Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pros & Cons - New Yankee Stadium and 70's renovation

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

  • #91
    Well, all stadiums get periodic upgrades. Seating areas change, outfield walls are moved, restaurants and merchandise shops are added and expanded. Dodger Stadium's had those renovations, Yankee Stadium had plenty of them before the 1974 renovations, and Fenway's no different in that respect (Green Monster seats, anyone?). Over time, enough is replaced that there might not be anything from the original, but the overall feel is maintained.

    I think the real distinction is that such drips-and-drabs renovations don't radically change the character of a ballpark in one fell swoop. They can add to it (or detract from it) in small ways, but what the city did with Yankee Stadium is singular in baseball.

    It's like the renovation of Lambeau Field, a mostly-new building using the existing superstructure. Except that Lambeau Field mainained essentially the same game experience from the seats - they resisted the temptation to put in an upper deck - and "Yankee Stadium II" didn't.
    Last edited by six4three; 04-29-2008, 10:31 AM.

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by David Atkatz View Post
      No?

      Why don't you compare some photos of Fenway when it opened in 1912 to the Fenway of today. Ever hear of a guy named Yawkey?

      Except for the exterior brick walls, almost nothing else is original. (Including the Green Monster.)

      Sound familiar, Gecko?
      I thought meant like how fenway and wrigley both have support beams and once the monster was put in, they have only made additions, not subtractions then additions.
      The one constant through all the years, Ray, has been baseball. America has rolled by like an army of steamrollers. It has been erased like a blackboard, rebuilt and erased again. But baseball has marked the time.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Chevy114 View Post
        I thought meant like how fenway and wrigley both have support beams and once the monster was put in, they have only made additions, not subtractions then additions.
        Wrong again.

        Go check Fenway's history.

        Comment


        • #94
          Yeah - Andrew Clem's site has a great review of Fenway's history.

          You can see how radically it's been changed since 1912, but they kept the same essential spirit in all the renovations. That's what sets the current Yankee Stadium apart from parks like Dodger Stadium and Fenway.
          Last edited by six4three; 04-29-2008, 11:00 AM.

          Comment


          • #95
            "Except that Lambeau Field mainained essentially the same game experience from the seats - they resisted the temptation to put in an upper deck - and "Yankee Stadium II" didn't.'

            Trying to understand your point my friend.....When you are seating anywhere in Yankee Stadium besides the last 10 rows of the Upper Deck or the field level seats(this area was removed to increase the slope of the stands creating a better view)you are sitting in the exact same Stadium....So what's your point?
            Yankee Stadium 1923-2008

            Avid fan of the greatest Stadium ever built! Both in beauty and aesthetics throughout its long Glorious history.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by YankeeStadium1923 View Post
              "Its original Osborne detailing was removed. This is ultimately why YS, in its current form, could not qualify as an architectural landmark."

              Still spreading lies! Try spreading facts.....Original Osborne detailing enclosed.
              Elect MR. Met to the Hall of Fame!

              A few years ago the City determined that Yankee Stadium was drastically changed and could not be considered for Landmark status. This was orchestrated because the New Yankee Stadium was in it's planning stages and the land that occupies the current Yankee Stadium is needed to comply with the Community Benefits agreement to replace parkland lost to build the New Stadium.

              Any building in NYC that is 30 years or older can qualify for Landmark status....
              So the renovated Yankee Stadium was eligible for Landmark status on April 15, 2006.
              So if NYC does not recognise Yankee Stadium a landmark because the original building was renovated......Why wasn't the renovated version condsidered eligible?


              First of all, watch your language, and stop hyperventilating. No reason to throw around the word "lies". I am not lying. You may have a point about a deal being "orchestrated", but you don't understand Landmarks law. To repeat, I am a former Chairman of a local Landmarks Preservation Board (not NYC), so I know what I am talking about. Re-read my post. I am looking at YS as pure architectural specimen. One of the first tests a Board uses is the simple question of whether or not the original builders would substantially recognize the structure. It can be objectively proven that YS was drastically changed in 1973-4. Of course SOME characteristics remain, but not enough.

              Your point, "Any building in NYC that is 30 years or older can qualify for Landmark status....So the renovated Yankee Stadium was eligible for Landmark status on April 15, 2006." is partially correct. It is eligible to submit an application for landmarking. Every building that applies is not automatically granted landmark status. Reality is very FEW applications are granted landmark status. It is designed to be stringent. So sure, YS could APPLY for landmarking, but it could not GET landmarked, because an insufficient percentage of the building is original. And that is not subject to emotional interpretation. As for the renovated 1975 stadium being landmarked, go ahead and apply. You'll need to argue that it is a fine example of 1970's architecture. As I have said on other posts, that would honestly be a fascinating application to write, but again, every application faces an uphill battle before being landmarked.

