Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 92

Thread: Yankee Stadium Frieze - Old vs New

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    KPIT Airport
    Posts
    1,120

    Yankee Stadium Frieze - Old vs New

    First post here, great board folks!

    Many posts I see about the frieze going up in the new stadium are ooohs and ahhs, but if you look at the old vs the new you'll see it's somewhat different. The new frieze looks like a cheap stamped steel relative to the current and past versions.

    First off, the holes above the columns are square now, and there's absolutely no detail on the columns whatsoever. The little knobs at the bottoms of the inner posts are gone. Furthermore, the 1923 stadium had 2 types of sections, one for the curved areas of the stadium and one for the straight runs down the foul lines. The frieze going up in the new park uses the same straight-type section all around.

    I'm aware that the designers are calling this "an interpretive version" but why? The frieze is one major aspect that defined Yankee Stadium and is also part of Yankee corporate culture. You'da thought that the frieze would be the one thing they would have replicated exactly.

    Also the light banks are way too close to the frieze. They're using 2 rows of lights instead of the current 3 which probably means the lamps will be brighter. At night you won't be able to see the frieze well because of the glare. It seems like they should've either run the banks up on towers like Camden Yards or grouped them into sections like the 1946 lights.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    345
    Quote Originally Posted by Aviator_Frank View Post
    At night you won't be able to see the frieze well because of the glare.
    Curious, how exactly do you know that?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    KPIT Airport
    Posts
    1,120
    Just look up at the current row of lights and see how bright they are. There's no way the new lights won't detract from the metalwork beneath them. A few feet of spacing would make a big difference.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    New Fairfield, CT
    Posts
    411
    Here's my best job at showing the de-evolution of the Yankee Stadium frieze: 1923, 1976, 2009. I really wish they were being more faithfull to the 1923 version.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    ..."I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    448
    100% Agree, they should have done it the way it looked in the original stadium with the longer and shorter frieze, and the fact that this new frieze has no detail at all bothers me to no end...when they announced that they would build a new stadium and that they would put the frieze back around the top of the stadium I envisioned that it would look exactly like the way it used to be...
    Attached Images Attached Images

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    761
    [QUOTE=Aviator_Frank;1145416]First post here, great board folks!

    Many posts I see about the frieze going up in the new stadium are ooohs and ahhs, but if you look at the old vs the new you'll see it's somewhat different. The new frieze looks like a cheap stamped steel relative to the current and past versions.


    Frank, you're unbelieveable. Great catch. I am a humungous Yankee fan. I'll go to my death bed knowing that I never ever went to old Yankee Stadium. I am so happy that they are building a new stadium, only because Yankee Stadium has become a DUMP (In My Opinion). But for 1.3 Billion dollars you'de think the could spend some of it on a real friggin frieze. You are right. That frieze is a cheap metal cut-out piece of crap. I am so pissed off about this, I could scream. Why not use copper and make it look like the very first one. Now I'm sick to my stomach. I told you guys that I hate Steinbrenner. Just another reason added to the list. This sucks!!!!!
    Jimmy Dugan: Because there's no crying in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No crying! (Tom Hanks, "A League of Their Own" (1992)

  7. #7

    Yankee Stadium Frieze - Old vs New

    I have seen the inside of old Yankee Stadium on TV,in moives,on the internet,in newspapers,on 2 of my T-shirts also 1 T-shirt that 2 small for me inside of JCPenny's at the mall across the street from my apartment in L.A. I will take a tour of New Yankee Stadium and I will go to New York Yankees home baseball games at New Yankee Stadium.

  8. #8
    [QUOTE=cgcoyne2;1145494]
    Quote Originally Posted by Aviator_Frank View Post
    Why not use copper and make it look like the very first one.
    You do realize that copper is significantly denser than steel, so the same size section would be heavier--perhaps making it impossible to use copper in the frieze without support beams. Also, according to current prices--if I read the indexes correctly--copper costs something like 10 times as much as structural steel.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    761
    [QUOTE=monkeypants;1145536]
    Quote Originally Posted by cgcoyne2 View Post

    You do realize that copper is significantly denser than steel, so the same size section would be heavier--perhaps making it impossible to use copper in the frieze without support beams. Also, according to current prices--if I read the indexes correctly--copper costs something like 10 times as much as structural steel.

    You may be right...But at 1.3 BILLION dollars, what the heck is the difference.
    Jimmy Dugan: Because there's no crying in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No crying! (Tom Hanks, "A League of Their Own" (1992)

  10. #10
    The frieze at the new Yankee Stadium is yet another example of work outsourced outside of the United States.

    The new frieze was made in Canada.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    KPIT Airport
    Posts
    1,120
    This is 2008, folks. You're telling me they couldn't have made a form and poured a composite resin or something that would give the new frieze both detail and 3-dimensionality it deserves? Every nook and cranny shouod be there. What a cop-out by HOK or whoever is in charge of this.

