I've never seen a good shot of Jacobs Field. Isn't it all vertical steel on the exterior? somehow I think I remember a lot of white painted steel with lots of cross bracing and maybe some point-supported glass.
I like how Camden Yards picks up on the brick from the warehouse without being nostalgic by "aging" it. The way the steel and brick weave together is pretty nice. It doesn't really have a facade though, most of its identity is created by making that street space between the warehouse and the outfield. I love that place. Some of the "architectural" details are hokie though. It is on the verge of being nostalgic without going off the deep end. Which isn't to say I'm in "old-timey" architecture at all.
And again, I like how it is downtown, not separated by parking or in the 'burbs. And this place, honest now, doesn't have a bad seat in it. I tried to find them one day. Every seat has a very good view, even to the same side corner (only a bit gets cut off at the base of the outfield fence, but you don't lose the players when they're over there. And while it is a fairly small park compared to some others, it feels REALLY small, very intimate. You're on top of the field. and the outfield is set up nicely with that concession/shopping street behind it.
Some of these parks get a little too cutesy with their "anomalies," Especially the Astro's new park. I hope they don't get carried away with big dumb coke bottles or weird mounds of dirt in the outfield when they build these new stadia. Well, HOK designs all these places, with the outside shot that NBBJ is doing it instead. HOK makes cutesy stadia. NBBJ makes just about anything though they tend to be a little more modern. I just fear some huge paper maché reproduction of the Bambino's noggin drinking a Pepsi popps up after every home run, fireworks spewing from his ears.
<strong>I just fear some huge paper maché reproduction of the Bambino's noggin drinking a Pepsi popps up after every home run, fireworks spewing from his ears.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what I don't understand is why the hell we need a dome?
so you have a few rain delays and rain outs. it never amounts to more than 5 a year. its part of the game IMO, weather conditions should always be part of baseball.
I think they should be a replica of the original Yankee Stadium using new technology which would do away with the support beams which hindered the view from the old stadium.
<strong>what I don't understand is why the hell we need a dome?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's because they're gunna be using both the Yankees and Mets stadiums all year for things. They're also trying to get the Jets back in NYC from what I've heard.
One of the 'good' aspects of the Red Sox' new ownership is their intent to keep Fenway alive. Their plan is actually pretty well thought-out and clever. They realize that having a historic ballpark is what will keep fans/tourists coming even in years when the team isn't competitive, and therefore worth preserving.
The plan, last i'd read about it was to keep the main bowl of seats, the bleachers, and the Monster, and remove everything above that. Then they were going to build a new level, rising above that. The clever part was that they were going to build the new structure such that it is completely independent of the old one. An upper deck with the requisite luxury boxes would be added piecemeal over a couple of years, losing about 7k seats one year, but then adding a total of 10 or 12k seats compared to the present. The big trick is apparently how to fix the supposedly horrid locker room facilities. One plan was to move the team offices to a new structure across the street and connect it via a footbridge, making all the under-park space usable for player facilities. All this could apparently be done with zero city seizure of property (a big deal, since prior plans called for the seizure of the offices of a major alternative newsweekly, several nightclubs, etc.), and preservation of the perceived valuable historical status of the park.
Personally, i love the plan. If you're a baseball fan and have never been to Fenway, do yourself the favor. i'm hoping they either renovate the place as described, or that the process stalls long enough to make it 100 years old (and therefore a historic building or whatever).
Much as i loathe the Yankees, i wish they had the same kind of (potential) foresight about their home.
Traditionally, NYC does not try to retain older structures. It demolishes and builds on their sites. There have been countless otherwise outstanding structures that have been torn down without and sort of preservation. Preservation is very un-New York. It actually helps identify the city, sets it apart from many others.
<strong>Traditionally, NYC does not try to retain older structures. It demolishes and builds on their sites. There have been countless otherwise outstanding structures that have been torn down without and sort of preservation. Preservation is very un-New York. It actually helps identify the city, sets it apart from many others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but a place like Yankee Stadium that has so much history and so many great memories should never be demolished no matter what city it's in.
<strong>Traditionally, NYC does not try to retain older structures. It demolishes and builds on their sites. There have been countless otherwise outstanding structures that have been torn down without and sort of preservation. Preservation is very un-New York. It actually helps identify the city, sets it apart from many others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
care to provide some examples? Because you sure wouldn' get that feeling from seeing lower manhatten and all the historic landmarks scattered throughout the 5 boroughs.
Hippodrome, Penn Station, (Grand Central to a lesser extent -- the Pan Am Building luckily didn't take it out completely like the original plans), Most of the Financial district, mid-town especially along 42nd and 57th streets, all of Seventh Avenue, much of the Upper East Side's apartment towers, Stuvescent (sp??)/old Ward, The Port Authority bus complex, Most of the Trump stuff (there is one interesting exception where he simply clad over the original building, that is, over the old cladding and all).
