Its the end...For Shea

[Frayed Knot]

But that's not the city's share of it.
The whole project is only in the 550-ish range.

[metsmarathon]

i'm sorry, and maybe its a failure of my own imagination, but i cannot conceive of a way for shea herself to be renovated in such a fashion as to cost-effectively bring her in line with modern stadia, in terms of seating, amenities, etc.

i also, not that this should really have any bearing on it, cannot fathom how such a maneiver would NOT get derided as the move of a lousy cheapass organization.

[Guest mlbaseballtalk]

metsmarathon wrote: i'm sorry, and maybe its a failure of my own imagination, but i cannot conceive of a way for shea herself to be renovated in such a fashion as to cost-effectively bring her in line with modern stadia, in terms of seating, amenities, etc. i also, not that this should really have any bearing on it, cannot fathom how such a maneiver would NOT get derided as the move of a lousy cheapass organization.

Heh! Listening to Michael Kay on Friday and he was using that agrument (lousy cheapass organization) allready because of the lack of the other 10,000 seats in a New York City ballpark and suggested that the real reason is that we really don't have the funds for it!

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Frayed Knot"]But that's not the city's share of it. The whole project is only in the 550-ish range.

I'm not sure what the 550 number represents, or even how many zeros you're implying.

The Village Voice puts it at:

Start with $85 million in city money (since no Queens parks would have to be moved, the Mets would use it for such things as driving pilings to keep the stadium from sinking into the Flushing muck), plus $75 million from the state, with no garage revenue to recoup the public outlay. The Wilpons, who own the team, would get the same breaks on rent, property taxes, and construction sales tax as the Yankees (net loss to the city: $124 million), tax-exempt bond benefits ($55 million), plus a kickback of $7 million a year in parking revenues that currently go to the city (present value: $96 million). Survey says: $435 million.

="metsmarathon"]i'm sorry, and maybe its a failure of my own imagination, but i cannot conceive of a way for shea herself to be renovated in such a fashion as to cost-effectively bring her in line with modern stadia, in terms of seating, amenities, etc.

You may be right. It's not like I don't know this is a losing battle. But to pull it off would be a far greater accomplishment.

="metsmarathon"]i also, not that this should really have any bearing on it, cannot fathom how such a maneiver would NOT get derided as the move of a lousy cheapass organization.

="metsmarathon"]Heh! Listening to Michael Kay on Friday and he was using that agrument (lousy cheapass organization) allready because of the lack of the other 10,000 seats in a New York City ballpark and suggested that the real reason is that we really don't have the funds for it!

You're probably right there also. It's sad that the nature of art (such as architecture) is such that the terms of judgment it is submitted to are so nebulous to almost always allow judges to vote their prejudice no matter what the product.

I still hope for an organzation that thinks unconventionally, operates in the vanguard, and is so justifiably secure in it's self-image that it fears no spin --- particularly from a source like Michael Kay.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Sixty more home wins, between now and the end of the 2008 season, and the Mets clinch an all-time winning record at Shea Stadium.

Should be easy enough to do. If they don't do it, we're talking about a miserable few years coming up.

[Frayed Knot]

So that's just 60 out of 236 (by my count) home games ... well I should certainly hope they'd nail that one.


It makes sense that the home record would be better than the road and that tracking the 'Shea' portion of it eliminates the two worst years ('62 & '63) but I'm surprised the record's that good seeing as how we're nowhere near a .500 record overall.

Which reminds me that I read somewhere that the Astros/Colts franchise has a chance to go above .500 for their existance this year. They'll need another approx 90-win season but they're knocking at the door either way.
Intereting hwo the routes of the two expansion cousins have differred:
- one franchise has little hope of sniffing .500 unless they ring up about 15 consect winning seasons ... but has 2 WS championships and 2 other NL Pennants
- while the other is on the verge of evening-up their record; but has never won a championship and, until 2 years ago, were without even a playoff series victory.

[Benjamin Grimm]

The Mets are 1,726 and 1,611 and 5 at Shea Stadium.

Mets record by ballpark

[Guest Edgy DC]

Can you sort out net hits and homeruns at Shea?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Actually, even if you counted the games at the Polo Grounds, the Mets would still have a winning home record.

At the old ballpark they were 56 and 105. Add that to the Shea games and you get 1782 and 1716.

Unless I'm overlooking something, the only other place the Mets ever played an official home game is in the Tokyo Dome, where they lost their home game and won their away game.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy DC wrote: Can you sort out net hits and homeruns at Shea?

Not at the moment, but yes, I could.

[nymr83]

Frayed Knot wrote: ]what's the most responsible response a public official can offer: realign the outfield box seats for $175,000 or raze and rebuild the building and the neightboorhood for $444,400,000? This is the 2nd time you've printed these numbers. Where do you get the idea that $175K is sufficient to fix the outfield boxes (as if that's the only problem w/the current seats)?

obviously he's guessing, but i'll do him one better: you can rip out ALL the seats and put new ones in facing wherever you want for a relative pittance (relative to the cost of a new park that is.)

