"The thing about New York teams is because they are forced to build in some places they might not want to build in, ...."
What does that have to do with design? Some of these places are just boring to look at......and most don't incorporate the land surrounding them in the design.....it's like a partnership, where one feeds the other.....
I though Mets stadium got raves
Yankee stadium while over priced is supposed to be very nice
Prudential center is a good venue
Never been to Barclays but it seems like a good venue
If you want to include red Bull Arena in the mix I think it would get accolades for design
another NY area stadium that's very impressive looking. I think the article is pretty silly in blaming the area, rather than the designers themselves, for the shortcomings in any of the local stadia.
I think the biggest problem...and this isn't strictly just in NY... Â
is the idea of what constitutes a great stadium. I don't think huge TV screens, loud speakers, and comfortable seats do.
The new stadium is all about distracting the visitor from the event taking place. And even then, in the case of the NFL it's about homogenization and advertising above the game itself.
Look at images from old games played at Yankee Stadium in the '50s, or even at Browns games played at their old stadium as recently as the '80s and '90s. Those stadiums are, in comparison to the new ones, dumps. Yet I'd rather see a game there sitting on bleachers eating a dirty water dog and drinking flat beer watching guys play on grass than I would be watching one of today's sanitized games.
The stadiums reflect the product, and the product is akin to McDonald's. Tastes the same no matter where you are.
I notice the article didn't mention Red Bull Arena, which is an excellent, simple, soccer specific stadium. No bells and whistles...no immense TV screens (there are screens but they aren't huge), no whiffle ball field for the kids...just sit and watch the game.
Putting the zoning restrictions and hoops to jump through aside Â
The article doesn't do a good job explaining what that stuff has to do with poorly designed structures and drab, dull appearances. The only thing in the article that comes close is the explanation that MetLife is intentionally neutral so as not to favor the Giants or the Jets. How is that even remotely fucking acceptable to EITHER team?
Yes - let's go ahead and build a boring stadium with absolutely no character that fans of both teams will end up resenting. Oh! But we can put lights on it! Green and Blue! Great.
If the Meadowlands was to be the site no matter what they had a chance to open up the stadium a bit and showcase a sightline to the NYC skyline. Maybe give up 10,000 or so seats and add some character. Make it a more intimate building in that sense. I'm certainly no architect but with all of that money floating around and the dozens of world renowned architects in the city - that's the best they could do? Awful.
It looks like a shoe polish can wrapped in cheap Christmas lights.
first and foremost, the stadium should be about watching football. It gets an A+ there....you don't walk around during a football game, you're in your seat concentrating on the game.
The video boards are awesome and the sight lines still very, very good. They have improved concessions significantly if that's your thing to eat there.
All that extra fluff stuff, I think they have just enough. The one thing I really enjoy is the Verizon entrance where they have all the games televised before a 4pm or 830pm game.
I never liked the joint venture idea between the two football teams. I understand that, financially, it made sense, but when you create something for two teams it's hard to give it any fan significance.
MetLife is awful - boring, cookie cutter type stadium Â
with lousy sightlines. You're a million miles away from the field in the upper level, set higher and further back than the old stadium. The egress points are poorly configured, there aren't enough bathrooms. Just awful all the way around. Plenty of thought was put into revenue generation, but everything else just seems to have not mattered to the designers.
Barclays - it's a damn shame they didn't follow through on the Gehry plan, because it was something else. I don't know how much they saved going with this one (which is no great shakes but I don't think it's as bad as 'a cow barn').
Yankee Stadium just feels a little too corporate. I like the outside, and the concourses inside are nice. A bit too cavernous and probably lends to the opinion that it's hard for the place to get very loud. I've only been to Citi Field once, but it had a nice feel to it. I agree that even to a non-Mets fan the amount of Dodgers stuff seemed unusual (especially in light of the fact that the Dodgers left NYC because of Moses' desire to move them to Queens).
I don't really care what the stadium looks like, only that it provides a fun game day experience. And for me it achieves that goal. I do think they really messed up with getting into and out of the stadium (especially the upper tier), but that is easy to circumvent.
getting in and out is easy (not talking from parking lots)the video screens are second to none, the concourses are wide. The rap that stadium gets, it is compared to Jerry's place. Aesthetically Jerry's place is "nicer", but from a fan experience, I enjoy Met stadium
Bland, a good portion of the fans in the mid levels and upper deck are far away from the action. Forget the 12th man try the 9000th man far away. Even birds rarely fly by. The list does on and on.
