the wooden polo grounds burned down and they built the modern polo grounds that stood until 1964.it was only 53 years old when it was torn down in 1964. there was nothing wrong with the stadium itself either.granted there was a parking problem but baseball could still be played at the polo grounds today.with renovations to the stadium and surrounding area. look at the mets in 1962 and 1963 they drew over 2 million fans for those two years.and since the yankees still play across the river at yankee stadium baseball still could be played at the polo grounds today. as far as parking you really dont need to drive around new york to get to the game with the subway. so yes the giants still could be at the polo grounds today. they should never had built that dump called shea stadium.

[donzblock]

Mr. Grounds 1957, if you decided to renovate the Polo Grounds, would you leave the dimensions of the park alone?

[westsidegrounds]

Whoops, Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I think eventually the polo grounds would have been razed no matter what. The area, lack of parking, stadium age and design (I think) all would have contributed to it's ultimate demise. I'm also not sure who actually owned the park and the land on which it stood but seem to recall that the Giants would have had to leave in any case at the end of there lease which I believe would have taken them into the early Sixties. Any similar recollections out there?

The Polo Grounds building itself itself was constructed by & belonged to the Giants. The land it was built on belonged to the Coogan family, of Coogan's Bluff fame. AFAIK there were no problems with the lease - no pre-set ending time or anything like that.

The Polo Grounds physical plant was fine. Closest thing to a problem would be parking space, but this is NYC we're talking about. Take the train.

The shape - and let's be honest, it was, um, idiosyncratic - was part of the character of the place, as with all the old ballparks.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Mr. Grounds 1957, if you decided to renovate the Polo Grounds, would you leave the dimensions of the park alone?

Yes i would leave the dimensions alone. that was one thing that made the polo grounds special. look at the cookie cutters that replaced the classic ballparks they all looked the same inside.as far as the parking new york city has the subway.

[tonypug]

later did at Yankee Stadi renovation they
The Polo Grounds building itself itself was constructed by & belonged to the Giants. The land it was built on belonged to the Coogan family, of Coogan's Bluff fame. AFAIK there were no problems with the lease - no pre-set ending time or anything like that.

The Polo Grounds physical plant was fine. Closest thing to a problem would be parking space, but this is NYC we're talking about. Take the train.

The shape - and let's be honest, it was, um, idiosyncratic - was part of the character of the place, as with all the old ballparks.
There was a lease expiration date, I'll have to look to be sure but I believe it was 1960. A coogan heir, Jay Coogan I believe, was willing to extend the lease. Stoneham had already announced that the Giants could no longer survive at The Polo Grounds. as far as the question could they have still played ball there, the answer is yes. They could have done the kind of renovation, they later did at Yankee Stadium. As far as dimensions go, There could have been some adjustments, but there were limitations due to the dimensions of the property.

[rcl986@aol.com]

Hey PG 57 lets get real. If it was 53 in 1964 it would be 94 years old today. The mens rooms on the lower level still had troughs. What about the clubhouse. Players were referring to it as a "dump" even in the 40s. I doubt you could put luxury suites between the first two decks. I guess you could put them on the roof but do you honestly think ANYONE in there right mind would go to the astronomical expense that it would take to bring the Polo Grounds up to snuff. I loved the old park as much as anyone, and in fact attended the last NY Giants game played there. I even have 50ft of old 8mm film taken with a Kodak Brownie to prove it.Unfortunately they lost but I did get one of Willies classic basket catches on film. But renovate the old horseshoe I don't think it feasable , not then (during the cookie cutter era) and certainly not in todays dollars . As to the surrounding area not being to bad, c'mon we both no better than that. Neither one of us would take an after dark stroll in the area even in '64 and nothing to my knowledge has occured to make it any better today. Shea might be a dump now but wasn't a bad park when it opened. And even though the number 7 subway stops at its front door the parking lots are still full when the Mets have a decent product on the field and fans do live in places other than the 5 buroughs. They say you can never go home again. Maybe that's true, but I'm still looking forward to Fred Wilpons new stadium. Now if we could only recapture the spirt of baseball in the 50s we'd all be better for it.

[chiefpaddy]

Hey PG 57 lets get real. If it was 53 in 1964 it would be 94 years old today. The mens rooms on the lower level still had troughs. What about the clubhouse. Players were referring to it as a "dump" even in the 40s. I doubt you could put luxury suites between the first two decks. I guess you could put them on the roof but do you honestly think ANYONE in there right mind would go to the astronomical expense that it would take to bring the Polo Grounds up to snuff. I loved the old park as much as anyone, and in fact attended the last NY Giants game played there. I even have 50ft of old 8mm film taken with a Kodak Brownie to prove it.Unfortunately they lost but I did get one of Willies classic basket catches on film. But renovate the old horseshoe I don't think it feasable , not then (during the cookie cutter era) and certainly not in todays dollars . As to the surrounding area not being to bad, c'mon we both no better than that. Neither one of us would take an after dark stroll in the area even in '64 and nothing to my knowledge has occured to make it any better today. Shea might be a dump now but wasn't a bad park when it opened. And even though the number 7 subway stops at its front door the parking lots are still full when the Mets have a decent product on the field and fans do live in places other than the 5 buroughs. They say you can never go home again. Maybe that's true, but I'm still looking forward to Fred Wilpons new stadium. Now if we could only recapture the spirt of baseball in the 50s we'd all be better for it.
Yankee Stadium is in the same general vicinity as The Polo Grounds. Many areas where there are ballparks you wouldn't want to take a walk after dark, if there was no ball game. As someone said earlier The Polo Grounds could have been renovated. Bathrooms repaired and modernized, seating changed.)One of the complaints of Horace Stoneham was the majority of the seating was beyond First and third bases. They couldn't be sold as box seats because of their distance from home plate. A renovation would have taken care of some of that.Of course at todays prices it probably makes more sense to build new, but we are talking late 1950's. The same police presence that is at Yankee Stadium and Shea Stadium on game days would have made the Polo Grouds safe.

[rcl986@aol.com]

Not quite the general vicinity. The parks, while within sight of each other where nontheless situated in separate buroughs separated by the Harlem River. The area surrounding Yankee Stadium in the late fifties and early sixties was far different from that same area today. It was, for the most part, a solid middle class neighborhood which bore two claims to fame. The first being the Grand Concourse, a lovely , tree lined thoroughfare which ran North/ South and was located about a block from the Stadium. The Concourse Plaza Hotel stood on a corner within sight of the Stadium and for years was the hotel of choice for American League teams visiting the stadium. The second and more meaningful claim to fame was, of course, Yankee Stadium itself. The Polo Grounds on the other hand was located in central Harlem which was still three decades away from the rennisance (excuse the spelling) which today has reclaimed many of the beautiful old brownstones and other historical buildings that grace Harlem.The area was, quite simply, a dangerous place to be at any time, day or night. Sure the Mets drew 2 million between '62 and '63, but remember this was a city starved for National League baseball and even then they managed to draw less than 900,000 in their inaugural seaon of '62. If the Polo Grounds was in such good shape and needed only renovation, if the area was so safe and presentable, If parking and transportation was so adequate, why then did New York spend all that money to build Shea Stadium rather than let the Mets continue at the Polo Grounds?