[Benjamin Grimm]

Actually, you can do it yourself (at least for the hits) but copying and pasting into a spreadsheet from this page and this page.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Well, cool. If I have it right, we're coming up on round numbers across board.

Hits:27,507
Doubles: 4,595
Triples: 588
Homers: 2,492

Our team, our time.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Those stats, by the way, are through Saturday's game. I haven't pasted Sunday's box score yet.

[Guest sharpie]

Since Steve Trachsel just got the Mets' 10,000 double, it would appear that the Mets are a better road than home doubling team.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Say it now: Who gets the Mets 2,500th Shea homerun?

I'll put my marker on Nady. He's meaty, beaty, big, and bouncy.

[Frayed Knot]

"you can rip out ALL the seats and put new ones in facing wherever you want for a relative pittance (relative to the cost of a new park that is.)"

And then all you'll have to deal with is the rows of seats in the back of the Loge section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the rows in the back of the Mezzanine section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the vast sections of the Upper Deck where the seats are in a different zip code.

[nymr83]

="Frayed Knot"]"you can rip out ALL the seats and put new ones in facing wherever you want for a relative pittance (relative to the cost of a new park that is.)" And then all you'll have to deal with is the rows of seats in the back of the Loge section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the rows in the back of the Mezzanine section where there are restricted "letter-box" type views, and the vast sections of the Upper Deck where the seats are in a different zip code.

if you're going to take out 10,000 seats in a new park anyway you can eliminate the back 3 rows of loge and mezzanine all together and not lose nearly as many seats.

[Frayed Knot]

This discussion is getting very silly.

[nymr83]

I don't think it is silly, I think it is pretty obvious to everyone but the politicians getting the kickbacks that the Mets don't need a new stadium.

[Frayed Knot]

Not obvious at all.

The silly part is pretending that re-jiggering a few thousand seats will provide the team with the same benefits as a new park.

[nymr83]

]The silly part is pretending that re-jiggering a few thousand seats will provide the team with the same benefits as a new park.

emphasis added.

who cares what benefit Wilpon gets from it? there is public money going into the project so the only real question should be what benefit do WE, the taxpayers, get out of it?

[Guest *62]

Having lived in Denver when the Rockies were awarded to the city and until their first two or three Coors Field seasons were finished, I can say that when a new ballpark goes in the peripheral improvements are often the most noticeable elements of the redevelopment. LoDo in Denver already had the 16th Street Mall area, as well as Writer and Larimer Squares, thriving but adding the stadium at Blake Street virtually doubled the actual social area in LoDo. Whether or not the Rockies ever win a penant the area thrives all year long, with good bumps on baseball nights. All manner of small businesses benefit.

[Frayed Knot]

"what benefit do WE, the taxpayers, get out of it?"

A better ballpark that the team owners are paying for most of.
Perfect? Probably not, but a damn sight better than the deal most cities have struck with teams.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

You'll just have to take my word for it since I can't really cite my work but most studies I've seen on stadium impacts & surrounding retail pretty much shows that a park basically serves mainly to move sales around moreso than spark new businesses, and that pound for pound, the overall gain is minimal especially without an accompanying rise in residential & other stuff like that.

Flushing might be a good example where they'll try to credit the stadium with new development in the iron triangle, but really that's stuff that best plans suggest would happen with or without a new park.

Another antecdotal example: I lived in Wilmington, Del. when a new minor league park "sparked" new development on former industrial wasteland. And it did, but somewhat to the detriment of downtown where more or less, a like number of extablishments went bellyup and others relocated to the new area.

[nymr83]

exactly JD.
I'm not talking about the benefits of bringing a team into town as was done in Denver (and i assume the stadium deal was part of getting the team and mile high was just a convenient place to play in the mean time.)
I'm talking about the public benefits to buildig a new stadium when a functional one still exists.

[seawolf17]

="Nymr83"]exactly JD. I'm not talking about the benefits of bringing a team into town as was done in Denver (and i assume the stadium deal was part of getting the team and mile high was just a convenient place to play in the mean time.) I'm talking about the public benefits to buildig a new stadium when a functional one still exists.

I think the largest public benefit is that it will reduce back injuries, because our wallets get to be a lot lighter from spending twice as much on tickets.

[nymr83]

well put.
This past weekend the upper deck seats were TWO DOLLARS against the Brewers! What are the chances of seeing a promotion like that at the new ballpark? i'd say about 1,000,000,000 to 1

[Guest Edgy DC]

And so, what makes seats "in a different area code" (making up numbers goes both ways) a lesser sin better than pricing them down to their actual value.

Architectually creative ways to upgrade (like pulling the last three rows out of loge) can all be dismissed cynically. The point is that architectually creative ways to upgrade would be cheaper, fairer, and more distinctive.

Build a big glass tower beyond the outfield wall and filli that with boxes for the corporate swells. Move the unisphere within the vicinity of the stadium and change the all-important outfield view that way. Heck pull up the World's Fair towers and stick them out there beyond the wall also, salvaging another Queens landmark (and pretty much an exact contemporary) before it crumbles beyond restoration.

[metirish]

The NY Post in yesterdays editorial pushed that the new place should be named Jackie Robinson Stadium, or " the jack" for short.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/67157.htm