Traveling upstairs blows, its beyond sub par IMO. Having been to 95 % of all the stadiums in the NFL, ours is in the lower third.
For the fan who goes to one or two games a year it might seem okay but for me a failing grade for a new stadium shared by two teams. I miss the old meadowlands compared to this grey jello bowl.
Anything the Jets get involved with stinks plain and simple.
the only negative about MetLife is the less than attractive exterior.
Frankly, once you are in the gates it is one of the best stadiums in the NFL to actually watch a game. Sight lines, access to seats and exits, comfort are all right up there with the best.
I half believe that people would rather have a cool design and then have a shitty experience inside the stadium. I don't get it.
MetLife is an ugly. boring building without any character and I think it's embarrassing that such an expensive stadium that hosts twice as many games as other NFL stadia could be so underwhelming. The only thing I really like is the font used for "MetLife" but I would be pissed and embarrassed if I were MetLife and had to attach my name to that stadium for whatever is left on that contract.
on the West side that had a world-class baseball stadium shared by the Yankees and Mets, and a world-class football stadium, shared by the Giants and Jets would have been outstanding. There was talk of that before the Mets, Yanks and Metlife stadiums were all built. Allegedly the Dolans shot the idea down.
But, CitiField is beautiful. The new Yankee Stadium is a step up from Met Life, but nothing spectacular. It is also a sterile feel to it. They stripped out all the charm and "specialness" of the old place.
The only negative about MetLife IMO is the exterior Â
Its dreary inside the place. That grey color they chose is depressing. I understand it's "neutral" for both Jets and Giants, but it's not pretty, that's for sure.
I've been to Jerry's World and it BLOWS our stadium away. It's beautiful. As much as I hate the Cowboys, they have the best stadium going. And, it cost less to build than our place.
MetLife is a C- stadium. There is nothing that draws you to the place at all. I like the score boards, but that's it.
Really? That's the only issue? How about, after all that money, they have to have people go and change the colored light filters on the lights outside to switch over for teams, instead of LED lights? How about seats on every level that are much farther away from the action than their similar location in the old stadium? How about the poor design to get in and out? How about the drab design? How about the over-inflated price, even by NY/NJ standards?
[quote]If the Meadowlands was to be the site no matter what they had a chance to open up the stadium a bit and showcase a sightline to the NYC skyline. Maybe give up 10,000 or so seats and add some character. [/quote/]
with the added benefit of the new jersey turnpike in the way
tried to build a worse looking stadium they couldn't. It's the worst new building in the country. Nearly everything outside of the video boards about it fucking sucks.
If the Meadowlands was to be the site no matter what they had a chance to open up the stadium a bit and showcase a sightline to the NYC skyline. Maybe give up 10,000 or so seats and add some character.
with the added benefit of the new jersey turnpike in the way
Add Your Comment
on the West side that had a world-class baseball stadium shared by the Yankees and Mets, and a world-class football stadium, shared by the Giants and Jets would have been outstanding. There was talk of that before the Mets, Yanks and Metlife stadiums were all built. Allegedly the Dolans shot the idea down.
There was never talk of this. No idea where you got that from
They are simply underwhelming relative to the prodigious and majestic metropolis they represent. Barclays...anyone remember the original Frank Gehry design? It was amazing (perhaps infeasible beyond just cash reasons, I don't know anything about architecture). Now it's a vanilla slab of mohawk'd concrete. Prudential is the best in the area, though I haven't attended a Red Bulls game yet,
That excludes Met Life which, handicapped to begin with given its vapid surroundings, is a fucking turd. It's awful. The nosebleeds aren't even nosebleeds...they're bring-a-fucking-oxygen-tank-cause-your-ass-is-higher-than-K2....bleeds. To be fair, the primary architect attended Paint-by-Numbers University, which is not a great school.
getting in and out is easy (not talking from parking lots)the video screens are second to none, the concourses are wide. The rap that stadium gets, it is compared to Jerry's place. Aesthetically Jerry's place is "nicer", but from a fan experience, I enjoy Met stadium
Getting in and out sucks. All the tiers use the same escalator. It's idiotic.