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Not quite the general vicinity. The parks, while within sight of each other where nontheless situated in separate buroughs separated by the Harlem River. The area surrounding Yankee Stadium in the late fifties and early sixties was far different from that same area today. It was, for the most part, a solid middle class neighborhood which bore two claims to fame. The first being the Grand Concourse, a lovely , tree lined thoroughfare which ran North/ South and was located about a block from the Stadium. The Concourse Plaza Hotel stood on a corner within sight of the Stadium and for years was the hotel of choice for American League teams visiting the stadium. The second and more meaningful claim to fame was, of course, Yankee Stadium itself. The Polo Grounds on the other hand was located in central Harlem which was still three decades away from the rennisance (excuse the spelling) which today has reclaimed many of the beautiful old brownstones and other historical buildings that grace Harlem.The area was, quite simply, a dangerous place to be at any time, day or night. Sure the Mets drew 2 million between '62 and '63, but remember this was a city starved for National League baseball and even then they managed to draw less than 900,000 in their inaugural seaon of '62. If the Polo Grounds was in such good shape and needed only renovation, if the area was so safe and presentable, If parking and transportation was so adequate, why then did New York spend all that money to build Shea Stadium rather than let the Mets continue at the Polo Grounds?

The city of new york condemed the polo grounds in 1960. they felt that the need of more public housing at the time outwayed the historic ballpark.they let the Jets(TITANS)football team and the mets use the polo grounds until the new dumpy stadium could be built.I cant stand shea stadium and never will like the stadium. they should have stayed at the polo grounds.there was nothing wrong with the ballpark, i have asked former mets and giants about the stadium and was told that it was fine.It was the city who decided to tear it down for more public housing.the coogan family wanted to keep the polo grounds instead of building the housing and filed a law suit against it but the suit was not heard until after the polo grounds was torn down in 1967 or 1968.the polo grounds was torn down in 1964.

[tonypug]

Not quite the general vicinity. The parks, while within sight of each other where nontheless situated in separate buroughs separated by the Harlem River. The area surrounding Yankee Stadium in the late fifties and early sixties was far different from that same area today. It was, for the most part, a solid middle class neighborhood which bore two claims to fame. The first being the Grand Concourse, a lovely , tree lined thoroughfare which ran North/ South and was located about a block from the Stadium. The Concourse Plaza Hotel stood on a corner within sight of the Stadium and for years was the hotel of choice for American League teams visiting the stadium. The second and more meaningful claim to fame was, of course, Yankee Stadium itself. The Polo Grounds on the other hand was located in central Harlem which was still three decades away from the rennisance (excuse the spelling) which today has reclaimed many of the beautiful old brownstones and other historical buildings that grace Harlem.The area was, quite simply, a dangerous place to be at any time, day or night. Sure the Mets drew 2 million between '62 and '63, but remember this was a city starved for National League baseball and even then they managed to draw less than 900,000 in their inaugural seaon of '62. If the Polo Grounds was in such good shape and needed only renovation, if the area was so safe and presentable, If parking and transportation was so adequate, why then did New York spend all that money to build Shea Stadium rather than let the Mets continue at the Polo Grounds?
Shea Stadium is owned by the city,therefore they have more to gain financially, by having teams play there. The Polo Grounds and Ebbets Field were privitely owned, thus less income to the City of New York. My dad took me to The Polo Grounds to see both the Mets and Giants play. We always felt safe. True I wouldn't have wanted to be there at night when there wasn't a game, but thats true of a lot of stadiums.The question was could baseball still have been played there, the answer is yes. I don't sgree with Donald about Shea Stadium, I also spent many a day and night watching games there, and it was fine for what it was built for.

[Greg NYG-NYM]

If the Polo Grounds was in such good shape and needed only renovation, if the area was so safe and presentable, If parking and transportation was so adequate, why then did New York spend all that money to build Shea Stadium rather than let the Mets continue at the Polo Grounds?

Let's not forget the migratory patterns of New Yorkers circa 1962. They had been heading east for more than 15 years, to Long Island. The Mets were always planned as a Flushing Meadow resident and referred to back then as a "Long Island team," Queens address notwithstanding. A couple of decent attendance years in the PG wasn't going to change that.

What might have been interesting regarding the long-term fate of the PG was if the Giants had hung on into the mid-'60s, specifically after the original Penn Station started being taken apart. That's when the landmarks act gained steam and a preservationist instinct awakened in a city that was usually all too happy to demolish its past. Maybe, just maybe movements to save the two old N.L. ballparks would have gained traction and garnered a more sympathetic municipal audience had they faced extinction in the late '60s as opposed to the late '50s -- particularly if they had outlasted the immediate influence of Robert Moses, no fan of saving venerable structures if he could replace them with new highways or, yup, housing projects.

[tonypug]

One more point of why the Mets went to Queens. After the Dodgers and Giants moved, their was a fight over the NewYork City territory, between the National and American Leagues. Commissioner Ford Frick declared all of New York City Yankees territory with the exception of Brooklyn and Queens.With Walter O'Malley holding the lease in the only ballpark in Brooklyn, Flushing Meadows was the only option for a team. The Polo Grounds was only a temporary measure until Shea was completed.

[Greg NYG-NYM]

One more point of why the Mets went to Queens. After the Dodgers and Giants moved, their was a fight over the NewYork City territory, between the National and American Leagues. Commissioner Ford Frick declared all of New York City Yankees territory with the exception of Brooklyn and Queens.

Gives resonance to "I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island."

I wonder if this had a sunset provision. If Fred Wilpon had gotten West Side fever (he said he considered it), could anything Ford Frick declared provisionally still be enforced decades later? Not that the Mets are leaving Queens, but Steinbrenner having some sort of veto power in any of the five boroughs is a scary thought. I'm guessing this was hammered out somewhere along the way.

In "Crash of the Titans," a riveting account of the proto-Jets in their PG years, it is noted that "despite moving to California, the [SF] Giants had continued to pay rent, and thus had the right of occupancy." Thus Harry Wismer, owner of the new AFL team, sublet from the baseball team that was now 3,000 miles away. I was shocked when I learned that the Giants had left some sort of marker in New York after abandoning it.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Gives resonance to "I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island."

I wonder if this had a sunset provision. If Fred Wilpon had gotten West Side fever (he said he considered it), could anything Ford Frick declared provisionally still be enforced decades later? Not that the Mets are leaving Queens, but Steinbrenner having some sort of veto power in any of the five boroughs is a scary thought. I'm guessing this was hammered out somewhere along the way.

In "Crash of the Titans," a riveting account of the proto-Jets in their PG years, it is noted that "despite moving to California, the [SF] Giants had continued to pay rent, and thus had the right of occupancy." Thus Harry Wismer, owner of the new AFL team, sublet from the baseball team that was now 3,000 miles away. I was shocked when I learned that the Giants had left some sort of marker in New York after abandoning it.

Yes the polo grounds was only a temp home for the mets because the city of new york had all ready taken over the property in 1960 for its housing project. they let the titans(JETS)and mets stay there until 1964. as stated before the coogan family wanted to keep the polo grounds and renovate it and also filed a law suit against the building of the housing project, but the case was not heard until around 1967 or 1968 a couple years after the polo grounds had been torn down. QUESTION this CRASH OF THE TITANS is this a book on the new york titans(JETS) covering there polo grounds years 1960-1963 if so were can you get the book and what is the ISBN number for the book thanks Donald.

[Greg NYG-NYM]

QUESTION this CRASH OF THE TITANS is this a book on the new york titans(JETS) covering there polo grounds years 1960-1963 if so were can you get the book and what is the ISBN number for the book thanks Donald.

"Crash of the Titans" by Bill Ryczek was published in 2000. Its ISBN is 1-892129-27-2. I bought it at Barnes & Noble not long after it came out. It indeed covers the PG Years, specifically 1960-62 when they were still called the Titans. It touches on '63 when they were still uptown but were called the Jets. Lots of good Polo Grounds stuff.

Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1894963105/qid=1135893379/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-5891537-7073616?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[BasEbaLlKnoItAll]

Whoops, Sorry, I misunderstood the question. I think eventually the polo grounds would have been razed no matter what. The area, lack of parking, stadium age and design (I think) all would have contributed to it's ultimate demise. I'm also not sure who actually owned the park and the land on which it stood but seem to recall that the Giants would have had to leave in any case at the end of there lease which I believe would have taken them into the early Sixties. Any similar recollections out there?
I believe the Giants owned the park


Yes i would leave the dimensions alone. that was one thing that made the polo grounds special. look at the cookie cutters that replaced the classic ballparks they all looked the same inside
I agree, the dimensions would definately HAVE to be left the way they were. That is what made the Polo Grounds unique.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Good discussion, guys. Many good thoughts.