              And what's with the "Mr. Met" comment? Did I bring up any Met/Yankee crap?
              I think I am being pretty civil and courteous. I am actually showing an appreciation for Yankee history. Ease up, killer.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by GordonGecko View Post
                Architecturally, the current Yankee Stadium shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as the Roman Coliseum. There's not much architecture there left to salvage, it's way past its useful life, and the time has come to say thank you and move on.
                I thought a picture was worth a thousand words...With you a picture could be worth infinity and you still wouldn't get it!

                I bet I could add a 0 to a $5 dollar bill and pass it on to you as a $50!
                Yankee Stadium 1923-2008

                Avid fan of the greatest Stadium ever built! Both in beauty and aesthetics throughout its long Glorious history.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Swoboda4 View Post
                  One of the first tests a Board uses is the simple question of whether or not the original builders would substantially recognize the structure.
                  They would have to be blind not to "substantially recognize the structure."

                  Yankee Stadium was not landmarked for political reasons, not architectural ones.

                  (We're talking about New York City.)

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    There isn't a municipality in this nation that doesn't landmark on political grounds as much as (if not more than) architectural ones.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by David Atkatz View Post
                      They would have to be blind not to "substantially recognize the structure."

                      Yankee Stadium was not landmarked for political reasons, not architectural ones.

                      (We're talking about New York City.)
                      You are probably right. I just don't like being called a liar. And that "substantially recognize" thing is just one of many hurdles, so again, you have a point. But once you start picking apart applications it doesn't take much to kill it. Especially if there aren't proponents on the board to help it along. And they were all, ahem, "influenced" shall we say, against landmarking the place. '23 also asked about a dormered cape. Automatically disqualified.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by YankeeStadium1923 View Post
                        I thought a picture was worth a thousand words...With you a picture could be worth infinity and you still wouldn't get it!

                        I bet I could add a 0 to a $5 dollar bill and pass it on to you as a $50!
                        Man you sure do like to cling to those two pictures like it's your baby blanket. Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by GordonGecko View Post
                          Man you sure do like to cling to those two pictures like it's your baby blanket. Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
                          He wants to stick to his theory that since they left most of the outerwalls up, that it's still the same structure, not to be mistaken for anything else. Forget the fact that upperdeck and upper concourse was drastically changed, roof/frieze was removed, columns were removed, bleachers completely transformed and downsized, and field dimensions were drastically changed. Don't forget about the 2 escalator towers at gate 4 and 6.

                          But hey the outer facade is still there!! Landmark the place!!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by yankees82 View Post
                            He wants to stick to his theory that since they left most of the outerwalls up, that it's still the same structure, not to be mistaken for anything else. Forget the fact that upperdeck and upper concourse was drastically changed, roof/frieze was removed, columns were removed, bleachers completely transformed and downsized, and field dimensions were drastically changed. Don't forget about the 2 escalator towers at gate 4 and 6.

                            But hey the outer facade is still there!! Landmark the place!!
                            Well, let's see. Where to begin?

                            The upper deck was not "drastically changed." Ten rows were added, the old vomitoria closed off, and new ones opened. Otherwise, it is all original.

                            The upper concourse was not drastically changed. A new upper concourse was added. The original concourse was covered, but it still exists, and could be reopened.

                            The bleachers were not completely transformed; it's the same, original to 1936 concrete bleacher structure. The original bleachers, including Ruthville, were torn down and replaced with the current structure in 1936. That's "completely transformed."

                            The field dimensions have been changed over the course of the last 32 years. It is a trivial matter to restore the field to its "old" dimensions.

                            How hard do you suppose it would be to remove those escalator towers, and restore Gates 4 and 6? (Gate 2, of course, still exists in virtually its original form.)

                            So, hey, most of the post 1923-1973 Stadium still exists. So lets tear it down!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by David Atkatz View Post
                              The upper deck was not "drastically changed." Ten rows were added, the old vomitoria closed off, and new ones opened. Otherwise, it is all original.

                              The upper concourse was not drastically changed. A new upper concourse was added. The original concourse was covered, but it still exists, and could be reopened.
                              no more roof. no more frieze. no more columns. closed off original openings. created new openings. added 10 more rows. whole new concourse.

                              not drastically changed huh? ohhhhhkay. whatever you say, davey boy.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by yankees82 View Post
                                no more roof. no more frieze. no more columns. closed off original openings. created new openings. added 10 more rows. whole new concourse.

                                not drastically changed huh? ohhhhhkay. whatever you say, davey boy.
                                No more roof, no more frieze, no more columns. All else is original, or can easily be returned to original because the original material is still there.

                                But, hey, you know it's nothing like the "old" Stadium.

                                BTW, were you ever at the pre-renovation Stadium?

                                Comment

                                Ad Widget

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X