Exactly. the only West Side complex ever considered was for the Jets only. I think over 20 years ago, Steinbrenner threatened to build on the West Side. But, he also threatened to move to NJ.
If we were not going to put a roof the stadium at least make it more fan friendly. Grey paint must have been on sale at Lowe's as .
Would it have been such a big deal to have the upper decks a little closer to the action.
They is no zest of life in the stadium. It pains me to say this but the Eagles stadium over shadow ours by a lot. The stadium is interactive with the fan base.
I find it hard to believe the powers a be could not come up with a better solution. Rotating green and blue panels vs. the cheap attempt of hanging banners.
Used to laugh when the Jets had to do it in the old meadowlands as they grasped as having an identity while playing at AHEM home, now I shake my head and think we look cheap across the board.
Thoughtless and Cheap .. its a shame.
When two teams share costs plus with PSL's you would think they could have come up with something better. Its really that simple. Look and feel is one thing that is lacking, but pushing people further away and creating a disconnect by not having a better product of a stadium is weak.
People do not forget, and when you have a fan base that starts dividing generations of fans you risk more than you could gain.
article was as substantial as the filler I use to pad the length of a school essay...
Face it, the article bemoaned that fact that there aren't any instant iconic features in the new buildings like an overblown scoreboard. But who's to say that the entrance way to the Net's arena won't become iconic in time? Yankees Stadium still has its signature exterior as does the new MSG.
I would expect an article about the financil impact of the new building from the WSJ and an article like this from homes and garden
the only negative about MetLife is the less than attractive exterior.
Frankly, once you are in the gates it is one of the best stadiums in the NFL to actually watch a game. Sight lines, access to seats and exits, comfort are all right up there with the best.
I half believe that people would rather have a cool design and then have a shitty experience inside the stadium. I don't get it.
FMIC.....we are in complete agreement.
As a season ticket holder in the 3rd tier, it's awful. Â
Has a great metropolitan view AND is architecturally designed to capture crowd noise and focus it onto the field.
I don't think the fans yell any louder than anybody else, but their presence sure makes a difference for the opposition - which makes it a lot more fun (instead of sitting at home plopped down in front of the TV or at a stadium in the company of old farts telling you to sit down because you may knock down their Canasta cards or knitting needles).
People speak of YS2 as if it were still the House That Ruth Built. It wasn't. It was a fairly generic 1970s stadium with the facade tacked onto the outfield. Lots of fantastic memories but the building itself was nothing special. There might be all kinds of complaints to be made about YS3 (I don't know, I still haven't been there) but people who dislike the new stadium tend to inflate the one it replaced.
First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boy scouts.
Citi Field and the new Yankee Stadium are great,,,I especially like Citi....you are very close no matter where you sit. They did a great job on that stadium.
First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boy scouts.
Take it easy, will ya? You look like the poster boy for birth control.
Citi Field is by far the best of the new bunch... Â
It suffers in comparison, not with other new stadiums, but with our old stadium that, at the time of its demise, was going on 30 years old.
It is harder to get in and out of, the seats in the upper deck are both higher and farther from the field, and there are no improvements that I've seen to parking or the roads. The "louver" design ensures that you're just as cold walking around "inside" the stadium than you are at your seat.
Whoop de doo, I can get a taylor ham sandwich that I couldn't get before. Let me tell you how much that means after I've been tailgating all afternoon. I am very close to selling my seat license. Another outcome of the new stadium appears to be that there are more tickets on the resale market, which has the additional awesome effect of making the seat license I paid harder to get rid of.
Citi Field is the one thing the Mets actually didn't fuck up terribly. The team has sucked since they built it but the stadium is great. Well designed, really nice looking inside and out.. I really like going there.
The one major problem was that you never would have known the Mets played there initially because there was no blue or orange ANYWHERE. They've since fixed that and it looks much better.
I actually have not been to MetLife yet. I went to the old Giants Stadium a bunch of times but MetLife just seems totally unappealing to me. I think it looks fine on TV which is basically all I care about at this point. I'm seeing less and less of a point to actually go to NFL games now.