There is plenty of older stuff around -- look no further than Columbia's original campus and the Armory. But generally development simply builds over properties. there are some fun books on NYC's "architectural holdouts" -- those little old ladies that refuse to sell their townhouses to big developers and the developers are forced to build around (and over) them. Other cities either don't have the quality of stuff to preserve, invent stuff worth preserving (how many riverfont warehouses really need to be restored and retrofitted for the corporate world?), or are much more adamant about preserving the cities' works now (this is very different from the work of the 60's and 70's). Rome is the other extreme -- no new building is allowed in the historic center. Bad policy.
well, you can't save everything. half the things you mentioned are prime real estate.
I think its obvious that NYC preserves historically significant places. I'm sure similar lists like the one you just made could be made with philly and boston although I'm not as familiar with historic buildings in those 2 cities
[quote]This is unbelievable news. It still doesn't look like it's all worked out yet from the little news I've read. Does NYC have 'money to spare' after the terrorist attacks?<hr></blockquote>
Last I heard, the city was racing towards insolvency.
This is probably of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard of. They might as well have given homeless people bundles of the federal bailout money to burn in barrels for warmth this winter.
NYC seems to love spending shitloads of money when they are in the midst of a financial crisis. Last time they were in the crapper, they decided to go ahead with the construction of two new 110 story skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan. At least there the Port Authority was running the show and there was actually a very good ROI from the millions in rent that were sent directly to the city coffers. (and New Jersey got a completely revamped subway system paid for by the city of New York, thanks to the WTC construction, but that's another story entirely)
Last I heard, the city was racing towards insolvency.
This is probably of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard of. They might as well have given homeless people bundles of the federal bailout money to burn in barrels for warmth this winter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh so you went over all the numbers with your accountant an found some different outcome that the Mayor's office didn't see?
[quote]Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made it clear yesterday that he did not share former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's vision for new baseball stadiums for New York City in the near future, saying that Mr. Giuliani's project would not be given priority this year.
"At the moment, everybody understands that given that the lack of housing, given the lack of school space, given the deficit in the operating budget, it is just not practical this year to go and build stadiums," Mr. Bloomberg said at a morning news conference.<hr></blockquote>
i love baseball as much as anyone, but give me a f***ing break...
there are more important things than even baseball. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, at first I thought the idea of new stadiums was good, but now that I think about it NYC has a lot more things to do. I guess having a mayor who loves baseball for 8 years had brainwashed me that baseball came first.
Comments
I like how Camden Yards picks up on the brick from the warehouse without being nostalgic by "aging" it. The way the steel and brick weave together is pretty nice. It doesn't really have a facade though, most of its identity is created by making that street space between the warehouse and the outfield. I love that place. Some of the "architectural" details are hokie though. It is on the verge of being nostalgic without going off the deep end. Which isn't to say I'm in "old-timey" architecture at all.
And again, I like how it is downtown, not separated by parking or in the 'burbs. And this place, honest now, doesn't have a bad seat in it. I tried to find them one day. Every seat has a very good view, even to the same side corner (only a bit gets cut off at the base of the outfield fence, but you don't lose the players when they're over there. And while it is a fairly small park compared to some others, it feels REALLY small, very intimate. You're on top of the field. and the outfield is set up nicely with that concession/shopping street behind it.
Some of these parks get a little too cutesy with their "anomalies," Especially the Astro's new park. I hope they don't get carried away with big dumb coke bottles or weird mounds of dirt in the outfield when they build these new stadia. Well, HOK designs all these places, with the outside shot that NBBJ is doing it instead. HOK makes cutesy stadia. NBBJ makes just about anything though they tend to be a little more modern. I just fear some huge paper maché reproduction of the Bambino's noggin drinking a Pepsi popps up after every home run, fireworks spewing from his ears.
<strong>I just fear some huge paper maché reproduction of the Bambino's noggin drinking a Pepsi popps up after every home run, fireworks spewing from his ears.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like something Bill Veeck would have loved
so you have a few rain delays and rain outs. it never amounts to more than 5 a year. its part of the game IMO, weather conditions should always be part of baseball.
I think they should be a replica of the original Yankee Stadium using new technology which would do away with the support beams which hindered the view from the old stadium.
nothing like the original. it was beautiful
<strong>what I don't understand is why the hell we need a dome?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's because they're gunna be using both the Yankees and Mets stadiums all year for things. They're also trying to get the Jets back in NYC from what I've heard.