Let me add two other twists to the question.

1. Suppose that only the Dodgers moved after the 1957 season (I agree that the NL likely would not have permitted that to happen), would the Giants have attracted their fans in enough numbers to make the attendance good enough to stave off their own flight from NY?

2. And if so, would the Polo Grounds be their home today?

A blessed and happy 2006 to you all!

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Good discussion, guys. Many good thoughts.

Let me add two other twists to the question.

1. Suppose that only the Dodgers moved after the 1957 season (I agree that the NL likely would not have permitted that to happen), would the Giants have attracted their fans in enough numbers to make the attendance good enough to stave off their own flight from NY?

2. And if so, would the Polo Grounds be their home today?

A blessed and happy 2006 to you all!

I think that the giants would have made it if only brooklyn had moved. look at how good the giants were after they left new york. they would have had no problem filling the polo grounds.

[chiefpaddy]

I think that the giants would have made it if only brooklyn had moved. look at how good the giants were after they left new york. they would have had no problem filling the polo grounds.
The problem with this train of thought is Horace Stoneham was convinced he had to leave the Polo Grounds. He origonally asked for permission to move his team to Minneapolis. This was before O'Malley started his westward move talk. He was turned down, no doubt O'Malley led the opposition. He was then thinking of moving in with the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. As long as Horace owned the Giants, the Polo Grounds was not in their future, even had they stayed in New York.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

The problem with this train of thought is Horace Stoneham was convinced he had to leave the Polo Grounds. He origonally asked for permission to move his team to Minneapolis. This was before O'Malley started his westward move talk. He was turned down, no doubt O'Malley led the opposition. He was then thinking of moving in with the Yankees at Yankee Stadium. As long as Horace owned the Giants, the Polo Grounds was not in their future, even had they stayed in New York.

Yes horace stoneham wanted out of the polo grounds because of the drop in attendance but if the giants had stayed after a couple good seasons with great attendance with the giants teams in the 1960s he would have changed his mind. I can just see the 1962 world series between the new york giants and the new york yankees with 55,000 fans at the polo grounds. i never did like candlestick park. seals stadium looked nice in photos that i have seen. and i have heard from people who went to seals stadium that said it was a nice park.but to me the polo grounds will always be the home of the giants.

[tonypug]

Yes horace stoneham wanted out of the polo grounds because of the drop in attendance but if the giants had stayed after a couple good seasons with great attendance with the giants teams in the 1960s he would have changed his mind. I can just see the 1962 world series between the new york giants and the new york yankees with 55,000 fans at the polo grounds. i never did like candlestick park. seals stadium looked nice in photos that i have seen. and i have heard from people who went to seals stadium that said it was a nice park.but to me the polo grounds will always be the home of the giants.
Donald you are a lover of the old classic baseball parks, as I am, and there is nothing wrong with that. The Polo Grounds was the home of the New York Giants and will always be remembered as such.Willie Mays cavorting in center field and loseing his cap as he flew around the bases will always be a fond memory for me. Even though many of these actions hurt my Brooklyn Dodgers. Unfortunatly Horace Stoneham lost his love for the ballpark. It woud have been something to see McCovey and Cepeda hit in that ballpark though.

[64Cards]

Good discussion, guys. Many good thoughts.

Let me add two other twists to the question.

1. Suppose that only the Dodgers moved after the 1957 season (I agree that the NL likely would not have permitted that to happen), would the Giants have attracted their fans in enough numbers to make the attendance good enough to stave off their own flight from NY?

2. And if so, would the Polo Grounds be their home today?

A blessed and happy 2006 to you all!
An interesting "what if?" scenario. I think if Stoneham, who didn't seem to be too bright, had realized that with the Dodgers leaving, he would be the only NL franchise in NY and very well could have thrived. He would have been regarded as a hero for not taking his team across the continent. I don't expect that very many Brooklyn fans would become Giant fans, but certainly when LA came to the PG to play the Giants, the place would have been packed, some Dodger fans wanting to see their old heroes and others wanting to see them get their brains beat in, because they now had the LA on their caps. But others may have come during the season to see Mays and to see the other NL teams and the Giants were about to come up with some superb talent from their farm system, Marichal, Cepeda, McCovey, the Alous. They had the best overall record in the NL in the 60's. Plus Stoneham would have been able to get a grateful NY to build him a new stadium, at the Shea location, which brings us to part 2 of the question.

I think to thrive, he would have needed a new ballpark. I agree with Donald, there probably wasn't too much wrong with the PG that some housekeeping and makeovers couldn't take care of. But the perception, either real or imagined, that it wasn't a safe location was huge, plus as mentioned, a large population shift had taken place in NY after WW2, towards Long Island, making the location at Shea adventageous. And while I love the old classic ballparks, in the late 50's and 60's, the trend was for city planners and architects to get rid of a lot of classic structures and buildings and to go with more modernistic looking structures. Fans weren't exactly flocking to the classic old ballparks in the 50's and 60's. I think in the late 70's, a lot of folks woke up and realized what had been done to a lot of great and classic buildings around the country and it seems that there has been a lot of rehabbing and saving some great buidings and mercifully, a lot of eyesores that were built in the 60's are coming down.

[DODGER DEB]

Here is another great shot of batting practice at the Polo Grounds, 155th Street and Eighth Avenue....



http://i5.ebayimg.com/02/i/05/db/86/b0_3.JPG


From an eBay listing.

c.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Here is another great shot of batting practice at the Polo Grounds, 155th Street and Eighth Avenue....



http://i5.ebayimg.com/02/i/05/db/86/b0_3.JPG


From an eBay listing.

c.
Thanks for posting the photo is great. with the knickerbocker beer ad on the clubhouse wall out in centerfield this photo is from either 1956 or 1957.:)

[DODGER DEB]

Thanks for posting the photo is great. with the knickerbocker beer ad on the clubhouse wall out in centerfield this photo is from either 1956 or 1957.:)

You are quite welcome, PG1957.

I am not sure just when it was taken. Does anyone remember when the Chesterfield sign was replaced?

c.

[rcl986@aol.com]

Great photos Deb.
I honestly don't think O'Malley could have gotten permission to relocate to the west coast alone. I think one of the considerations at the time was the cost of teams traveling to the coast. Making only one stop on the West Coast and still having to come to New York might have been expensive for some teams at that time and probably would have also given the schedule makers some indigestion. I don't think any of the other teams were interested in making the move leaving only O'Malley's arch rival the Giants who, had already talked about going to Minneapolis. Unfortunately for all of us, we lost both teams

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

You are quite welcome, PG1957.

I am not sure just when it was taken. Does anyone remember when the Chesterfield sign was replaced?

c.The last year that the polo grounds had the chesterfield ad on the clubhouse wall was 1955. so this photo is from either 1956 or 1957. i wonder how long after the giants left the polo grounds did the knickerbocker beer sign stay. i have seen photos of the PG from 1958 and the beer ad was still there.

[tonypug]

An interesting "what if?" scenario. I think if Stoneham, who didn't seem to be too bright, had realized that with the Dodgers leaving, he would be the only NL franchise in NY and very well could have thrived. He would have been regarded as a hero for not taking his team across the continent. I don't expect that very many Brooklyn fans would become Giant fans, but certainly when LA came to the PG to play the Giants, the place would have been packed, some Dodger fans wanting to see their old heroes and others wanting to see them get their brains beat in, because they now had the LA on their caps. But others may have come during the season to see Mays and to see the other NL teams and the Giants were about to come up with some superb talent from their farm system, Marichal, Cepeda, McCovey, the Alous. They had the best overall record in the NL in the 60's. Plus Stoneham would have been able to get a grateful NY to build him a new stadium, at the Shea location, which brings us to part 2 of the question.

