When Shea was built in 1964, it was praised by many. It was supposed to channel the Roman Colisieum, and succeeds in that goal to a good extent. It had a definite aesthetic that was absent in the parks that followed like the Vet, Three Rivers, Oakland, Cincinatti, etc.

And my own personal feeling is that, especially with only 2 teams in NYC now, the ballparks should be big, massive affairs. There is a risk that the place can look 1/2 empty, but when it isn’t, the experience is unbelievable. 57,000 versus 45,000 is a big difference, even in terms of the roar of the crowd. One reason Yankee Stadium has of late become a pilgrimage for baseball fans is the experience of sitting in it in close to a sold out house. The sheer massive size of the place, the sound, the intensity, makes it a unique experience, different from that of Fenway or Wrigley. So too Shea.

One other comment. Having gone to games at the Vet followed by CBP, and having attended a ton of games in Baltimore, I am very concerned of the amusement park aspect of the new generation of ballparks. At the old Vet, the main attraction was baseball, and when the Phillies were good in 1993, it was great. I think part of the reason that NYC baseball fans are incredibly smart and savvy about the game is because both Shea and Yankee Stadium are pretty no frills. You go there to see baseball - not to play on all the other distractions. To be sure, I don’t blame the owners for wanting to have attractions to keep customers entertained if the home team is flopping, and as one who takes a 4.5 year old kid to games, having some other distractions is very useful. But I do worry that something intangible will be lost in the new generation ballparks we’ll be getting here.

That said, CitiField does look nice.

“Citifield looks exactly like pictures I’ve seen of Ebbetts Field. It looks as if it should be on a street corner in Brooklyn in the ‘40s or ‘50’s. It doesn’t really belong on this windy plain off Flushing Bay. ”

My sentiments exactly. I went to opening night on Wed. evening, so also got a good look up close at CitiField. Setting aside the lunacy of a 45,000 seat stadium (which apparently is inclusive of standing room only tickets. Wed night’s game had over 47,000 attendees), although I agree that the new field looks terrific, once Shea comes down, I have this terrible feelings its going to look like this oddball fake old timey ball park plunked down in the middle of an open field/highway exit. And, because ballparks are prime examples of public architecture, I have an issue with this.

Camden Yards and Jacobs Field and whatever the hell the San Francisco ballpark is called this week work because they pick up and play off the surrounding architecture. Camden Yards is (for me) still the best of the new generation intimate ballparks despite being the oldest of them because it was brilliantly integrated into the surrounding industrial warehouse district and made use of the B&O Warehouse behind it. So too with the ballparks in Seattle, San Francisco, Cleveland. They understood that what makes Fenway or Wrigley work is how they blend into the surrounding area.

Yankee Stadium (as a matter of architecture) also understood that. Although the 1970s revamp sterilized it somewhat, it manages to both blend into the surrounding South Bronx area (touching on some of the art deco features and the Criminal Courts building, etc) while at the same time having a hulking, massive presence that reflects the team’s somewhat larger than life status. It remains a striking feature on the landscape when one drives up the East Side of Manhattan. Recognizing that, the new Stadium (from what I can tell) appears to carry on that tradition, (and, at least in some of the retro touches, may amplify it).

In contrast, we have Citizens Bank Ballpark in Philadelphia. Which, to be sure, is a great place to visit, great sightlines, etc. But archictecturally, it looks a little silly - just sort of plunked down in the middle of a large parking lot, without being framed by anything. (That is actually why most Philly fans wanted the stadium to be near the 30th Street Station yards). Plunking down an retro stadium in the middle of a parking lot has a weird effect. Sort of like Epcot Center in a construction phase.

That isn’t to say that I think ballparks should be plunked down in the middle of neighborhoods. The loss of parkland for the new Yankee Stadium stinks, and the eminent domain fights are a disaster. I think the Mets are doing the right thing in putting CitiField on the existing footprint for Shea, rather than relocating it altogether. As much as I think it would be aesthetically pleasing to have the ballpark in Long Island City or Astoria facing the Manhattan skyline, it would create all kinds of havoc with existing residences and businesses, and have long legal fights. Exhibit A - the new Nets arena in Bklyn.

But architectually, it seems to me that the model they should have looked to was not Ebbets Field or even the Polo Grounds. It is Dodger Stadium (which I saw one reviewer describe as looking 40 years younger than Shea Stadium despite being several decades older). Chavez Ravine’s topgraphy is different from Shea, but is comparable because its sort of a stand-alone. And it is a beautiful stadium that is unique and fits into its surroundings.

I don’t know if you got as good a view from the greens, but It looks like they’re going to be able to have some sort of patio on top of the Rotunda, which should be pretty cool.