It suffers in comparison, not with other new stadiums, but with our old stadium that, at the time of its demise, was going on 30 years old.
It is harder to get in and out of, the seats in the upper deck are both higher and farther from the field, and there are no improvements that I've seen to parking or the roads. The "louver" design ensures that you're just as cold walking around "inside" the stadium than you are at your seat.
I agree. There were no bad views anywhere in the old Giants Stadium, whereas the upper deck seats at Met Life are higher and farther from the field and, in my view, do not have good views.
Plus the other things you mention. It still escapes me why they thought the old GS had to be replaced.
I have to disagree with you. I think the seats, at least in the upper tier, are not any easier to get to and the view is not as good as the previous stadium. I say this with no sense of nostalgia for the old stadium.
YS2, as you refer to it, was hardly a generic 70s stadium. Those were all cookie cutter ballparks with almost the exact same design and dimensions. YS2, while not still the charmer the original was, was still one of the most original designs from the incongruous OF dimensions, to the shape of the stadium, to the tiers, to the facade, to bullpen configuration, to Monument Park, to the clubhouse.
Jim Dolan and Shelly Silver killed the west side stadium site Â
But to build a stadium like Jerry Jones did for the Cowboys would have cost 50-70% more in NYC area. Labor and Material costs are so much higher here. Throw in some Graft and corruption as well.
I actually find that parking, getting in and out is much better if you park out by the area and the "deck". I know the guy who was the traffic engineer for the new stadium (he was in a helicopter before and after games over looking the traffic) and we would discuss how it was. There was a clear improvement as time went on and changes were made in flow.
mind you when xanadu opens I am sure that there will be hoards knocking on those doors as well. :)
The field at YS2 wasn't generic, but it wasn't particularly idiosyncratic either, especially not by 2008. They repeatedly changed the outfield dimensions over three decades to make the outfield closer to league averages. The main quirks were the deep foul territory behind home plate and the narrow foul territory down the lines.
In its overall look (as far as layout, roofline, etc) the stadium was pretty bland. I didn't dislike it, but I never felt that the stadium itself was anything special. What made attending games there special was the winning and the history, and most of that history didn't really belong to that building anyway.
Like I said, I can't comment on YS3 because I've never been there.
reason it doesn't get more play is because the mets suck. The problem with Metlife is that they didn't really improve anything. It is cookie cutter with horrible egress plans. The worst part is that for 1.6 billion dollars they couldn't even enclose the concourses and add some finish... they are concrete with all enclosed wiring and conduits. Plus 50 % of the concessions are still cart based!! Granted when I did attend a game and sit in the club, whole different story it was great. But who can afford it routinely?
They played around with the dimensions, but not to league averages. It still remained one of the deeper ballparks in the alleys, retaining Death Valley. And LF to CF was still the incongruous design that was unique to Yankee Stadium. I thought that ballpark was very special inside and out, and it wasn't just the winning, because for most of my childhood they were a 2-4th place team.
You have to remember, the stadium design most of the clubs used in the 70s was the same circular park inside and out with very symetrical OF fences. That was not Yankee Stadium at all.
is the upper deck seems much further from the field. ttb and I sat way up there and it felt like we were outside the stadium, perched on some nearby overlook. You really have no sense of the game that far away.
Is that you cannot walk in a circle in the hall around the stadium without having to go up and down an escalator. Agree with many of the comments. The TV screens are nice.
Those who say that we don't have enough bathrooms should should remeber that the Jets wanted fewer bathrooms. Jets fans don't need them. Appparently they just pee where they're standing.
I heard the original design for new giants staidum Â
MetLife is awful if you're in the upper level. Absolutely awful. You're a mile away, it takes forever to get up that ridiculous escalator design and there aren't enough bathrooms. Even the top 10 rows of the lower level feel like they're a mile away.
Add in the fact the stadium is just very generic looking with relatively no charm, IMO they did a really shitty job.
Citifield is the gold standard of the new stadiums in the area. The place is perfect on pretty much every level.
The new Yankee Stadium I do like for the most part although as many of you have pointed out it lacks the feel of the old. Also Its unacceptable to have the obstructed views in the outfield.
But to build a stadium like Jerry Jones did for the Cowboys would have cost 50-70% more in NYC area. Labor and Material costs are so much higher here. Throw in some Graft and corruption as well.
