Renovation vs New Stadium

[quagmire]

I will apologize if this has been posted before( or to the people going, " OMG, not another Yankee Stadium thread). In the two months I have been lurking here, I have been reading tons of people bad mouth the renovation of Yankee Stadium. Saying they ruined it, etc. I sometimes think they would have been happier to have a new stadium built instead of the renovation that took place. So that is my question. Do you prefer the renovation done to Yankee Stadium? Or would you have preferred the Yankees build a new Yankee Stadium back in 1973?

IMHO, I would go for renovation. There were mistakes done in the renovated design( mostly the frieze and Gate 4 and 6), but I felt it was still the right decision to do( and would have been the better choice this time around as well). I liked the modernization they done to the stadium by getting rid of the support columns and like the visual effect the extended upper deck gave to the stadium. I also like the wrap around lights.

[Mike Wagner]

Dear quagmire,

My favorite between the original and renovated Yankee Stadium would have to be the original. Would I rather have the renovated Stadium or a new one in 1973? I would have to say the renovated one. So much history had happened in Yankee Stadium up to 1973 that tearing it down would be unthinkable. I was 18 years old then, and could NEVER imagine Yankee Stadium not being there. It was comforting to know I could go back to it in 1976.

I never felt at home in Shea Stadium. I promise it's nothing against the Mets, but your home is your home. I didn't know what the renovated Stadium would look like, but during my 13 visits during the progress of the modernization, I still felt excitement and relief to see Yankee Stadium standing.

-Mike Wagner

[scooterfan]

The majority of the people on this site who condemn the renovation never stepped foot in the original Yankee Stadium. And the same people who condemn the renovation are the loudest and biggest apologists of the new stadium.

The City of New York did a great job on the renovation and Chicagoans will agree New York did a far better job renovating Yankee Stadium than Chicago did renovating Soldier Field.

[Paul W]

chicago and detroit showed the way for franchises, construction unions and politicians how to spend big tax buck$ on a new mallpark, even though upgrading what was already there could have worked.
owners mentality - "i want a new toy like the kid down the block has!!!, or else i'll move to...."

[mandrake]

The majority of the people on this site who condemn the renovation never stepped foot in the original Yankee Stadium. And the same people who condemn the renovation are the loudest and biggest apologists of the new stadium.

The City of New York did a great job on the renovation and Chicagoans will agree New York did a far better job renovating Yankee Stadium than Chicago did renovating Soldier Field.

I did set foot in OYS, usually in the LCF bleachers. I prefered the OYS and did not care for the RYS. HOWEVER, in 1971 NYC (under Mayor Lindsay) was faced with the very real threat that the franchise was moving away. Younger fans probably doubt it today, but it was true. While Toronto and New Orleans were in the mix, the number one threat was from the Dallas area. When NYC gave the Yankees basically everything on their wish list (including 157th St, parking garages, etc).....Robert Short jumped from Washington DC to Arlington, TX. Short jumped even though DC was given a team after the original Senators went to Minnesota;and after DC politicians built him a brand new stadium. The first team Texas wanted was NYY. Just like in 1956, Los Angeles wanted the Dodgers, with the original Senators second choice.

So, unless NYC renovated OYS back then, the Yankees were leaving.

[cgcoyne2]

I think the new stadium would've been absolutely different if they built a new one in 1973. As a person who desperately wished they saw the original stadium, I'm glad they renovated the original so at least I can get a feel for the old one. Close but not the same. Better than nothing I'm afraid.

[Yankeefan3783]

I voted for the renovation because it gave me (and millions of others) a chance to attend games in the original building.

[Seattle1]

OMG, not another Yankee Stadium thread.

[Gary Dunaier]

OMG, not another Yankee Stadium thread.

I think they should have renovated Sick's Stadium instead of erecting that monstrosity called the King Dome, which was improperly named because 1) when it was built, the ruling monarch was not a King but a Queen, and 2) Prince Charles, who will become King George VII upon his mother's passing, in honor of his grandfather as well as because of the dubious reputations of the two King Charleses before him (Wikipedia), has, at least to the extent of my knowledge, never been there.