I think to thrive, he would have needed a new ballpark. I agree with Donald, there probably wasn't too much wrong with the PG that some housekeeping and makeovers couldn't take care of. But the perception, either real or imagined, that it wasn't a safe location was huge, plus as mentioned, a large population shift had taken place in NY after WW2, towards Long Island, making the location at Shea adventageous. And while I love the old classic ballparks, in the late 50's and 60's, the trend was for city planners and architects to get rid of a lot of classic structures and buildings and to go with more modernistic looking structures. Fans weren't exactly flocking to the classic old ballparks in the 50's and 60's. I think in the late 70's, a lot of folks woke up and realized what had been done to a lot of great and classic buildings around the country and it seems that there has been a lot of rehabbing and saving some great buidings and mercifully, a lot of eyesores that were built in the 60's are coming down.
Stoneham was offered the Flushing Meadow site that is currently Shea Stadium. He turned it down saying Queens is Brooklyn Dodger territory and didn't feel the Giants would draw well there. There was no way O'Malley was going to let the Giants leaev New York without the Dodgers or letk the Giants remain in New York while he went elsewhere. Remember O'Malley waited for Stoneham to commit to San Francisco well before he commited publicly to LA.

[EbtsFldGuy]

Stoneham was offered the Flushing Meadow site that is currently Shea Stadium. He turned it down saying Queens is Brooklyn Dodger territory and didn't feel the Giants would draw well there. There was no way O'Malley was going to let the Giants leaev New York without the Dodgers or letk the Giants remain in New York while he went elsewhere. Remember O'Malley waited for Stoneham to commit to San Francisco well before he commited publicly to LA.

I agree.

But I wonder what would have happened had the Giants been owned by someone with a stronger will and more financial resources than Horace Stoneham had. Say a Jerry Jones ( of the Dallas Cowboys) type.

Might they have stayed?

[64Cards]

I agree.

But I wonder what would have happened had the Giants been owned by someone with a stronger will and more financial resources than Horace Stoneham had. Say a Jerry Jones ( of the Dallas Cowboys) type.

Might they have stayed?
I'm not up on the exact timetable dealing with the Giant and Dodger moves, although O'malley seemed to pretty much run the NL and do whatever he wanted. If he was comitted to go to LA, he would have done it, if he was assured of making a fortune. And while he could keep Stoneham from going to Minnesota, there's no way he could prevent him from staying in NY, had he wanted to.

But yeah, if he had been more resourceful, as you mentioned, and more farsighted, he could have moved to a Queens location and done very well, with the Dodgers gone.

[tonypug]

I'm not up on the exact timetable dealing with the Giant and Dodger moves, although O'malley seemed to pretty much run the NL and do whatever he wanted. If he was comitted to go to LA, he would have done it, if he was assured of making a fortune. And while he could keep Stoneham from going to Minnesota, there's no way he could prevent him from staying in NY, had he wanted to.

But yeah, if he had been more resourceful, as you mentioned, and more farsighted, he could have moved to a Queens location and done very well, with the Dodgers gone.
From the very beginning, O'Malley envisioned both teams moving to the west coast. In my opinion had the Giants stayed in New York, the Dodgers would have also stayed. Remember O'Malley kept all his options open. He even re-newed the lease on Ebbets Field through 1960, even though he was quite certain he would be in LA. Stoneham made it very clear he wanted out of the Polo Grounds. When he asked for permission to move, O'Malley knew he could persuade Horace to move west with him. O'Malley spent much time and effort to get Mayor Cristopher of San Francisco and Stoneham together. This was all part of O'Malley's master plan. I don't think he ever had any intention of moving to the wast coast by himself.Stoneham must have thought O'Malley was a great friend, since O'Malley did most of the work and made most of the arrangements.

[Greg NYG-NYM]

Stoneham was offered the Flushing Meadow site that is currently Shea Stadium. He turned it down saying Queens is Brooklyn Dodger territory and didn't feel the Giants would draw well there.

What a charming, antiquated notion on Stoneham's part. If there were any visionaries on hand back then (besides the kind who recognized there was a boatload of money to be made in Los Angeles if you could yourself some free land), they would've understood that the Metropolitan Area was becoming one enormous neighborhood linked by television. While there are surely remnants of what is considered one team's "territory" within a market, all the games of all the teams in the Metropolitan Area are readily available for mass consumption (cable systems willing where the 2006 Mets are concerned). The Mets did not become identified as a Queens team per se. Both New York football teams receive their Sunday visitors in New Jersey and it doesn't keep folks on Long Island from tuning in to their festivities. The Bronx Bombers have their followers in Brooklyn, no matter how heretical that sounds.

Ideally, the Giants and Dodgers would've found a way to stick around and maintained a semblance what we remember and romanticize about them and their ballparks. More likely, if they had, they would have been swept up in the push to modernity that was so prevalent in the late '50s and early '60s and set up camp in buildings that looked nothing like the Polo Grounds or Ebbets Field. Time marched on and trampled everything that got in its way.

[jints15]

I heard that during the 1957 season,Stoneham did not want to bring up Cepeda and Jim Davenport and Willie Mccovey (even though he was 2 yrs away) to keep attendance down and make his move to S.F. legit. Does anybody have any knowledge of this.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

I heard that during the 1957 season,Stoneham did not want to bring up Cepeda and Jim Davenport and Willie Mccovey (even though he was 2 yrs away) to keep attendance down and make his move to S.F. legit. Does anybody have any knowledge of this.
I never heard about this but it would not suprise me if that happened.

[theAmazingMet]

While I bemoan the loss of both the Dodgers, and Giants the simple fact of the matter is location.
Since this is the NYG page I will address the problems with the Polo Grounds. While the stadium was beautiful it's location flat out stinks. Having worked in that area of Manhattan the neighborhood isn't exactly the type of place you want to travel to for a ballgame. There is no parking in the immediate area. While it is always common to assume that New Yorkers travel by subway this is the exception not the norm for fans to travel to ballgames in NYC. Yankee stadium has been hurt by this problem, and the new stadium will provide for more parking than exists today, which is still more than existed at the Polo Grounds. Shea Stadium has tons of parking and the lots usually fill up. Not many choose to take mass transit to either stadium. Large numbers of the fans of either team travel from Connecticut, New Jersey and Long Island. Without ample parking you are alienating a large fan base. In addition the island of Manhattan is increasingly being overrun by out of towners. A recent article by New York Magazine estimated that roughly half of all of those people currently residing in Manhattan were born elsewhere. These people by and large would travel by subway, and while a Giants game at Coogans Bluff would be a good night out, their alligences would lie elsewhere, hardly the type of fanbase needed to generate consistent revenue. In addition the revenue collected through parking is a great incentive for any venue to have. This was the argument Steinbrenner always makes when making overtures to relocate, bad location, not enough parking. The exact reason why Bloomberg's folly of a West Side Stadium for the Jets failed, too much congestion in Manhattan for a stadium ever to survive on the island. Driving in the city everyday I can attest to the traffic nightmare a stadium would create.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

While I bemoan the loss of both the Dodgers, and Giants the simple fact of the matter is location.
Since this is the NYG page I will address the problems with the Polo Grounds. While the stadium was beautiful it's location flat out stinks. Having worked in that area of Manhattan the neighborhood isn't exactly the type of place you want to travel to for a ballgame. There is no parking in the immediate area. While it is always common to assume that New Yorkers travel by subway this is the exception not the norm for fans to travel to ballgames in NYC. Yankee stadium has been hurt by this problem, and the new stadium will provide for more parking than exists today, which is still more than existed at the Polo Grounds. Shea Stadium has tons of parking and the lots usually fill up. Not many choose to take mass transit to either stadium. Large numbers of the fans of either team travel from Connecticut, New Jersey and Long Island. Without ample parking you are alienating a large fan base. In addition the island of Manhattan is increasingly being overrun by out of towners. A recent article by New York Magazine estimated that roughly half of all of those people currently residing in Manhattan were born elsewhere. These people by and large would travel by subway, and while a Giants game at Coogans Bluff would be a good night out, their alligences would lie elsewhere, hardly the type of fanbase needed to generate consistent revenue. In addition the revenue collected through parking is a great incentive for any venue to have. This was the argument Steinbrenner always makes when making overtures to relocate, bad location, not enough parking. The exact reason why Bloomberg's folly of a West Side Stadium for the Jets failed, too much congestion in Manhattan for a stadium ever to survive on the island. Driving in the city everyday I can attest to the traffic nightmare a stadium would create.I still say that if the yankees still can play across the river at yankee stadium the mets or giants still could be playing today at the polo grounds instead of that dump called shea stadium.you can complain all you want to about the parking around the stadium but it could work there in new york with the subway system.