Why would material costs be higher? Jerry was combating the Concrete shortage caused by China when building AT&T stadium...
Labor costs sure... NJ is the home of the Mafia and CHris Christie so I buy that...
All you need to know is in Dallas they built a stadium that can hold over 100,000, with a roof, a scoreboard that is stupid big 1 year earlier than Metlife Stadium and it cost 100M less.
Does Steel and Glass cost more here than in Dallas, or Pittsburgh or SF where they have some beautiful facilities? No. It is the cost of labor.
I haven't been to Yankee Stadium but even Yankee fans said it is underwhelming, yet it cost over a billion to build.
Citi Field only holds around 42000 fans and it cost 800 million although I too think it is a nice facility.
A "transformed" MSG cost over 1 billion. These are ridiculous costs.
And it amazes me that in many of these facilities there are obstructed view seats. I truly wish the Giants and Jets went in their own direction. The Giants could have build a 1 billion stadium and had it in their colors, with a museum. Instead they settled to build a larger stadium with the Jets. My understanding the Jets wanted a 90000 seat stadium and the Giants wanted in the mid 70's and the compromised. They compromised on design, and color. It is a drab stadium Looks like a air conditioner was dropped in a swamp.
Were a major factor in its cost. The stadium broke ground in September 2007. Over the next year, commodity prices (including steel) exploded, more than doubling over the next year. This was right when all the major construction was occurring, and thus when most the materials were being purchased. Commodity prices then cratered after the housing bubble burst.
Just incredibly unfortunate timing. Had construction started a year earlier or a year later, hundreds of millions of dollars would have been saved.
Do they ever plan to open it?
I hope not on game day if they do.
I always imagined they would string blue and green LEDs around the stadium and similar lighting tricks and change the colors based on who was home to look like their stadium.
Wonder if they will make any improvements for the Super Bowl.
What does that have to do with design? Some of these places are just boring to look at......and most don't incorporate the land surrounding them in the design.....it's like a partnership, where one feeds the other.....
I though Mets stadium got raves
Yankee stadium while over priced is supposed to be very nice
Prudential center is a good venue
Never been to Barclays but it seems like a good venue
If you want to include red Bull Arena in the mix I think it would get accolades for design
The new stadium is all about distracting the visitor from the event taking place. And even then, in the case of the NFL it's about homogenization and advertising above the game itself.
Look at images from old games played at Yankee Stadium in the '50s, or even at Browns games played at their old stadium as recently as the '80s and '90s. Those stadiums are, in comparison to the new ones, dumps. Yet I'd rather see a game there sitting on bleachers eating a dirty water dog and drinking flat beer watching guys play on grass than I would be watching one of today's sanitized games.
The stadiums reflect the product, and the product is akin to McDonald's. Tastes the same no matter where you are.
I notice the article didn't mention Red Bull Arena, which is an excellent, simple, soccer specific stadium. No bells and whistles...no immense TV screens (there are screens but they aren't huge), no whiffle ball field for the kids...just sit and watch the game.
Yes - let's go ahead and build a boring stadium with absolutely no character that fans of both teams will end up resenting. Oh! But we can put lights on it! Green and Blue! Great.
If the Meadowlands was to be the site no matter what they had a chance to open up the stadium a bit and showcase a sightline to the NYC skyline. Maybe give up 10,000 or so seats and add some character. Make it a more intimate building in that sense. I'm certainly no architect but with all of that money floating around and the dozens of world renowned architects in the city - that's the best they could do? Awful.
It looks like a shoe polish can wrapped in cheap Christmas lights.
The video boards are awesome and the sight lines still very, very good. They have improved concessions significantly if that's your thing to eat there.
All that extra fluff stuff, I think they have just enough. The one thing I really enjoy is the Verizon entrance where they have all the games televised before a 4pm or 830pm game.
Barclays - it's a damn shame they didn't follow through on the Gehry plan, because it was something else. I don't know how much they saved going with this one (which is no great shakes but I don't think it's as bad as 'a cow barn').
Yankee Stadium just feels a little too corporate. I like the outside, and the concourses inside are nice. A bit too cavernous and probably lends to the opinion that it's hard for the place to get very loud. I've only been to Citi Field once, but it had a nice feel to it. I agree that even to a non-Mets fan the amount of Dodgers stuff seemed unusual (especially in light of the fact that the Dodgers left NYC because of Moses' desire to move them to Queens).
