“When I’m here, I see the spot where Gil Hodges used to sit, Rube Walker. I look to see where Tug McGraw used to sit..."

And then there's the two spots where Sid Fernandez used to sit...

I feel like I'm the only one who's sad to see Shea go. (Although it's more that I find the money wasted on a freaking stadium is a crime against a number of better uses for said money.) I will continue to contend that it's become the standard whipping-boy for stadiums and if you DON'T say it's a piece of crap you're looked upon as a lunatic or Mets fanboy. All the accounts of how it's a terrible stadium give as a reason: It's a terrible stadium. That's not a reason.

I am very sad to see Shea go. Sorry, maybe I'm too hardcore, but I feel that expensive, luxury suited-out stadiums are for wimps.
I visited Nationals Park for the first time last week. I cannot see why it is worth $600 million more that RFK. The seat is the same, the field is the same, the game is the same. Ballpark food is hot dogs, not filet mignon.

My first game at Shea was with my great uncle Fred, my mother, God rest their souls, and my sister. The fly balls seemed like they'd never come down.

Some of the things I don't like about Shea will not go away by moving across the street. The airplanes, the long 7 ride to get to the game, the lack of anything to do in the area. Some might be improved, but the prices are going to be a lot higher and I do object that NY city had to kick in any money for either the Yanks or Mets.

When I saw the headline, I thought that Shea Hillenbrand had been lodging in his spare bedroom

I only went to Shea once, 20-odd years ago and it seemed beaten up then, somewhat dirty and smelly, strangely echo-ey and the damned planes... I'm sure we were in the cheap seats so I can't attest to sight lines and the such. Oh, it was filled with Mets fans :)

All the accounts of how it's a terrible stadium give as a reason: It's a terrible stadium. That's not a reason.

OK. It's rusting, one sign of the many years in which New York didn't keep up the place because it couldn't afford to. The bathrooms don't function well and stink. The seats are uncomfortable. The sightlines aren't great for many of the seats because, as a multi-purpose stadium, it isn't built just with baseball fans and a baseball diamond in mind. You don't actually face the field of play, but are instead at an odd angle. The upper deck seats are far, far away from the action.

I'm with Seaver -- so go ahead and call me insensitive too, kevin. Even though I'm about the most sentimental baseball fan there is. I have the equivalent memories of that place from a fan's-eye view that Seaver has from a player's, and it is the memories of what happened there and who passed through to make those events happen that I will treasure. Not the building. The building is a wreck. The memories are in my head and heart, not in the physical space. One ball goes off Mookie's bat through Buckner's legs, and another goes off Davey Johnson's bat into Cleon Jones's glove when I close my eyes, wherever I am. I don't need to be at Shea for that. I don't even need Shea to be standing any more.

In fact, not only is Seaver not insensitive. He expressed it beautifully, by evoking the men he played with and for, and reminding us of them one more time. I hadn't thought of Rube Walker in quite a while, but he was an important part of the Miracle Mets, developing one of the great Kiddie Corps staffs of all time (Seaver and Ryan and Koosman and McGraw and Gentry -- all coming up at basically the same time; are you kidding me???). Good for Seaver for gently reminding us that when they move to Citifield, there will be all new memories of Wright and Warthen and Murphy and F-Mart to be made. It isn't about Shea. It's about the baseball and the players.

Not really, kevin. I figured. Just gave me a chance to wax sentimental.

It's rusting

This I can't comment on because I admit I don't notice it.


The bathrooms don't function well and stink.

Neither do the bathrooms at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Please. They function like public bathrooms. I feel like people who piss on the seats and treat these and all public bathrooms like a trash dump should be literally beaten with bats, but the bathrooms at Shea are no worse than the public bathrooms anywhere. The nicest stadiums I've been to have been Safeco and the Giants stadium and the bathrooms there are just as bad.


The sightlines aren't great for many of the seats because, as a multi-purpose stadium, it isn't built just with baseball fans and a baseball diamond in mind. You don't actually face the field of play, but are instead at an odd angle.

Having been to at least 10 major-league stadiums, I haven't noticed this being a problem at all. Maybe in the last-row mezzanine seats. The upper deck seats seemed far away to me when I was 10, but mostly because I was rather small. I was in the upper deck last week, seemed fine. And it WAS built as a baseball stadium, I have NEVER noticed this "odd angle" to which you refer.

kevin was being facetious, Sam.

I completely agree with Seaver as well, the memories are the thing, not the building. Honestly, I like Fenway, Wrigley, and Yankee stadium being there because they are OLD old, not just from the 60's, and I do wish they could have just remodelled the current Yankee Stadium instead of buildling something that looks like the Luftwaffe Headquarters, but that's another story.

