Stadium Discussion

Where Do You Want The Stadium?

  • Manhattan

    Votes: 54 16.6%
  • Queens

    Votes: 99 30.5%
  • Brooklyn

    Votes: 19 5.8%
  • Staten Island

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • Westchester

    Votes: 18 5.5%
  • The Bronx

    Votes: 113 34.8%
  • Long Island

    Votes: 7 2.2%
  • Dual-Boroughs

    Votes: 3 0.9%
  • Etihad Island

    Votes: 5 1.5%

  • Total voters
    325
I don’t disagree with this, and I’ve never had the good fortune of being in Legends (I have no doubt it’d be awesome).

When it comes to colors and layouts, I think the overabundance of gray with the drab concrete is what ruins it for me. The blue is cool, but the concourses suffer from the exposed concrete, like we’re in a factory.

The other obvious part of this is the food, which has already been mentioned. The Mets look like they have deals with local vendors/restaurants in addition to regular ballpark fare (most likely from Aramark or Sodexo, the same companies that provide food to prisons, schools, and other stadiums), whereas the Yankees pretty much only have food from Aramark/Sodexo.

I have to ignore the food for this discussion because that's always changeable. In terms of the architecture, I kind of prefer the minimalist design at Yankee Stadium. Maybe I just have an exposed concrete style personality.
 
I disagree with the sleeker and cleaner look for Citi Field vs. Yankee Stadium. As mentioned previously, Citi Field looks like a classic Americana ballpark with a brick like finish. Yankee Stadium looks like a baseball stadium in the 22nd century with lots of shades of grey and blue. Hell, even the fonts used around the stadium are more classic with the Mets and more modern/postmodern with the Yankees.

I think that Yankee Stadium and Citi Field do equally with the premium locations if you count all the premium location. But Yankee Stadium premium locations are better than Citi Field. You can't beat the Legends experience (maybe only what the Dodgers do is equal in baseball).

But it's just a question of hospitality provider. Throw the food and drink offerings that Citi Field has at Yankee Stadium and we'd only be talking about architecture.

You can see Yankee Stadium in MoMA while Citi Field would be in the Natural History Museum.
You may want to stick with your day job and leave the analysis of the aesthetics of architecture to the experts.
 
You may want to stick with your day job and leave the analysis of the aesthetics of architecture to the experts.
giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
I mean, I’m not sure if you even know what post-modern is, but go ahead and be flippant. Yankee Stadium is a bad cross between neo-classical and brutalist architecture.
Having some experience in this area: Citi field is basically the definition of post modern architecture.

Going to a game at yankee stadium is like taking a commercial flight. If you’re in first class then it’s amazing and unparalleled. If you’re not in the front of the nose then you’re crammed in with everyone else. It’s a tolerable but ultimately sub par experience for the peasantry.
 
That was a good attendance.

I still think NYC can support 2 MLS teams. That's why i'd eventually like to see NYCFC in the Bronx and another team in Queens near citi field. Also someone buys out the Red Bulls and changes the team to New Jersey Football Club.
 
Just from lining up and those sat around us yesterday appeared to be a lot of 1st timers at the game yesterday
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert
Reposting these from the game thread.

I was in 109 too, and even 12 rows up the view was too flat.

I was in 109, Row 12 as well. Agree the view was flat, and I couldn’t see the near corner - pretty much anything outside the penalty area was blocked. Found myself watching the big screen wat too much. Didn’t like these seats, although I think there are better ones to be had.

The food options looked outdtanding in the outfield, but meh behind our section, and the lines were long, and they ran out of things. Also couldn’t find a place to get a good quality brew on tap. Architecture of Citi Field is better, but both have their weaknesses.


Yeah, the food court by 139 had blue smoke, shake shack, a beer bar, cocktail bar...much better. Although I agree with you that the beer selection was lacking. This will change soon when Mikkeler finishes building out their brewpub at Citi Field. (Maybe early next year?)

Overall to me a better experience. I'm ready to build the stadium at Willets. Get it done.

Should have tried farther over by Blue Smoke for beer, but it was half time, and I had 2 other stops to make.

Which reminds me of my biggest complaint. The bathroom lines. Good God Miss Agnes’ housecat they were long. We had two women’s rooms behind us and one men’s, and one had no lines and the other had lines the length of the concourse. I am all for providing additional space for women and evening out the lines, but this was like some female architect decided to get revenge for a century of bad treatment.

Views from 109, Row 12

98A3BB52-B048-4548-A5A1-254AE66E1C2E.jpeg 849BC2B9-6F2E-4D56-BD10-4DA1623948B1.jpeg
 
Overall, I think mgarbowski mgarbowski is correct. The best seats were across from me in left field. I didn’t realize they were raised up a bit or I might have given them a try. The section I was in kind of sucked.
Based on what you and DeGrozz DeGrozz said in the post-game thread, I think the left field seats had not just the better view, but the better experience overall. I think our food lines were shorter because we were close to the food plaza in centerfield, which is more left-center than right-center. So fans in LF were more likely to go there which took pressure off the concourse behind us. I also think the stands on that side hold fewer people which makes lines shorter for both food and restrooms.

The restroom lines at halftime on that side were looong, but moved fast. I left my seat about a minute after the half ended. Then I managed to get a beer and go to the bathroom, and was back in my seats with 2-3 minutes clear before the second half began play.
 
Last edited:
Bathrooms outside of section 123 area had a massive line, walked around a little further to the section behind home playe where there is no seats and the bathrooms there had zero line
 
Based on what you and DeGrozz DeGrozz said in the post-game thread, I think the left field seats had not just the better view, but the better experience overall. I think our food lines were shorter because we were close to the food plaza in centerfield, which is more left-center than right-center. So fans in LF were more likely to go there which took pressure off the concourse behind us. I also think the stands on that side hold fewer people which makes lines shorter for both food and restrooms.

The restroom lines at halftime on that side were looong, but moved fast. I left my seat about a minute after the half ended. Then I managed to get a beer and go to the bathroom, and was back in my seats with 2-3 minutes clear before the second half began play.

It's obviously a stadium designed to accommodate fans over 18 breaks (after each half inning) and not during a halftime rush.
 
It's obviously a stadium designed to accommodate fans over 18 breaks (after each half inning) and not during a halftime rush.
One factor with the crowding is that there were 20,000 people there but they were all crammed into one level. For a random baseball game there'd be the same 20,000 but they'd have four more levels of bathrooms, beer and hot dog stands, etc. I've been to Citi Field a billion times and it's often crowded but it's never anywhere near *that* bad. If it was our regular home we'd have the second level open and it would be less than half as crowded with the same or even more people in the ballpark.

Can't help you with those Shake Shack lines though. The only way to beat it is to go straight there when the gates open.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert and adam
I've never been to Shake Shack, is it really that good? Or is just an image factor like Starbucks vs. Dunkin'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kjbert