[Chevy114]

Where can I vote for neither?

[quagmire]

Where can I vote for neither?

Neither wasn't a choice. From what I read, Yankee Stadium's condition was very poor. It needed to be renovated or a new stadium entirely.

[Transic]

Back in the 1970s, very few thought that technology would advance so much that it's possible today what we couldn't understand then. I have thought for some time that if they had waited a couple of more decades that we could've had a much nicer renovation. Me? I would have preferred a bottom-top rebuild of the whole stadium. If Yankee Stadium had to change then it was better to have a modern Yankee Stadium right on the same spot. They could have expanded the Stadium into Ruppert Place, thereby not having to build that ugly triangular garage on 153rd St. Of course, it would still have looked a bit different but it would better respect the events that made the place famous. Now there were advances back then that were revolutionary in its time, like cantilevering. However, the YS reno suffered from having been done in the era of cookie cutters and astroturf, and it showed in its final product.

If they had waited into the 90's, we could have had a completely rebuilt Yankee Stadium and no park land would have needed to be taken.

[Chevy114]

Neither wasn't a choice. From what I read, Yankee Stadium's condition was very poor. It needed to be renovated or a new stadium entirely.

It was a tounge and cheek joke based on how yankee fans hi-jack all the other parks threads to talk about any of the 3 yankee stadiums.

[quagmire]

Back in the 1970s, very few thought that technology would advance so much that it's possible today what we couldn't understand then. I have thought for some time that if they had waited a couple of more decades that we could've had a much nicer renovation. Me? I would have preferred a bottom-top rebuild of the whole stadium. If Yankee Stadium had to change then it was better to have a modern Yankee Stadium right on the same spot. They could have expanded the Stadium into Ruppert Place, thereby not having to build that ugly triangular garage on 153rd St. Of course, it would still have looked a bit different but it would better respect the events that made the place famous. Now there were advances back then that were revolutionary in its time, like cantilevering. However, the YS reno suffered from having been done in the era of cookie cutters and astroturf, and it showed in its final product.

If they had waited into the 90's, we could have had a completely rebuilt Yankee Stadium and no park land would have needed to be taken.

Besides the pods, what made the renovation so bad? What came out of the renovation was a modern stadium. No more steel beams blocking your view with a modern lighting system.

What do you mean by bottom- to top rebuild? Demo everything besides the main steel structure and rebuild upon that?

[Gary Dunaier]

It was a tounge and cheek joke based on how yankee fans hi-jack all the other parks threads to talk about any of the 3 yankee stadiums.

Based on the title I thought this thread was about renovation v. replacement in general, but only upon reading the first post is it revealed the poll is supposed to be about the Yankee stadiums.

A legitimate third option for the poll would have been "No opinion" or something along those lines.

[Chevy114]

Based on the title I thought this thread was about renovation v. replacement in general, but only upon reading the first post is it revealed the poll is supposed to be about the Yankee stadiums.

A legitimate third option for the poll would have been "No opinion" or something along those lines.

Oh yeah I agree, Yankee stadium doesn't affect me like it does some people. There are older stadiums that I liked more than rys and there are newer stadiums I like better than nys, so I agree with the no opinion option.

[Transic]

Besides the pods, what made the renovation so bad? What came out of the renovation was a modern stadium. No more steel beams blocking your view with a modern lighting system.

What do you mean by bottom- to top rebuild? Demo everything besides the main steel structure and rebuild upon that?

- The prevalence of concrete exposed to the elements, especially in the upper deck
- Aisles that were narrow and restricted movement in sections (that could be remedied with an expansion, which would require a rebuild)
- Narrow concourses were left in place. That may be fine for traditionalists but not desirable to the contemporary fan

They did do a decent job with what they had to work with. But as long as people were spending more at the stadium they wanted more from the stadium experience and the more the demands on the team the more the pressure to win. It's like a self-perpetrated myth.

The stadium had done its job for many years but it needed something more for the next century. Too bad they never were serious about it. Yes, it would have required the Yankees to have temporary quarters during the construction period but it would result in a much nicer stadium, right on the spot where they should be.