[theAmazingMet]

I still say that if the yankees still can play across the river at yankee stadium the mets or giants still could be playing today at the polo grounds instead of that dump called shea stadium.you can complain all you want to about the parking around the stadium but it could work there in new york with the subway system.
Read my above thread, don't assume everyone in NY takes the subway. There are no subways connecting LI, Conn, or Jersey (unless you count the path) to Manhattan. These fans would have to take either Metro North, LIRR, or Jersey Transit to either Grand Central, or Penn Station, then switch to the subway. This type of travel would take 1-2 hours depending on where you live. In addition many people who live in the outer boroughs, especially Staten Island, and Eastern Queens don't have subway access. As a matter of fact those people living on the east side of Manhattan don't have subway access either. People normally dont want to spend hours traveling to games.
Here is a good case in point. It could take a Mets fan living in Queens over an hour to get to Shea by subway. If they lived in say Belle Harbor they would have to take a shuttle train to Broad Channel (10 min.) From Broad Channel they would take the A train to Broadway-Junction in Brooklyn and transfer to the J train (30 min.) From Broadway Junction take the J to Jamaica (15-20 min.) From there take the F train to Roosevelt Ave. (25-30 min) Take the 7 train from Roosevelt Ave to Willets point (15 min) That makes a conservative estimate taking local trains in the same borough via subway to a total of 1:45 min. Not everyone who lives in NY takes the subway, especially those who live outside Manhattan. NYC is not just the island but 4 other boroughs where more people drive. You need ample parking to survive in todays world. That is why just as much consideration goes into parking lots, that goes into the actual construction of a new stadium.

[StanTheMan]

I'm new here..... but am a bit of a Polo Ground nut. (Thoroughly dissapointed that when I took the subway from Grand Central to Yankee Stadium a year ago... I either could not see, or forgot to look, for the Polo Ground site....)

The dimensions of the Polo Grounds should absolutely been a part of the park for every baseball game ever played there, whether or not it was in 1950, or 2000..... not that it could have lasted that long.


What were the Dodgers-Mets, and Giants-Mets games like once the Mets were formed, and those two teams came back to NY? Attendance? Crowd? Hatred or joy? Can't imagine much joy... or did the Giants Fans even go see the game? How could you not?????? Giants Mets at the Polo Grouds!!! Did the fans from Brooklyn make the trip to the PG? or to Shea once it was built?

Bryan in Indy

[theAmazingMet]

I'm new here..... but am a bit of a Polo Ground nut. (Thoroughly dissapointed that when I took the subway from Grand Central to Yankee Stadium a year ago... I either could not see, or forgot to look, for the Polo Ground site....)

The dimensions of the Polo Grounds should absolutely been a part of the park for every baseball game ever played there, whether or not it was in 1950, or 2000..... not that it could have lasted that long.


What were the Dodgers-Mets, and Giants-Mets games like once the Mets were formed, and those two teams came back to NY? Attendance? Crowd? Hatred or joy? Can't imagine much joy... or did the Giants Fans even go see the game? How could you not?????? Giants Mets at the Polo Grouds!!! Did the fans from Brooklyn make the trip to the PG? or to Shea once it was built?

Bryan in Indy
Believe it or not there are still fans of the Dodgers, and Giants that go to Shea to watch their transplanted team play the Mets. Their fans are not as prevelant as in years past but they still show up, and many passed on the love of those teams onto their kids. Again the Yankees and Mets fans greatly outnumber fans of the Dodgers and Giants but those teams still retain some fans in NY.
To answer your second question most fans of the NY NL teams did become fans of the Mets. Switching from a Dodger or Giant fan to a Yankee fan is sacreligious. Would be like a Red Sox fan becoming a Yankee fan to raise a modern equivelent.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Read my above thread, don't assume everyone in NY takes the subway. There are no subways connecting LI, Conn, or Jersey (unless you count the path) to Manhattan. These fans would have to take either Metro North, LIRR, or Jersey Transit to either Grand Central, or Penn Station, then switch to the subway. This type of travel would take 1-2 hours depending on where you live. In addition many people who live in the outer boroughs, especially Staten Island, and Eastern Queens don't have subway access. As a matter of fact those people living on the east side of Manhattan don't have subway access either. People normally dont want to spend hours traveling to games.
Here is a good case in point. It could take a Mets fan living in Queens over an hour to get to Shea by subway. If they lived in say Belle Harbor they would have to take a shuttle train to Broad Channel (10 min.) From Broad Channel they would take the A train to Broadway-Junction in Brooklyn and transfer to the J train (30 min.) From Broadway Junction take the J to Jamaica (15-20 min.) From there take the F train to Roosevelt Ave. (25-30 min) Take the 7 train from Roosevelt Ave to Willets point (15 min) That makes a conservative estimate taking local trains in the same borough via subway to a total of 1:45 min. Not everyone who lives in NY takes the subway, especially those who live outside Manhattan. NYC is not just the island but 4 other boroughs where more people drive. You need ample parking to survive in todays world. That is why just as much consideration goes into parking lots, that goes into the actual construction of a new stadium.I will say this again. if the yankees today still can play across the river at yankee stadium and draw as many fans as they do today, the giants or mets still could play at the polo grounds today. whether or not fans use the subway to go to yankee stadium i dont know that info.i have never liked shea stadium and will never like shea stadium. i cant wait to see the wrecking ball go at shea stadium, that will make up for the day in 1964 that they tore down the polo grounds.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

I'm new here..... but am a bit of a Polo Ground nut. (Thoroughly dissapointed that when I took the subway from Grand Central to Yankee Stadium a year ago... I either could not see, or forgot to look, for the Polo Ground site....)



What were the Dodgers-Mets, and Giants-Mets games like once the Mets were formed, and those two teams came back to NY? Attendance? Crowd? Hatred or joy? Can't imagine much joy... or did the Giants Fans even go see the game? How could you not?????? Giants Mets at the Polo Grouds!!! Did the fans from Brooklyn make the trip to the PG?
Bryan in IndyAs far as the polo grounds site you cant miss it the next time you go to yankee stadium, its across the river from the ballpark you can see the polo grounds apartments.i was there in 1988 and saw the area and also took photos. i also went to brooklyn to see the ebbets field apartment in 1988.

As far as the dodgers and giants playing the mets at the polo grounds in 1962 and 1963 the mets drew very well when those teams came to the polo grounds.
Glad to see another polo grounds fan here. the polo grounds out of the three classic new york stadiums does not get the respect it should. P.S. i cant stand shea stadium.

