Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yankee Stadium Frieze - Old vs New

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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 Files

  • #2
    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?

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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 Files
        ..."I might have been given a bad break, but I've got an awful lot to live for."

        Comment


        • #5
          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 Files
          sigpic

          Comment


          • #6
            [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)

            Comment


            • #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.

              Comment


              • #8
                [QUOTE=cgcoyne2;1145494]
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  [QUOTE=monkeypants;1145536]
                  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)

                  Comment


                  • #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.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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, 06:19 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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.
                        Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,and welcome to Yankee Stadium. Here are the lineups for todays game...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          [QUOTE=monkeypants;1145536]
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            [QUOTE=David Atkatz;1145733]
                            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.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X