Traveling upstairs blows, its beyond sub par IMO. Having been to 95 % of all the stadiums in the NFL, ours is in the lower third.
For the fan who goes to one or two games a year it might seem okay but for me a failing grade for a new stadium shared by two teams. I miss the old meadowlands compared to this grey jello bowl.
Anything the Jets get involved with stinks plain and simple.
But, how many bathrooms do you need? LOL......it's certainly an improvement over old Giants Stadium.............
I also have experienced quicker entrances and exits to the stadium, probably attributed to the parking pass.
Frankly, once you are in the gates it is one of the best stadiums in the NFL to actually watch a game. Sight lines, access to seats and exits, comfort are all right up there with the best.
I half believe that people would rather have a cool design and then have a shitty experience inside the stadium. I don't get it.
Well, the stadium was already finished and open when they purchased the naming rights, so they don't really have much to be pissed about.
I've been to Jerry's World and it BLOWS our stadium away. It's beautiful. As much as I hate the Cowboys, they have the best stadium going. And, it cost less to build than our place.
MetLife is a C- stadium. There is nothing that draws you to the place at all. I like the score boards, but that's it.
with the added benefit of the new jersey turnpike in the way
with the added benefit of the new jersey turnpike in the way
Add Your Comment
There was never talk of this. No idea where you got that from
That excludes Met Life which, handicapped to begin with given its vapid surroundings, is a fucking turd. It's awful. The nosebleeds aren't even nosebleeds...they're bring-a-fucking-oxygen-tank-cause-your-ass-is-higher-than-K2....bleeds. To be fair, the primary architect attended Paint-by-Numbers University, which is not a great school.
it's not the building's fault the organization sucks and that it was too green and not enough blue
but cowboy stadium is the tits
A Manhattan skyline view from inside should have been an absolute must...
Getting in and out sucks. All the tiers use the same escalator. It's idiotic.
If we were not going to put a roof the stadium at least make it more fan friendly. Grey paint must have been on sale at Lowe's as .
Would it have been such a big deal to have the upper decks a little closer to the action.
They is no zest of life in the stadium. It pains me to say this but the Eagles stadium over shadow ours by a lot. The stadium is interactive with the fan base.
I find it hard to believe the powers a be could not come up with a better solution. Rotating green and blue panels vs. the cheap attempt of hanging banners.
Used to laugh when the Jets had to do it in the old meadowlands as they grasped as having an identity while playing at AHEM home, now I shake my head and think we look cheap across the board.
Thoughtless and Cheap .. its a shame.
When two teams share costs plus with PSL's you would think they could have come up with something better. Its really that simple. Look and feel is one thing that is lacking, but pushing people further away and creating a disconnect by not having a better product of a stadium is weak.
People do not forget, and when you have a fan base that starts dividing generations of fans you risk more than you could gain.
WSJ - ( New Window )
Face it, the article bemoaned that fact that there aren't any instant iconic features in the new buildings like an overblown scoreboard. But who's to say that the entrance way to the Net's arena won't become iconic in time? Yankees Stadium still has its signature exterior as does the new MSG.
I would expect an article about the financil impact of the new building from the WSJ and an article like this from homes and garden
Frankly, once you are in the gates it is one of the best stadiums in the NFL to actually watch a game. Sight lines, access to seats and exits, comfort are all right up there with the best.
I half believe that people would rather have a cool design and then have a shitty experience inside the stadium. I don't get it.
FMIC.....we are in complete agreement.
My favorite stadium experience has been Lucas Oil, imagine if we had something unique like that...?
I don't think the fans yell any louder than anybody else, but their presence sure makes a difference for the opposition - which makes it a lot more fun (instead of sitting at home plopped down in front of the TV or at a stadium in the company of old farts telling you to sit down because you may knock down their Canasta cards or knitting needles).
First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boy scouts.
"Yeah? Well you're short and ugly - gimme back the pen!"
