Thursday, October 20, 2005

The Yankees' words prove the lie

Do the Yankees really need Macomb's Dam and John Mullaly parks for a new or expanded Yankee Stadium? Is there really no other way? Well, they and their agents in the City government insist they do. Let's look at the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the new Yankee Stadium and see if it might help clear things up*:

"Reconstruction on the existing site was also considered, but was determined infeasible because of the physical limitations of the site and the consequent inability to provide a modern-day baseball facility."

Really? I wonder what those limitations might be...south of the present stadium is a street which is closed to traffic and a parking garage. Nothing which precludes an ability "to provide a modern-day baseball facility".

"By any measure of a modern ballpark other than seating capacity, the existing Yankee Stadium is too small and functionally inadequate. Although its seating capacity is sufficient, there is not enough space to support the fans and players or to offer appropriate food and other services."

Notice that in terms of seating capacity the stadium is fine--in fact it seats thousands more than the proposed stadium would. So how is it too small? Only in terms of being able to provide "appropriate food and other services." So it is small in the same way that Fenway Park is small. To overcome this, our peers in Boston are building a separate structure which will fulfill the requirements of a "modern-day baseball facility."

"The stadium sits on a site of just under 10 acres, compared to the more than 13.0 acres that a state-of-the-art facility requires."

But notice that the proposed stadium takes up 22 acres, not 13! And still they don't seem to have enough space, even with the TWENTY-TWO acres they are stealing from the community, to preserve our 80 year old oaks which line the perimeter of the proposed stadium site.

A "footprint for a modern stadium would have to be at least 12.5 acres. To expand the footprint to meet this standard on the existing site would mean encroaching on or closing one or more of the streets that surround the stadium."

And yet the plan proposed by the Yankees closes several streets and also encroaches on various sidewalks as well. Keep in mind that the street just to the south of the present stadium is already closed to traffic, and the street just to the west of the present stadium is little more than a driveway.

"As it stands now, Yankee Stadium cannot comfortably handle attendance greater than 35,000"

But it has somehow attracted record breaking, often sell-out crowds for many years running. Witness the full page ads in newspapers a few weeks ago congratulating the Yankees for record breaking attendance this year. The ones doing the congratulating? Major League Baseball.

This is a dishonest document.

*Yankee Stadium Project DEIS, S-4

9 Comments:

At 7:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Yankees need a new stadium. Just visit some of the other newer parks, and it becomes pretty obvious. At least the Yankees are staying in the Bronx and not bailing to the Meadowlands which would have been an easier move.

 
At 9:26 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Or visit Fenway and you see what all these newer parks don't have: a history. Why build a new stadium that looks like the Disney version of the old one? Why not just keep what you have and renovate it to bring it up to standards? And you know what? Moving to the Meadowlands would NOT have been an easier move. What could be easier than moving across the street?
It seems that the people writing on this website are not saying the Yankees can't have a new stadium, just that they don't want it in their park. I sympathize with them. I wouldn't want my local park taken from me, either!

 
At 9:30 AM, Blogger Joyce said...

Am I dreaming? I was under the impression that the current stadium seated in excess of 55,000!!!

 
At 4:17 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It seems that the people writing on this website are not saying the Yankees can't have a new stadium, just that they don't want it in their park. I sympathize with them. I wouldn't want my local park taken from me, either!"

Both sides of the debate are being disingenuous. Of course they're against the new Yankee Stadium! They seem to be taking the tack of not saying it directly because they believe that's the strategy to take.

And oak trees can be replaced.

 
At 5:40 PM, Anonymous JJ said...

"Both sides of the debate are being disingenuous. Of course they're against the new Yankee Stadium! They seem to be taking the tack of not saying it directly because they believe that's the strategy to take."

Speaking for Save Our Parks and the local residents we have met with, I can assure you that we have spoken among ourselves and are in agreement that the Yankees have a right, just as we all do, to exist; that they already have a location to work with; that they can come up with a solution for their stadium needs where they are without taking our parks and open space; and that our focus is simply on preserving our parks, recreational facilities, and trees where they are today. Is that clear enough for you?

"And oak trees can be replaced."

You could replace those mature oak trees tomorrow with young ones and no adult alive today would see those new trees grow to the size the present trees are now. Oaks are very slow growing trees. That is why the wood is so strong. Know the expression "strong as an oak"?

 
At 9:45 AM, Anonymous Anthony said...

I'm a longtime Yankee fan, and I love the history associated with the stadium. I feel the tradition of the orginal Yankee stadium adds to the luster of the team. I remember when Steinbrenner wanted to renovate the stadium and the Yankees relocated to Shea. That felt wrong, but the improvements to Yankee Stadium were worth it. Why not do that again? Given what construction companies and architects can do these days, and given the vast vast wealth of Steinbrenner, he can certainly add his luxury boxes to the current stadium. Move the Yankees to Shea again and do the necessary improvements. Of course the Yankees deserve more luxury boxes and of course New York City fans deserve state of the art facilities. Why can't you do that within the confines of the given infrastructure? I think the Yankees know they can do that, they just don't want to spend the extra bucks. Well, the local residents deserve consideration -- so spend the money George.

Anthony

 
At 9:46 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those who worry that the Yankees will leave the Bronx or NYC must be the world's WORST poker players. Why are the folks so afraid to see that the Emperor Steinbrenner has no clothes? New Jersey doesn't want Steinbrenner and he won't go to Connecticut or Cleveland (his birthplace) or Tampa (his playground). Let's face Steinbrenner has no place to go but stay in the Bronx. Call his bluff!

No more tax money for this Steinbrenner Stadium folly!!!

 
At 8:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Move the Yankees to Shea again and do the necessary improvements. Of course the Yankees deserve more luxury boxes and of course New York City fans deserve state of the art facilities. Why can't you do that within the confines of the given infrastructure? I think the Yankees know they can do that, they just don't want to spend the extra bucks. Well, the local residents deserve consideration -- so spend the money George.

Anthony"

So you want Stein to spend what it takes to field a team but don't want him to save some money so that he can use that same money for a team. Frankly, I'm not surprised that many Yankee fans' attitude is *exactly* the reason why the new stadium is coming along. Yeah, a more rational would figure out this same conclusion as myself.

Also, Mets fans will raise holy hell to keep the Yanks out of Shea again.

 
At 12:53 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yankee fans are shocked when informed that to build a new Yankee Stadium, the current one aka the "House That Ruth Built" will be torn down and replaced with a public park. No surprise that Steinbrenner doesn't like to talk about this fact. If he wants a new stadium then build it over the current one. There is plenty of space to the south for expansion and with the current technology no games would be lost. If we can rebuild bridges without shutting them down then we can rebuild stadiums. There is no need for Steinbrenner to take the fat lazy approach.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home