    Look at the photos of the frieze as it lies on the ground prior to being hoisted up; it looks like the kind of crud you'd find in a Chinese-made plastic stadium model. People who sit in the upper decks and look closely at it are gonna see what a joke it is.

    This is no way for a majestic structure such as this to be completed with, considering the expense and detail they've taken on the exterior facade.

    Someone checked out badly. This is not much different from the frieze at Arlington Stadium (Rangers) or whatever its name is now.

    And SQUARE holes at the top? You mean to say they don't have any round metal punches up in Canada? This is like building a royal palacial estate then putting Home Depot composite shingles on for the roof.
    Last edited by Aviator_Frank; 03-26-2008 at 06:19 AM.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Mount Sinai,Long Island,NY
    Posts
    1,473
    Good job Frank. The new frieze {I still prefer to call it, albeit incorrectly, the facade} is a very pale imitation of the old. Even the '76 version, which does not contain as much detail as the original, looks much better than the new one. From a distance it looks pretty good. Up close, forget it. A month ago I went to the Stadium with a friend who hadn't seen the inside of the new Stadium yet [despite my constantly telling him about the great pix on this site}. We went to the top of the parking garage behind the new Stadium and he yelled "Yes! The facade!". Again, from a distance it looks nice. I also don't like that it's all done in what I call the 'long' sections, as opposed to the long and short sections of the original.And I think it needs the return sections at the ends of the upper deck tier terrace to make it look complete.

  13. #13
    [QUOTE=monkeypants;1145536]
    Quote Originally Posted by cgcoyne2 View Post

    You do realize that copper is significantly denser than steel, so the same size section would be heavier--perhaps making it impossible to use copper in the frieze without support beams. Also, according to current prices--if I read the indexes correctly--copper costs something like 10 times as much as structural steel.
    Copper is more dense, but not significantly so. The density of copper is 8.9 grams per cubic centimeter, and while the density of steel varies with the specific composition, it averages about 7.8 grams per cubic centimeter; thus copper is about 14% more dense than steel. A six ton steel frieze piece would weigh 6.8 tons if duplicated in copper. Wrought copper could probably been made thinner than the steel, though, and a frieze section of copper would probably weigh less.

    What copper is, though, is considerably more expensive than steel.

  14. #14
    [QUOTE=David Atkatz;1145733]
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeypants View Post

    Copper is more dense, but not significantly so. The density of copper is 8.9 grams per cubic centimeter, and while the density of steel varies with the specific composition, it averages about 7.8 grams per cubic centimeter; thus copper is about 14% more dense than steel. A six ton steel frieze piece would weigh 6.8 tons if duplicated in copper. Wrought copper could probably been made thinner than the steel, though, and a frieze section of copper would probably weigh less.

    What copper is, though, is considerably more expensive than steel.
    Good point about the density. I knew that copper was about 15% (or 14%) more dense, but it didn't occur to me that an equivalent piece could be made thinner and thus lighter.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bronx, NY (Home of the Yanks!)/Trumbull, CT
    Posts
    638
    I've been saying the same thing all along. This frieze is a cheap knock-off. I'm okay with it being plastic, but it should have the same detail as the 1923 frieze. This thing is just pathetic.

    I hope that 15 years down the road - or even sooner than that - they realize they screwed up royally and replace this frieze with a legitimate one.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    KPIT Airport
    Posts
    1,120
    When it first went up I was honestly hoping it was some sort of substructure to hold the actual one. I couldn't believe a $1.3 billion structure would call that thing a final cut.

    It'll look OK from the Deegan to passing motorists and that's it.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Saturdays at NYS - Section 420B
    Posts
    2,064

    New materials for the frieze

    Quote Originally Posted by Aviator_Frank View Post
    This is 2008, folks. You're telling me they couldn't have made a form and poured a composite resin or something that would give the new frieze both detail and 3-dimensionality it deserves? Every nook and cranny shouod be there. What a cop-out by HOK or whoever is in charge of this.

    Look at the photos of the frieze as it lies on the ground prior to being hoisted up; it looks like the kind of crud you'd find in a Chinese-made plastic stadium model. People who sit in the upper decks and look closely at it are gonna see what a joke it is.

    This is no way for a majestic structure such as this to be completed with, considering the expense and detail they've taken on the exterior facade.

    Someone checked out badly. This is not much different from the frieze at Arlington Stadium (Rangers) or whatever its name is now.

    And SQUARE holes at the top? You mean to say they don't have any round metal punches up in Canada? This is like building a royal palacial estate then putting Home Depot composite shingles on for the roof.
    They absolutely should have used a composite (lightweight but strong) material such as this: http://fypon.com/products/urethane/. Only one form would need to be created and then x number of casts could be made. The form, and the resulting cast, can be VERY detailed and replicate exactly, the original frieze.