First of all you're going to have to grease the local politicians for the sudden zoning problems that always come up. Then there's the kickbacks to the carpenters, and if you plan on using any cement in this building I'm sure the teamsters would like to have a little chat with ya, and that'll cost ya. Oh and don't forget a little something for the building inspectors. Then there's long term costs such as waste disposal. I don't know if you're familiar with who runs that business but I assure you it's not the boy scouts.
Take it easy, will ya? You look like the poster boy for birth control.
It is harder to get in and out of, the seats in the upper deck are both higher and farther from the field, and there are no improvements that I've seen to parking or the roads. The "louver" design ensures that you're just as cold walking around "inside" the stadium than you are at your seat.
Whoop de doo, I can get a taylor ham sandwich that I couldn't get before. Let me tell you how much that means after I've been tailgating all afternoon. I am very close to selling my seat license. Another outcome of the new stadium appears to be that there are more tickets on the resale market, which has the additional awesome effect of making the seat license I paid harder to get rid of.
The one major problem was that you never would have known the Mets played there initially because there was no blue or orange ANYWHERE. They've since fixed that and it looks much better.
I actually have not been to MetLife yet. I went to the old Giants Stadium a bunch of times but MetLife just seems totally unappealing to me. I think it looks fine on TV which is basically all I care about at this point. I'm seeing less and less of a point to actually go to NFL games now.
Agreed, I have very little motivation to spend a bunch of money for alot of aggravation when I can be comfortbale doing as I please in my home.
It is harder to get in and out of, the seats in the upper deck are both higher and farther from the field, and there are no improvements that I've seen to parking or the roads. The "louver" design ensures that you're just as cold walking around "inside" the stadium than you are at your seat.
I agree. There were no bad views anywhere in the old Giants Stadium, whereas the upper deck seats at Met Life are higher and farther from the field and, in my view, do not have good views.
Plus the other things you mention. It still escapes me why they thought the old GS had to be replaced.
mind you when xanadu opens I am sure that there will be hoards knocking on those doors as well. :)
In its overall look (as far as layout, roofline, etc) the stadium was pretty bland. I didn't dislike it, but I never felt that the stadium itself was anything special. What made attending games there special was the winning and the history, and most of that history didn't really belong to that building anyway.
Like I said, I can't comment on YS3 because I've never been there.
You have to remember, the stadium design most of the clubs used in the 70s was the same circular park inside and out with very symetrical OF fences. That was not Yankee Stadium at all.
Those who say that we don't have enough bathrooms should should remeber that the Jets wanted fewer bathrooms. Jets fans don't need them. Appparently they just pee where they're standing.
Colors within the corridor are the same grey as the seats.
Add in the fact the stadium is just very generic looking with relatively no charm, IMO they did a really shitty job.
Citifield is the gold standard of the new stadiums in the area. The place is perfect on pretty much every level.
What idiot thought this was a good idea?
Why would material costs be higher? Jerry was combating the Concrete shortage caused by China when building AT&T stadium...
Labor costs sure... NJ is the home of the Mafia and CHris Christie so I buy that...
Jerry isnt THAT great a negotiator... nor is Irsay... between two NFL franchises they should of put a goddamn retractable roof on the thing...
Does Steel and Glass cost more here than in Dallas, or Pittsburgh or SF where they have some beautiful facilities? No. It is the cost of labor.
I haven't been to Yankee Stadium but even Yankee fans said it is underwhelming, yet it cost over a billion to build.
Citi Field only holds around 42000 fans and it cost 800 million although I too think it is a nice facility.
A "transformed" MSG cost over 1 billion. These are ridiculous costs.
And it amazes me that in many of these facilities there are obstructed view seats. I truly wish the Giants and Jets went in their own direction. The Giants could have build a 1 billion stadium and had it in their colors, with a museum. Instead they settled to build a larger stadium with the Jets. My understanding the Jets wanted a 90000 seat stadium and the Giants wanted in the mid 70's and the compromised. They compromised on design, and color. It is a drab stadium Looks like a air conditioner was dropped in a swamp.
Exactly.
Just incredibly unfortunate timing. Had construction started a year earlier or a year later, hundreds of millions of dollars would have been saved.
I hope not on game day if they do.
I always imagined they would string blue and green LEDs around the stadium and similar lighting tricks and change the colors based on who was home to look like their stadium.
Wonder if they will make any improvements for the Super Bowl.