Check this page: http://web.archive.org/web/200011181...s/Contents.htm

That was a plan advanced by then-Bx Borough President Ferrer, when there was talk of the Yankees moving to the West Side of Manhattan. The idea would take those ideas and expand on it by expanding the footprint across Ruppert Place and where the garage is. Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners LLP were the ones that came up with the plan. However, I thought the glass wasn't a good idea. Still, it was a good starting point. Giuliani and Steinbrenner would have none of it and Bloomberg, eventually, agreed to the worse idea, which is the new build over parkland.

Yankee Stadium should've been rebuilt!

[quagmire]

- The prevalence of concrete exposed to the elements, especially in the upper deck
- Aisles that were narrow and restricted movement in sections (that could be remedied with an expansion, which would require a rebuild)
- Narrow concourses were left in place. That may be fine for traditionalists but not desirable to the contemporary fan

So pretty much everything they couldn't do without a new stadium.....

They were not going to tear down the walls so they could expand the concourses. I would totally be against that because what would be left from the original stadium? At least most of the contents of the stadium was the same back in 1976.... Yeah they expanded the upper deck, ruined Gate 4 and 6, and got rid of most of the frieze, but it still mostly looked like Yankee Stadium.

The old Yankee Stadium should have just been renovated again. Restore Gate 4 and 6 to their original state and shore up any weaknesses in the structure. That is all that they needed to do. If given the choice of your rebuild idea vs a new stadium, I would choose new stadium. Too much would change in your idea.

[Transic]

Even if it's in the Meadowlands?

Anyway, we can agree that neither of us is getting what we really want, in the end. The Yankees and the City had their own ideas and we were not to have any input, except for activating against it in blogs and message boards. But at least my idea would have spared the residents in the neighborhood from having Macombs Dam Park taken away from them. Also, I thought that the events that happened right on the ground were what made the history of the Stadium, not the building that enclosed it. Fans do have their place but were there, mainly, to spectate the events that were unfolding and witness the historic achievements. Now the best we could hope for is that the grounds be properly cared for once the building is gone, not just Gates 4 and 6.

[locke40]

Besides the pods, what made the renovation so bad? What came out of the renovation was a modern stadium. No more steel beams blocking your view with a modern lighting system.

What do you mean by bottom- to top rebuild? Demo everything besides the main steel structure and rebuild upon that?

Steel beams would run horizontal. You are referring to steel COLUMNS, which run vertical. And, I wish they never touched those.

[quagmire]

Steel beams would run horizontal. You are referring to steel COLUMNS, which run vertical. And, I wish they never touched those.

Ah, you're right. My bad.

I don't know its accuracy, but I read here that they were growing weak. If true, they sort of had no choice, but to touch them. Plus, they did obstruct the view of the game and that is the ultimate factor. Which is lost upon in the new stadium with its apparent focus on luxury and how many restaurants it can cram in there. I guess that reflects todays fans. I haven't been to NYS yet, but have been to OYS( back in 2008. I view RYS as OYS because I don't think the renovation ruined it) and fans actually sat through the innings. While when I went to Nationals Park, people couldn't stay seated. Any time I went for a picture to try to get a picture of a right handed batter swinging and hitting the ball, people would magically get up and get in the way of my shot. That didn't happen in OYS. That also didn't happen at Camden Yards when we had season plans there. But, since Nationals Park has more things to entertain the fans, I guess fans can't help, but feel to get up during innings. Even when the home team is at bat.......

[cgcoyne2]

Ah, you're right. My bad.

I don't know its accuracy, but I read here that they were growing weak........

I think this is completely unfounded and false. They are still there in pieces. True, they don't hold the weight they use to but they are still there none the less.

[quagmire]

I think this is completely unfounded and false. They are still there in pieces. True, they don't hold the weight they use to but they are still there none the less.

They remain because they couldn't remove them without wrecking some of the upper deck( then again I am no engineer so what do I know ). If what I read here is true and they could remove them without wrecking the upper deck, they probably had enough strength to handle the reduced load( and it is quite a reduced load).

You can see in this picture a remnant of the steel columns.



Again, I do not know the validity of that. Just something I read here in one of the threads.