[theAmazingMet]

I agree totally that Shea is a non-descrept ballpark whose only endearing quality is the apple in the tophat. The Wilpons are planning a new stadium which resembles the outside facade of Ebbets Field. Haven't seen what the inside will look like but wouldn't it be nice to have it resemble the Polo Grounds with a deep CF? This way the New York NL team will pay homage to the two original NL New York teams, like their uniforms do. Orange and interlocking NY for the NYG, and blue for the Dodgers. We won't mention why their home uni's have pinstripes though!
Coincidentally I've had a burning question that maybe someone here knows the answer to;
Was their any effort made by the SF Giants to block the Mets from using the interlocking NY on the caps due to a trademark, or other intellectual property argument?

[johnny]

I agree totally that Shea is a non-descrept ballpark whose only endearing quality is the apple in the tophat. The Wilpons are planning a new stadium which resembles the outside facade of Ebbets Field. Haven't seen what the inside will look like but wouldn't it be nice to have it resemble the Polo Grounds with a deep CF? This way the New York NL team will pay homage to the two original NL New York teams, like their uniforms do. Orange and interlocking NY for the NYG, and blue for the Dodgers. We won't mention why their home uni's have pinstripes though!
Coincidentally I've had a burning question that maybe someone here knows the answer to;
Was their any effort made by the SF Giants to block the Mets from using the interlocking NY on the caps due to a trademark, or other intellectual property argument?

It would be cool to have a distinct retro park with the Polo Grounds dimensions but you may run into the problem us Seattle M's fans run into vis a vi bringing in good hitters who want a home park that pads the numbers. Fair or not, Safeco Field is perceived as 'unfair' by some hitters and makes it difficult to bring in quality free agent hitters.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

I agree totally that Shea is a non-descrept ballpark whose only endearing quality is the apple in the tophat. The Wilpons are planning a new stadium which resembles the outside facade of Ebbets Field. Haven't seen what the inside will look like but wouldn't it be nice to have it resemble the Polo Grounds with a deep CF? This way the New York NL team will pay homage to the two original NL New York teams, like their uniforms do. Orange and interlocking NY for the NYG, and blue for the Dodgers. We won't mention why their home uni's have pinstripes though!
Coincidentally I've had a burning question that maybe someone here knows the answer to;
Was their any effort made by the SF Giants to block the Mets from using the interlocking NY on the caps due to a trademark, or other intellectual property argument?In all of the years that i have studyed about the polo grounds i have never read anything about the giants trying to block the mets from using that logo. i was 3 years old when she was torn down in 1964. maybe some of the older members may have more info on this. as fars as the mets home uniforms i dont see them wearing the jerseys with the pinstripes that often.they look alot like the 1962 uniforms.i would love to have a replica 1962 marv throneberry and richie ashburn mets jersey. you also may want to checkout my polo grounds website.:waving

[theAmazingMet]

Now why would you subject yourself to a Marvelous Marv jersey? LOL. Just kidding. The reason I didn't want to mention the pinstripes is because the Mets took that early home look as a homage to the Yankees of all teams! This way all three original MLB NY teams are identified in the Mets uniform.

[theAmazingMet]

It would be cool to have a distinct retro park with the Polo Grounds dimensions but you may run into the problem us Seattle M's fans run into vis a vi bringing in good hitters who want a home park that pads the numbers. Fair or not, Safeco Field is perceived as 'unfair' by some hitters and makes it difficult to bring in quality free agent hitters.
This won't be a problem as Shea historically has always been a pitchers park. Besides if the inside did resemble the PG many straight pull hitters would love to launch those 256 ft. "chinese homeruns" like Mel Ott used to launch. Just look at the famous "shot heard round the world" In every modern park that would be an easy fly-out.

[MSUlaxer27]

OK. First off I am a Met Fan. I dislike Shea immensely and will not shed a tear when (if, you never know in NYC) they knock it down to build a new stadium but as a Met fan that's the only place I can watch Met home games. And quite frankly I'm sure it was great watching Mets/Giants games sitting in the upper deck left field seats 447 feet away from home plate at the Polo Grounds. You might as well have been sitting in the Bronx. However when they build a new stadium I hope they will build a stadium that is made just for baseball, like Yankee or Ebbets. If you check out this link and roll over the word football you will notice that the Polo Grounds were set up better to watch football than baseball http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/PoloGrounds.html

In addition MLB has passed a rule (which they allow variances for) that all new stadiums must have around (not sure the exact number) 330 feet down the lines. I think you will not see stadiums anymore with the ridiculous dimensions of the Polo Grounds, Baker Bowl, Fenway or Griffith.

Let's remember as well why these stadia had such quirky dimensions; either they had geographic (?) limitations (ie Coogans bluff at PG) or owners of the surrounding property wouldn't sell (Griffith, Fenway) I don't know why Baker (281 down the RF line and also had a train tunnel under the outfield causing a bump) was so screwy. Remember as well for every Wrigley, beloved for it's neighborhood feel and the apartments on Waveland where you can watch games without being in the park you have Shibe with it's "Spite" fence. When you don't have to worry about the surrounding neighborhood you won't have these "quirks".

Last, as bad as the cookie cutter 60's stadiums were (I think Shea is the last, no) you had some idea (I know "the launching pad" or Shea's winds)that all homeruns, doubles & triple were somewhat equitable. Baseball is the only sport that plays it's games on fields of different dimensions (which harkens back to it's pastoral roots). Why should this be. I'm not a conformist but I'd like to be sure that the "sacrosanct(?)" records actually mean something. I know I'm going to get skewed for this but shouldn't Mike Schmidt's 548 HR at the Vet(or McCovey's 521 at the Stick)(I use them becasue they didn't play during the "steriod era") be viewed in a greater light than Ott's 511 launching "chinese homeruns" or Williams using the short porch at Fenway?

I would have loved to watch a game at the Polo Grounds but I think for a full season of games in the 21st century I would much rather watch at Camden, Comerica, The Mariner's stadium, the Giants new place or even (god forbid) Dodger Stadium.

The "good old days" weren't always good and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems.

[Greenpeach]

I agree.

But I wonder what would have happened had the Giants been owned by someone with a stronger will and more financial resources than Horace Stoneham had. Say a Jerry Jones ( of the Dallas Cowboys) type.

Might they have stayed?

Joan Payson & Bill Terry both offered to buy the Giants from Stoneham when he was threatening to pull the Giants out of New York, but they were both rebuffed. Terry put a group together in the mid-1950's that was going to have the Giants play in Yankee Stadium until the Flushing Meadow (Shea Stadium) was completed. However, when the negotiations became public knowledge Stoneham, who was embarrassed, broke them off.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

OK. First off I am a Met Fan. I dislike Shea immensely and will not shed a tear when (if, you never know in NYC) they knock it down to build a new stadium but as a Met fan that's the only place I can watch Met home games. And quite frankly I'm sure it was great watching Mets/Giants games sitting in the upper deck left field seats 447 feet away from home plate at the Polo Grounds. You might as well have been sitting in the Bronx. However when they build a new stadium I hope they will build a stadium that is made just for baseball, like Yankee or Ebbets. If you check out this link and roll over the word football you will notice that the Polo Grounds were set up better to watch football than baseball http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/PoloGrounds.html

In addition MLB has passed a rule (which they allow variances for) that all new stadiums must have around (not sure the exact number) 330 feet down the lines. I think you will not see stadiums anymore with the ridiculous dimensions of the Polo Grounds, Baker Bowl, Fenway or Griffith.

Let's remember as well why these stadia had such quirky dimensions; either they had geographic (?) limitations (ie Coogans bluff at PG) or owners of the surrounding property wouldn't sell (Griffith, Fenway) I don't know why Baker (281 down the RF line and also had a train tunnel under the outfield causing a bump) was so screwy. Remember as well for every Wrigley, beloved for it's neighborhood feel and the apartments on Waveland where you can watch games without being in the park you have Shibe with it's "Spite" fence. When you don't have to worry about the surrounding neighborhood you won't have these "quirks".