    But I think the real reason behind the new frieze is not that they couldn't do something different but (worse) that they didn't WANT to. The entire stadium is a "modern interpretation" by Earl Santee & Co at HOK and the frieze is just part of that interpretation.

  18. #18
    I remember hearing an interview with Santee, were he said he would never allow a new ballpark to be built with poles assuring the upperdeck be closer to the field.
    For that matter, he sees no point in upperdeck seats.

    Back of the bus seats.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Saturdays at NYS - Section 420B
    Posts
    2,064

    Frieze on Yankees.com and Yesnetwork.com

    The frieze used on Yankees.com, Yankees publications/logos and on YES portray the older, more ornate frieze. Once the new stadium opens I wonder if they will use the new version?
    Attached Images Attached Images

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    KPIT Airport
    Posts
    1,120
    YES Network's new saying could be, "We don't give you cookie-cutter programming; just a cookie-cutter frieze. Literally."

  21. #21

    pathetic new frieze

    I'm a new member and this is my first post and I love what I've been reading. When I first saw the new frieze I practically screamed "oh no!". I maintained a shred of hope that what I was seeing was unfinished but as I've learned from reading here my worst dreams have been realized. I love the Yankees but from time to time they just frustrate the heck out of me. There is no good reason to justify not replicating the original frieze. What could possibly be the objection? A modern interpretation? What the heck for? The Yankee hierarchy has said that the new stadium would (where possible) be identical to the 1923 version. What could be more easy than replicating the original frieze and who cares what material is used as long as it is looks the same? The comments about the placement of the lights are right on the money, as well. Personally, I was hoping that light towers would be used. Maybe it's a good thing that the lights will make this lame new frieze less visible. If the leaders of this project had an ounce of respect for the integrity of the original Yankee Stadium this wouldn't be an issue. When I look at pictures of the original I'm struck by the beauty and majesty of the frieze. It so dominated the original structure and in such a wonderful and powerful way it is just a crying shame that the new stadium will be graced by something that looks like an inexpensive shortcut. The Yankees should know better. Their fans certainly do. Knowing the emotional bond that exists between the fans and the original stadium the team should have spotted this error long ago and immediately rejected the "modern interpretation" of HOK. Fortunately, this is a relatively easy fix if the Yanks decide to act upon it. It may take a few years but if enough fans voice their displeasure perhaps the team will act. We can only hope.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    3,032
    Blog Entries
    1
    I would have gone the other way with the frieze. I would have hired skilled carvers to create an even more ornate frieze than the original, including a design at the top-center of each section of the frieze memorializing the year of each Yankee World Series win.

    Hey, 26 championships and 39 frieze sections means room for growth! Would anyone complain about having to temporarily remove a frieze section to put up another WS winning year? I don't think so.

    I also had an idea about the facing of the second deck, or maybe the upper deck. You could have engraved tablets lining the facing, depicting great moments in Yankees history - almost like the "real" frieze in the Parthenon, in Athens, which has hundreds of panels depicting the Panathenaic festival. The right field line could have moments that occurred in Yankee Stadium, and the left field line could have moments that happened on the road. It would really make the new Stadium feel more like home.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    761

    Angry Stadium frieze

    Quote Originally Posted by SultanOfWhat View Post
    I would have gone the other way with the frieze. I would have hired skilled carvers to create an even more ornate frieze than the original, including a design at the top-center of each section of the frieze memorializing the year of each Yankee World Series win.

    ...

    I also had an idea about the facing of the second deck, or maybe the upper deck. You could have engraved tablets lining the facing, depicting great moments in Yankees history - ... The right field line could have moments that occurred in Yankee Stadium, and the left field line could have moments that happened on the road...


    Sultan, In My Opinion this is a great idea. I will admit that I would have to see it in real life to give it a definite YES though.

    I'm so pissed about the frieze. Maybe you guys are right and it will be fixed in the future. Did you guys see post #2602

    http://www.baseball-fever.com/showth...51384&page=105

    It looks like the outside of the stadium will also have a frieze. Probably cheap crap too.
    Jimmy Dugan: Because there's no crying in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No crying! (Tom Hanks, "A League of Their Own" (1992)

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by cgcoyne2 View Post

    It looks like the outside of the stadium will also have a frieze.
    ??????????????

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Jersey
    Posts
    761

    Stadium Frieze

    Quote Originally Posted by monkeypants View Post
    ??????????????

    Look at the model. You can see a facade from the outside, facing out!!!
    Jimmy Dugan: Because there's no crying in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No crying! (Tom Hanks, "A League of Their Own" (1992)

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •