I'm an architecture junkie. Don't ask me why or how this happened, but I can rattle off tons of features of old buildings. So when The New Yorker wrote a review of Yankee Stadium and Citi Field, one completely devoid of baseball jargon and PR fluff, I was intrigued.
The New Yorker:
Citi Field is pleasanter in every way than the harsh stadium it replaces. The park has a casual feel, with warm red brick inside, lots of amenities, great sight lines, and a layout that’s easy to navigate. There are forty-two thousand seats, fifteen thousand fewer than Shea had, all a calm dark green and arranged in somewhat irregular tiers, bringing you much closer to the field than before. The complex has an energetic composition of brick façades, and dark-gray steel elements, which are said to have been designed with the great steel arch of Hell Gate Bridge in mind, and give the place a feel that is as much industrial as retro.
There is nothing in that paragraph I don't like. I've loved the use of brick to line the outside of the building from the start. It's a polar opposite from the bland concrete and harsh blue paneling of Shea Stadium. It invokes thoughts of the hearth of your home and a style of building that has long been forgotten.
The combination of brick and dark metals is spectacular. The way the lighting structures and upper deck of seats stem outward from the red brick hearkens thoughts of Gotham, the city that surrounds it. It's a beautiful play of colors from the dark red and brown to the deep grays.
The article goes on to explain why the Mets don't show any signs of Shea Stadium in their new park, and instead opted for the feel of Ebbets Field. Later in the article, they begin to talk about the surroundings of the two parks, obviously giving a major thumbs up to Yankee Stadium. For Citi Field though, they seem depressed by the endless parking lots and tire repair shops that surround the stadium. Not the Mets fault, and hopefully that will be rectified soon (and correctly).
The articles closing paragraph includes this sentiment, "Citi Field suggests a team that wants to be liked, even to the point of claiming some history that isn’t its own."
They're talking about incorporating Ebbets Field and naming the rotunda after Jackie Robinson, among other things. But without the Giants and Dodgers leaving New York, there likely would be no Mets to begin with. I'm OK with bringing in historic things from around the city and it's baseball history, not so much the Robinson Rotunda.
The more I read, the more I'm excited to finally go and enjoy the new ballpark.
And here is Robinson Cancel, who the AP cited as an infielder. Now that would be something...(Just checked B-R's site -- Cancel has played 23 games at first base in the minor leagues, 40 in the outfield, and eight at third base.)
Ugly.
Less ugly.