The question is whether a new stadium is NEEDED and whether Shea is a TERRIBLE stadium. To me, the answers are no and no. It's a waste of money, in my opinion, and it's not about the building. HOWEVER, the building is nowhere near as bad as it's been said. I guess it comes down to a matter of opinion, I suppose, and that's mine.

Seaver went on to say what a shame it was when they tore down Riverfront Stadium.

Maybe in the last-row mezzanine seats.

The problem with the last-row mezzanine seats, as well as the last row loge seats, isn't so much the angle at which you face the field. It's that there is a structure directly above your head that prevents you from seeing about a third of the field, as well as anything hit in the air. From time to time, I'm willing to sit in the nosebleed seats, just because the atmosphere of the stadium can be enjoyable. But I'm never willing to sit in the last rows of the loge or mezzanine. I'm assuming/hoping the new stadium will fix that problem. The new stadium may have 10,000 fewer seats, but there are 5,000 or seats at Shea that really shouldn't be there.

HOWEVER, the building is nowhere near as bad as it's been said. I guess it comes down to a matter of opinion, I suppose, and that's mine.

I think part of the prollem is that Shea is linked with (and considered the prototype of) The Vet-Three-Riverfront-"cookie-cutter" stadia of the 70s

which have gotten a bad rep in the last 20-25 years for really no good reason, except that they're boring and have artificial turf and are multipurpose

the Camden yards retro movement has assigned these to the ash heap of history (or did someone already say that?)

The question is whether a new stadium is NEEDED and whether Shea is a TERRIBLE stadium.

Besides all the things I said -- which I stand by, BTW -- there's also the fact that it is just absolutely boring. There is nothing interesting about it at all. It is a circle. A rusting circle, but even before it was rusting it had an ugly color scheme surrounded by a parking lot. There is nothing architecturally distinctive, nothing quirky about it as a baseball stadium that affects the play of the game, nothing that grabs your attention when you enter, or while you are there. It has an absolutely cheesy stupid apple that comes out of a frigging hat. Blech.

And my experience in public restrooms at Safeco, at Petco, at ATT Park, at Miller Park . . . literally every new stadium I've been to is that the toilets function better, the smell is better, and the experience is not revolting the way it often is at Shea. Other old stadiums (e.g., Wrigley, Yankee Stadium) are comparable, but still not as bad as Shea in that regard.

The problem with the last-row mezzanine seats, as well as the last row loge seats, isn't so much the angle at which you face the field. It's that there is a structure directly above your head that prevents you from seeing about a third of the field, as well as anything hit in the air.

Yes, this is what I definitely meant, and rather forgot to specify. It's where I was sitting when Piazza hit that 9/11 HR. It was kind of annoying, but the place was packed, and they were cheap.

...there's also the fact that it is just absolutely boring.

Sam, have you seen the outside of the new stadium? It's not exactly Frank Geary.

There is nothing architecturally distinctive, nothing quirky about it as a baseball stadium that affects the play of the game, nothing that grabs your attention when you enter, or while you are there.

Without being bltchy, I do have real fear that this new stadium is going to be dull, actually. Not distinctive, not quirky, not warm, but corporate.

I'm also against the parking lot, Sam. And Shea's going to be turning into one more. ;-)

I have to admit that on my only trip to Shea, I had a good time and found the place to be very pleasant. Yes, the bathrooms stank but it was New York. I had just been staying at a nice place in Manhattan and just outside the hotel there it smelled like urine. In that environment, what chance does a public john at a ballpark have?

It isn't a GREAT stadium. But I can see the philosophical point that it was functional and sufficient and there are better things to spend money on than another park across the street. Of course, it's naive to think that money will get spent according to one person's moral priority (not judging you - I often think the same thing).

It has an absolutely cheesy stupid apple that comes out of a frigging hat. Blech.

I was with you right up until here. Don't knock the apple, man. The apple must be obeyed.

They best thing could do would be to keep the apple.

Sam, in case you haven't heard, I believe the plan is to do so.

Without being bltchy, I do have real fear that this new stadium is going to be dull, actually.

Compared to Shea? Are you kidding? It has a dramatic entryway. It has arches and bricks. It has the contrast between the verticality of the lines of the outside structure, and the circular steel bowl for the seating.

It's not even close. Citifield may not be the greatest thing to hit New York, but it certainly is the best ball park there. Way better than Shea, and light years better than that mausoleum they're building in the Bronx.

EDIT:

They best thing could do would be to keep the apple.

Sam, in case you haven't heard, I believe the plan is to do so.

So I've heard. I realize I am distinctly in the minority on that. I think that apple is amazingly tacky and exemplifies everything they should leave behind when Shea is demolished. Put the damn thing in a museum if you have to keep it at all. If you have to have an apple, build a really nice one. If such a thing could be imagined.

