Update - April 22, 2009. Statistically, this post has become one of my most popular. I'd like to hear what you think of the two new ballparks. I invite you to log in and write a post. - Lou

Each day that passes City Field is looking more and more like a finished product. The new Yankee Stadium is making great progress as well.  Here's a review of the two designs that are going up in Flushing and the Bronx simultaneously.  First I’ll discuss Citi Field then give you my thoughts on the new Yankee Stadium. 

The Mets were in a much better position than the Yankees were in regard to the freedom they could give their architectural team. After all, unlike Yankee Stadium, there really were no characteristics other than the diamond itself the Mets wanted to capture from Shea Stadium. It was fairly unanimous that the design of Shea is dated and certainly not considered a classic. Shea may have been the first cookie cutter built but it also remains one of the last ones standing. Oakland's McAfee Coliseum is also still open but not for much longer either. The other circular parks that followed Shea, Busch, Three Rivers, Riverfront, Atlanta Stadium, and to some degree Veteran’s Stadium have all disappeared via the wrecking ball or implosion. These stadiums had one thing in common: dual purpose. With that came functionality with no inspiration. They were big cavernous monsters that could accommodate around 50 thousand for baseball to 70 thousand for football. Lost was the intimacy of the old neighborhood ballpark like Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, and the immortal Ebbets Field. That all changed in 1992 when Baltimore opened Oriole Park at Camden Yards. Since then there has been a renaissance in baseball ballpark development and design.

So when the Mets sat down in the mid 90’s and began to realize they needed a replacement for the hulking Shea, it was intimacy, history, and state of the art they had in mind. First they unveiled a retractable roof version of a new Mets home. But the city and state of New York was never keen on the idea of paying for it. As delays ensued, and 9/11 occurred, it was obvious the Mets were not to get a new stadium anytime soon. Finally the Mets decided to fund the ballpark themselves. The cost of a roof became too exorbitant but many of the “Ebbets Field” qualities, including the wonderful arch brick exterior remained in the design which eventually will become Citi Field.

Word has it that as much as Fred Wilpon was influential in getting a new ballpark, many of the major design features can be attributed to son Jeff who with a team of Mets officials toured the new parks around both leagues. They determined what features they liked and disliked to ultimately arrive at the design of the new Mets stadium. Frankly I think they did a great job. First off, I never liked the idea of a roof. To me, baseball is an outside game and rainouts are a part of that. Plus, esthetically the retractable roof in the first model was enormous and really detracted from the overall design. 

In Citi Field the 360 degree concourse gives fans the opportunity to walk around the entire ballpark. This is a great feature especially if you have kids. They never want to sit in their seats for nine innings. The split level design in the upper tier is also a great feature. When you leave your seat to go to the concessions, you can still see the field. There is a real openness to the place. Also the light towers have that real old ballpark feel to them. Their curved appearance is meant to represent the multitude of bridges found in the city. The exterior façade emulating Ebbets Field will be stunning. Ebbets should have looked so good. Certainly the Jackie Robinson rotunda will be a place to meet and hang out before the game.

In appearance, Citi most resembles Camden Yards. Not the exterior but the interior is similar in that the stands wrap around from the right field line clockwise to left center field. Plus it will have the classic green seats like many of the new retro stadiums. Another really cool design feature is the right field area with the double deck stands where the top deck hangs over the field by eight feet.

There really is not much to not like about the Citi Field design. Unfortunately because of its location Citi Field will not come with a nice view like the ones in Pittsburgh or Baltimore with views of the city skyline. The Mets committed from the beginning to stay on the Shea lot so nothing could be done about that. But the Mets did create a park where a view is unnecessary. Unlike Shea the outfield is closed in with lots of seats in the outfield. Hopefully they will be priced reasonably. I would like a bit more foul territory. In making the park intimate, the seats are much closer to the field than at Shea but that means less foul territory and less pitcher friendly at least in that regard. The only real criticism I have is there should be more seats. 42,500 seats in my mind are not enough for a New York team.  I understand the concept of creating demand and it doesn’t make sense to maintain seating areas that are seldom filled, but a number like 48,000 to 50,000 would have been more reasonable. A couple of extra rows in the upper tier and more bleacher seats could have accommodated a bigger seating capacity without giving up the esthetics of the design. However, I believe the Mets have hit a home run with the design of Citi Field.  It will be a jewel that Mets fans can enjoy for years to come.

The Yankees had much less flexibility than the Mets in terms of design.  The Yankees had to re-create Yankee Stadium or they would have had to fend off a riot from their history minded fans. HOK whom also designed Citi Field did another magnificent job with the design of the new Yankee Stadium. Fortunately they took most elements from the original Bronx ballpark, not the renovated version from 1976. The main element was to recreate the outer wall of the stadium like the original and the famous frieze that rings the roof above the upper level. The basic shape of the Yankee yard is like the old park with bleachers in the outfield. They're putting auxiliary scoreboards back on the outfield walls like they used to have too—nice touch. Like Citi Field, the upper level is a split level design. The park will feel much more open and spacious than the current ballpark. While emulating the old stadium, there is still a lot of modern in this design.

Many Yankee fans are still upset because they feel there is so much history being left behind at the old yard.  Let me point out the Yankee Stadium standing in the Bronx today has about as much in common with the original edifice as Cellular Field has with the old Comiskey Park. The old Yankee Stadium was gutted in 1974 when for 2 years the Mets had to allow the Yankees to play at Shea. (I still haven’t gotten over that). Put in its place was a semi modern version with most of the great features of the original stadium stripped away. The new design is a much closer relative to the older yard.  And they’re only moving across the street, It’s not like they’re moving to Jersey, Manhattan, or Yonkers, which of course unlike the Mets, the Yankees threatened to do.  The new Yankee Stadium will be beautiful. I look forward to seeing the Mets beat the Yankees there in inter-league play.

The one thing I don’t like is the restaurant in the outfield bleachers.  Based on the computer models, it looks a bit overbearing. Also I do not like the lighting.  In the new design, the lights, like the current stadium, ring the roof.  In my opinion they take away from the classic frieze they are putting back on the roof.  I feel it would have been better to have 4 to 6 separate banks of lights further emulating the look of the old stadium.

The real winners here are the New York baseball fans.  I hope to go to Citi Field often and even though I’m a die hard Mets fan, I occasionally go to Yankee Stadium (I always root against them of course).  What a pleasure it will be for all New York baseball fans to enjoy games in these two beautiful new stadiums. 2009 will be here before you know it.