WSJ: Why Can't New York Build a Great Stadium?

There are too many regulations that making building ANYTHING in this area difficult, unless it's a shopping mall, which seem to pop up all the time.

Xanadu

"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.....

.

is great. But that doesn't fit his thesis so the best thing he can come up with is the Dodgers stuff which they fixed. Pfffft.

The Dodgers stuff at Citi is a bit weird, but that's interior decorating, not a failure of how it was built.

what are the issues with the stadiums?

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.

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.

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.

:)

but the refurbished Madison Square Garden located in the heart of NYC is a great building.

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.

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.

I have never sat in the uppers, so I can't comment but take your word on it. Have heard that before too....


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.

Yankee Stadium is a newer, crappier version of the old building. MetLife is terrible.

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 in the northeast it should have a retractable roof. Especially if you want to host Super Bowls in February .

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.

It would've been great to have a view of the NYC skyline while being inside of the stadium

In comment 11483783 PaulBlakeTSU said:

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

and that was built like 11 years before.

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?

I mean I never had a bad view from where I sat or had an issue getting in & out of the stadium.

[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.

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.

with the added benefit of the new jersey turnpike in the way
Add Your Comment

In comment 11483813 Pork Chop said:

Quote:

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.

it's not the building's fault the organization sucks and that it was too green and not enough blue

distance crap around the stadium.

but cowboy stadium is the tits

Considering what could have been with all the resources, the location etc... it is a major fail... and The Giants are shackled to it..

A Manhattan skyline view from inside should have been an absolute must...

In comment 11483730 Headhunter said:

Quote:

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.

Thanks for your post and agree it spot on ...

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.

MetLife stadium? Also, could the fact that the mystery $300M loss have had any impact on the stadiums construction?
WSJ - ( New Window )

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

In comment 11483778 FatMan in Charlotte said:

Quote:

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.

The sight lines are definitely worse than the old stadium and getting in and out is a huge pain.

My favorite stadium experience has been Lucas Oil, imagine if we had something unique like that...?

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).

.

Giants should have built a copy of the Lions stadium and added suites and been the sole tenants.

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.