Last, as bad as the cookie cutter 60's stadiums were (I think Shea is the last, no) you had some idea (I know "the launching pad" or Shea's winds)that all homeruns, doubles & triple were somewhat equitable. Baseball is the only sport that plays it's games on fields of different dimensions (which harkens back to it's pastoral roots). Why should this be. I'm not a conformist but I'd like to be sure that the "sacrosanct(?)" records actually mean something. I know I'm going to get skewed for this but shouldn't Mike Schmidt's 548 HR at the Vet(or McCovey's 521 at the Stick)(I use them becasue they didn't play during the "steriod era") be viewed in a greater light than Ott's 511 launching "chinese homeruns" or Williams using the short porch at Fenway?

I would have loved to watch a game at the Polo Grounds but I think for a full season of games in the 21st century I would much rather watch at Camden, Comerica, The Mariner's stadium, the Giants new place or even (god forbid) Dodger Stadium.

The "good old days" weren't always good and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems.Well you can have your camden yards dodgers stadium or even that dumpy new stadium here in detroit called comerica, i would rather be at a full season of games at the polo grounds.and yes everyone knows about the diminensions of the polo grounds.those dimensions is what made the polo grounds so unique.i would love to sit 483 feet away in centerfield of the polo grounds anyday than any of these modern stadiums .again everyone has there own opinion.

[Brownie31]

The Yankees are in the Bronx and the Mets in Queens along with minor league teams in Brooklyn & Staten Island-thus haughty Manhattan is the lone borough without professional baseball!-Brownie31

[MSUlaxer27]

The Yankees are in the Bronx and the Mets in Queens along with minor league teams in Brooklyn & Staten Island-thus haughty Manhattan is the lone borough without professional baseball!-Brownie31
You'll find that most of us who live in manhattan don't mind not having a stadium. Traffic is bad enough on any given day. I wouldn't want to imagine what it would be like if there was still a stadium on manahttan and a everybody from LI, NJ and points north were trying to get to it by car because they refuse to use the buses/subways/railroad. It's quick and easy enough to get to Yankee via subway or Shea via LIRR/subway.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

You'll find that most of us who live in manhattan don't mind not having a stadium. Traffic is bad enough on any given day. I wouldn't want to imagine what it would be like if there was still a stadium on manahttan and a everybody from LI, NJ and points north were trying to get to it by car because they refuse to use the buses/subways/railroad. It's quick and easy enough to get to Yankee via subway or Shea via LIRR/subway.Did you live in manhattan when the polo grounds was still standing.

[rcl986@aol.com]

I did, and amazingly enough it was far easier (and quicker) for me to get to Yankee Stadium than it was to the Polo Grounds. I lived in the Yorkville section of Manhattan and simply had to jump on the Lexington Avenue Express and four stops (about 15 minutes) put me at the stadium. Getting to the Polo Grounds involved taking a crosstown bus to West 86th Street and boarding an 8th Avenue train to 155th Street. Trains and buses you may recall, were only a dime and later 15 cents in the fifties. Great memories of great years. Unfortunately however, I never made it to Ebbets Field. My loss!

[MSUlaxer27]

No, we have the same amount of actual experience when it comes to the being in Manhattan with the Polo Grounds, none. Yeah I know, you went to the PG houses in 1987.

The question that started the thread was if they could still be at 155th and 8th. The present traffic patterns and demographics of the surrounding (both the neighborhood and outlying buroughs/counties) areas should be taken into account. I was responding to Brownie31 and his factual statement that Manhattan is the only Borough of NYC not to have it's "own" professional baseball franchise/stadium.

It should be noted that to get to all the places that Brownie31 mentioned by car (it is 2006 this is the preferred method of transport for LI,NJ and westchester and to a much lesser extent in SI, Bkln & Queens residents all places where fans the NYC teams come from) you don't have to come through Manhattan. Manhattan does have a "stadium" so to speak, Madison Square Garden. I live close to where RCL986 did and I work in midtown. I can tell you that it is a zoo commuting to work on a daily basis (I take the train). I do know that on days when the Rangers and Knicks are home at the garden it's even worse because even though MSG sits on top of a major transit hub (6 subway lines (ACE,123) the LIRR, NJ Transit & Amtrak, not to mention a PATH station & 6 more subway lines (FVBD,NR) two blocks away) people insist on driving in to watch the games. MSG seats 19,000 the Polo Grounds sat 56,000. How could it not have been worse today to get that many people to Coogan's bluff? As far as driving to Yankee stadium from Westchester, LI, NJ, Bkln or Queens or SI you you don't have to come through Manhattan. That changes if you're trying to get to the PG even if it was "just across the river". Most Manhattanites use the subway/LIRR to get to Yankee or Shea but for all others I suspect it's not the case.

I'm sure it was easy to get to Yankee and the PG when the majority of fans both lived in the city and didn't have cars, but that is just not reality anymore.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

No, we have the same amount of actual experience when it comes to the being in Manhattan with the Polo Grounds, none. Yeah I know, you went to the PG houses in 1987.

The question that started the thread was if they could still be at 155th and 8th. The present traffic patterns and demographics of the surrounding (both the neighborhood and outlying buroughs/counties) areas should be taken into account. I was responding to Brownie31 and his factual statement that Manhattan is the only Borough of NYC not to have it's "own" professional baseball franchise/stadium.

It should be noted that to get to all the places that Brownie31 mentioned by car (it is 2006 this is the preferred method of transport for LI,NJ and westchester and to a much lesser extent in SI, Bkln & Queens residents all places where fans the NYC teams come from) you don't have to come through Manhattan. Manhattan does have a "stadium" so to speak, Madison Square Garden. I live close to where RCL986 did and I work in midtown. I can tell you that it is a zoo commuting to work on a daily basis (I take the train). I do know that on days when the Rangers and Knicks are home at the garden it's even worse because even though MSG sits on top of a major transit hub (6 subway lines (ACE,123) the LIRR, NJ Transit & Amtrak, not to mention a PATH station & 6 more subway lines (FVBD,NR) two blocks away) people insist on driving in to watch the games. MSG seats 19,000 the Polo Grounds sat 56,000. How could it not have been worse today to get that many people to Coogan's bluff? As far as driving to Yankee stadium from Westchester, LI, NJ, Bkln or Queens or SI you you don't have to come through Manhattan. That changes if you're trying to get to the PG even if it was "just across the river". Most Manhattanites use the subway/LIRR to get to Yankee or Shea but for all others I suspect it's not the case.

I'm sure it was easy to get to Yankee and the PG when the majority of fans both lived in the city and didn't have cars, but that is just not reality anymore.Well i still think that baseball still could be played at the polo grounds today.you may not like my opinion on this because i dont live in new york but live in detroit but i have been to the polo grounds site in 1987 and also over the years i have talked to alot of former giants and mets that played there and have learned alot from them.i will say this one more time if the yankees still can play across the river then the giants or mets still could be playing at the polo grounds.and this is my opinion.

[Shotgun Shuba]

photo from cyburbia.com

[tonypug]

photo from cyburbia.com
Very nice photo. Any idea of the date it was taken?

[Shotgun Shuba]

That picture was from 1940. What a strange park and desolate neighborhood eh! I would google "washington park, brooklyn" , without the quotes of course and go to the third page of images. On the bottom right you should see a great picture of Ebbets Field. That whole link has GREAT pictures of old NY. Enjoy.

[soberdennis]

Mr. Grounds 1957, if you decided to renovate the Polo Grounds, would you leave the dimensions of the park alone?
As strange as the old dimensions were and as much as it was part of the flavor of the park, I doubt that they would have kept the old dimensions. Cookie Cutter Stadiums, as stupid as they were, seemed all the rage in the 60's.
They probably would have moved the center field in and down the lines out.
That's what they did across the Harlem River.
Personally I prefer the old dimensions at Yankee Stadium and would have been a bit disappointed IMO by the dimensions of a new PG.