It has arches and bricks.

SNORE



I won't make a judgment until it's done, and I'm not saying it WOULD be that, I'm saying I fear that it will be that. I am perfectly willing to be convinced.

(Unlike you about the apple.)

I'm with you about the new Yankees Stadium. So far it's just weird and scary.

I feel like I'm the only one who's sad to see Shea go. (Although it's more that I find the money wasted on a freaking stadium is a crime against a number of better uses for said money.) I will continue to contend that it's become the standard whipping-boy for stadiums and if you DON'T say it's a piece of crap you're looked upon as a lunatic or Mets fanboy. All the accounts of how it's a terrible stadium give as a reason: It's a terrible stadium. That's not a reason.

I was there for almost assuredly the last time about a month ago, and concur -- there's nothing "wrong" with it at all, other than the fact that there aren't enough areas that make it easier for more people to part with more money. The concourses aren't wide enough for enough food courts and other mallish outposts and there aren't enough boxes for corporations to waste money on -- money that is subsidized by the general taxpayer.

Seaver's right to focus on the centrality of the people who use it. And the Met fans that use Shea are loud, they're boisterous, and they're passionate. The acoustics of the park, intentionally or otherwise, capture that energy very well -- so much so that it carries and translates well even on television, especially in the postseason.

The other bad thing about Shea is the lighting. It has the worst lighting for night games in major league baseball -- I believe only Olympic Stadium in Montreal used to use the same type of lighting, and it's (obviously) no longer in use. Visibility for hitters has always been a problem in night games at Shea, and an especially big advantage for power pitchers. Early in his career, Gooden's day/night splits were just absurd. Seaver, too, though not as dramatic.

Citi Field is, I'm pretty sure, going to have lighting that will actually be fair to hitters. Carlos Beltran will be very, very grateful.

Having been to at least 10 major-league stadiums, I haven't noticed this being a problem at all. Maybe in the last-row mezzanine seats. The upper deck seats seemed far away to me when I was 10, but mostly because I was rather small. I was in the upper deck last week, seemed fine. And it WAS built as a baseball stadium, I have NEVER noticed this "odd angle" to which you refer.


Given the gentle pitch of modern stadiums and the stacks of luxury boxes, the jury's still out on whether an upper deck seat at Citi will have a better sightline than the same seat at Shea.

if you DON'T say it's a piece of crap you're looked upon as a lunatic or Mets fanboy.

Obligatory Snark: Isn't that redundanct?

Actually, the Mets fanboys are more likely to hate the stadium than anyone.

I probably have longer memories of Shea than most. My biggest regret: I didn't get to go along with my older brother when he took my Father to the stadium one Father's Day in the 60's. Jim Bunning was pitching that day . . . .

I remember when it was first built. It was new and seemed so special, although I never did understand the multi-colored confetti-like metal decorations on the outside. What was that supposed to reference, ticker tape?

I went with my brother to a banner day, with a home made bet sheet banner, and we got to walk on the field between games of a double header.

Then there was the glorious days of 68-69, with Joe Namath leading the Jets to a Superbowl, followed by the Miracle Mets. The Mets fans charging the field and tearing up the sod to take home memories to plant in their front yards.

For all that, I am not sorry to see it go. It was a dump by the end. I have mixed feelings about building the replacement next door. The neighborhood still is not a neighborhood. But there is something about the planes going overhead that seems to fit. Didn't Keith used to joke that he could tell what direction the wind was blowing by which way the planes took off?

Maybe this has been said a million times and I've missed it, but has anyone ever noticed that Shea is a copy of Milwaukee County Stadium? It smelled weird too. Nothing captured the smell of stale beer and peanuts like County.

The new parks tend to be quirky and nostalgic in the way an Applebee's is like a neighborhood joint.

Nothing captured the smell of stale beer and peanuts like Count

add urine to that panoply of smells and you have Municipal stadium in Cleveland

Isn't the vast majority of Citifield being paid for by the Mets? I'm no advocate of public financing for stadiums, but I don't think this stadium uses much of it- as far as I can tell the city isn't even spending a ton on infrastructure improvements.

Isn't the vast majority of Citifield being paid for by the Mets? I'm no advocate of public financing for stadiums, but I don't think this stadium uses much of it- as far as I can tell the city isn't even spending a ton on infrastructure improvements.

The money the city is spending, basically, on the Mets' behalf isn't as quite as obvious as it is at Yankee Stadium, but it exists just the same. The city is using CitiField as the excuse/motivation(depending on what one believes) to clear out the Iron Triangle behind the new park.

Excuse, probably. Though if they clear out the Iron Triangle behind the park, won't that be a start of the neighborhood people wish for near a Mets park?