The plan, last i'd read about it was to keep the main bowl of seats, the bleachers, and the Monster, and remove everything above that. Then they were going to build a new level, rising above that. The clever part was that they were going to build the new structure such that it is completely independent of the old one. An upper deck with the requisite luxury boxes would be added piecemeal over a couple of years, losing about 7k seats one year, but then adding a total of 10 or 12k seats compared to the present. The big trick is apparently how to fix the supposedly horrid locker room facilities. One plan was to move the team offices to a new structure across the street and connect it via a footbridge, making all the under-park space usable for player facilities. All this could apparently be done with zero city seizure of property (a big deal, since prior plans called for the seizure of the offices of a major alternative newsweekly, several nightclubs, etc.), and preservation of the perceived valuable historical status of the park.
Personally, i love the plan. If you're a baseball fan and have never been to Fenway, do yourself the favor. i'm hoping they either renovate the place as described, or that the process stalls long enough to make it 100 years old (and therefore a historic building or whatever).
Much as i loathe the Yankees, i wish they had the same kind of (potential) foresight about their home.
<strong>Traditionally, NYC does not try to retain older structures. It demolishes and builds on their sites. There have been countless otherwise outstanding structures that have been torn down without and sort of preservation. Preservation is very un-New York. It actually helps identify the city, sets it apart from many others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, but a place like Yankee Stadium that has so much history and so many great memories should never be demolished no matter what city it's in.
<strong>Traditionally, NYC does not try to retain older structures. It demolishes and builds on their sites. There have been countless otherwise outstanding structures that have been torn down without and sort of preservation. Preservation is very un-New York. It actually helps identify the city, sets it apart from many others.</strong><hr></blockquote>
care to provide some examples? Because you sure wouldn' get that feeling from seeing lower manhatten and all the historic landmarks scattered throughout the 5 boroughs.
There is plenty of older stuff around -- look no further than Columbia's original campus and the Armory. But generally development simply builds over properties. there are some fun books on NYC's "architectural holdouts" -- those little old ladies that refuse to sell their townhouses to big developers and the developers are forced to build around (and over) them. Other cities either don't have the quality of stuff to preserve, invent stuff worth preserving (how many riverfont warehouses really need to be restored and retrofitted for the corporate world?), or are much more adamant about preserving the cities' works now (this is very different from the work of the 60's and 70's). Rome is the other extreme -- no new building is allowed in the historic center. Bad policy.
I think its obvious that NYC preserves historically significant places. I'm sure similar lists like the one you just made could be made with philly and boston although I'm not as familiar with historic buildings in those 2 cities
Last I heard, the city was racing towards insolvency.
This is probably of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard of. They might as well have given homeless people bundles of the federal bailout money to burn in barrels for warmth this winter.
NYC seems to love spending shitloads of money when they are in the midst of a financial crisis. Last time they were in the crapper, they decided to go ahead with the construction of two new 110 story skyscrapers in downtown Manhattan. At least there the Port Authority was running the show and there was actually a very good ROI from the millions in rent that were sent directly to the city coffers. (and New Jersey got a completely revamped subway system paid for by the city of New York, thanks to the WTC construction, but that's another story entirely)
that's how much its going to cost during construction each year for taxpayers.
these stadiums are only going to bring in money.
and those 2 110 story towers turned out to be a pretty damn good financial success no?
<strong>
Last I heard, the city was racing towards insolvency.
This is probably of the most irresponsible things I've ever heard of. They might as well have given homeless people bundles of the federal bailout money to burn in barrels for warmth this winter.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Oh so you went over all the numbers with your accountant an found some different outcome that the Mayor's office didn't see?
<strong>Stuvescent (sp??)</strong><hr></blockquote>
Stuyvesant
-Paul
<strong>One more thing: this is a tentative deal. Bloomberg can back out of it if he wants.</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/08/nyregion/08BLOO.html"; target="_blank">Mayor Says There's No Money to Build 2 Baseball Stadiums</a>
[quote]Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made it clear yesterday that he did not share former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani's vision for new baseball stadiums for New York City in the near future, saying that Mr. Giuliani's project would not be given priority this year.
"At the moment, everybody understands that given that the lack of housing, given the lack of school space, given the deficit in the operating budget, it is just not practical this year to go and build stadiums," Mr. Bloomberg said at a morning news conference.<hr></blockquote>
Translation: Don't hold your breath.
<strong>He said there's not enough money this year, but the idea will still be around when there is enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
wow, so priorities do matter, eh?
i love baseball as much as anyone, but give me a f***ing break...
there are more important things than even baseball.
<strong>
wow, so priorities do matter, eh?
i love baseball as much as anyone, but give me a f***ing break...
there are more important things than even baseball.
Yeah, at first I thought the idea of new stadiums was good, but now that I think about it NYC has a lot more things to do. I guess having a mayor who loves baseball for 8 years had brainwashed me that baseball came first.
<strong>
baseball came first.</strong><hr></blockquote>
well...it used to...
before i retired from playing, and of course before 911...