[tonypug]

As strange as the old dimensions were and as much as it was part of the flavor of the park, I doubt that they would have kept the old dimensions. Cookie Cutter Stadiums, as stupid as they were, seemed all the rage in the 60's.
They probably would have moved the center field in and down the lines out.
That's what they did across the Harlem River.
Personally I prefer the old dimensions at Yankee Stadium and would have been a bit disappointed IMO by the dimensions of a new PG.
The Polo Grounds would have been changed. One of Stonehams complaints was that most of the seating was past first and third bases and in the outfield.He couldn't charge premium prices for those seats. If he had anything to do with planning a new stadium it would have been configured differently. In my eye, the new Yankee Stadium was totally different from the old. Dimensions , seating, height of fences. Really two different ballparks, built on the same site.

[rcl986@aol.com]

Yes but, Yankee Stadium retained its basic shape. Seating was reduced by almost 15,000 seats. This was done primarily by eliminating the left and right field bullpens and eliminating the left field bleachers. The centerfield bleachers were "blacked out". The left field bleacher area was converted into Monument Park and the bullpens relocated to that area. I believe several rows of left and right field box seats were removed to allow for greater distance down the lines and the seats were raised about ten feet above ground level. The back rows of the mezzanine level were removed and replaced by luxury boxes. All of this was accomplished without changing the basic foot print of the stadium.
The Giants on the other hand would have faced a far more challenging problem had they tried to change the dimentions. In my mind it would have been virtually impossible to reconfigure that park within its basic footprint. Expansion of the existing park would have been all but impossible because it was bordered on three sides; 1- A housing project behind third base, 2- An elevated train station and the Harlem River beyond centerfield and 3- A hill and parkway behind home plate. Expansion on the first base side would have cost them what little parking space they had by eliminating their parking lot. Moving into Yankee Stadium for several years while the Polo Grounds was razed and rebuilt on the same site may have been possible but I'm not sure what shape that park would have taken given the forementioned site restrictions. In my view, the only option to keeping the Polo Grounds viable would have been to retain its shape, recondition, reinfforce and reconfigure (where possible) the park within its existing boundaries and provide the best possible creature comforts that could be provided ie. seating, restrooms, restaurants, food and souvenier stands etc.
Doing even this however, would not have solved Stonehams problem with most of the seats being beyond first and third base. A solid winning team would have been the best remedy to increase attendance at the time, however having said all of that, the park would still have been in a dangerous area and eventually would have had to be replaced.

[POLO GROUNDS 1957]

Yes but, Yankee Stadium retained its basic shape. Seating was reduced by almost 15,000 seats. This was done primarily by eliminating the left and right field bullpens and eliminating the left field bleachers. The centerfield bleachers were "blacked out". The left field bleacher area was converted into Monument Park and the bullpens relocated to that area. I believe several rows of left and right field box seats were removed to allow for greater distance down the lines and the seats were raised about ten feet above ground level. The back rows of the mezzanine level were removed and replaced by luxury boxes. All of this was accomplished without changing the basic foot print of the stadium.
The Giants on the other hand would have faced a far more challenging problem had they tried to change the dimentions. In my mind it would have been virtually impossible to reconfigure that park within its basic footprint. Expansion of the existing park would have been all but impossible because it was bordered on three sides; 1- A housing project behind third base, 2- An elevated train station beyond centerfield and 3- A hill and parkway behind home plate. Expansion on the first base side would have cost them what little parking space they had by eliminating their parking lot. Moving into Yankee Stadium for several years while the Polo Grounds was razed and rebuilt on the same site may have been possible but I'm not sure what shape that park would have taken given the forementioned site restrictions. In my view, the only option to keeping the Polo Grounds viable would have been to retain its shape, recondition, reinfforce and reconfigure (where possible) the park within its existing boundaries and provide the best possible creature comforts that could be provided ie. seating, restrooms, restaurants, food and souvenier stands etc.
Doing even this however, would not have solved Stonehams problem with most of the seats being beyond first and third base. A solid winning team would have been the best remedy to increase attendance at the time, however having said all of that, the park would still have been in a dangerous area and eventually would have had to be replaced.The yankees today play in a area that is not that great so the giants or mets still could be playing across the river at the polo grounds today.

[rcl986@aol.com]

The yankees today play in a area that is not that great so the giants or mets still could be playing across the river at the polo grounds today.

On that my friend, we'll simply have to disagree!

[Joe Barrie]

The Yale Bowl still has troughs, and they function very well.

[salus]

There was no way that the Giants could have survived in the Polo Grounds, night games were becoming dangerous, unbelievable traffic jams in that area , no parking and the other clubs were moving into new superstadiums, throw in free agency, i doubt many players would have opted for there. You must remember that era you needed New York, New York didnt need them and that was really the reason that Robert Moses and other politicians didnt bend over backwards to accomodate them. If they had stayed the Giants would have proably ended up in the Meadowlands with their football counterparts and the Dodgers at Shea or another site in Brooklyn

[Doug24]

I am sure htis has been discussed before, but all the talk of the Jints staying if Brooklyn moved to LA is pure folly. There is no way the NL would have approved that based upon the travel from all the other NL cities all the way acroos the country to play one series against one team. The Giants and Dodgers had to move in tandem or the NL owners woulld have nixed it......

[Kronos]

I am sure htis has been discussed before, but all the talk of the Jints staying if Brooklyn moved to LA is pure folly. There is no way the NL would have approved that based upon the travel from all the other NL cities all the way acroos the country to play one series against one team. The Giants and Dodgers had to move in tandem or the NL owners woulld have nixed it......

I know this is true but it is amusing that starting only a few years later the Angels functioned out west for 7 years with out another west coast team for the teams to visit.

[StrawberryField]

I know this is true but it is amusing that starting only a few years later the Angels functioned out west for 7 years with out another west coast team for the teams to visit.

Not that I have a source but you could probably chalk it up to the AL being desperate to have some kind of foot hold in the Los Angeles California market.

[steveatrich]

I know this is true but it is amusing that starting only a few years later the Angels functioned out west for 7 years with out another west coast team for the teams to visit.

The difference was that in 1957 most airplanes were propellers and in 1961 they were jets.

[mandrake]

The final nail in the coffin for the Polo Grounds was when Robert Moses built projects right next to the ballpark and they opened a week after Thomson hit the HR. Despite the residents of Harlem wanting middle class housing, Moses rounded up a couple of thousand people classified as 'low income' and crammed them into projects immediately next to (north side)the Polo Grounds. Cars left unattended during games were being broken into, fans were getting mugged after night games, etc. The only real parking lot was on the site of Old Manhattan Field immediately south of the Polo Grounds.

I discovered a letter, and posted it on baseball fever, from Nov 1953 where Robert Moses told Stoneham that the Giants should move into Yankee Stadium, as Moses wanted to build more housing projects on Manhattan Field and the Polo Grounds sites.

But if we are dreaming.....and we had a chance to make the old train yards into a parking garage like they have at Yankee Stadium.....and we still had that EL spur to the Bronx.....

My ideas of renovating the Polo Grounds would have been to undo the 1923 expansion, and bring the seating back down to 1922's 35,000. Then I would have tried to add a 3rd deck from 1st base to 3rd base, maybe 5,000 or so seats in the infield..maybe 10,000 if feasible.

My second idea would have been to allow the baseball Giants to relocate somewhere in the metro area, and rebuild the Polo Grounds as a football only stadium for the Jets, Giants, any college games.

Either would have been better than housing projects, a failed vision from the late 1940's into the early 1960's. Cities all across America, from Newark to Chicago, are now imploding these mistakes.

[StanTheMan]

Right on the money Mandrake.....

The PG Towers killed the PG.