11/21/24
August 16, 2006
Ground Breaking begins on the house that George built: No... not that George. George Steinbrener and various baseball offcials broke ground on the new Yankee Stadium. Any thoughts about the situation?
Except for the $200 million, according to this arcticle, that the city and state are putting in, yeah, the Yankees are paying for everything themselves. I've read in the last few days where the city/state contribution might exceed $400 million! You may want to read the link before commenting, and attacking other owners and blessing St. George. You do have to give the Yankee bean counters credit though. All dollars that the Yankees would have contributed to revenue sharing, they can apply to the stadium construction, .....and the ultra rich get ultra richer.
posted by tommybiden at 10:12 PM on August 16, 2006
How could u take down the park where mickey mantle, babe ruth, lou gherig, joe dimaggio, reggie jackson, don matingly, yogi berra,derek jeter, alex rodriguex and so many more without-a-doubt hall of famers called/call home? It saddens me. However, on a lighter note, when i first heard of the new stadium in an article on the cbs or abc website it said they will keep the stadium as a sort-of part with some seats intact for concerts and stuff. they are also going to keep the plaques out in left field.
posted by bronxbomber at 10:45 PM on August 16, 2006
The city and state are contributing more than $200 million to the project, including infrastructure improvements. I'm glad that the city and state have finished upgrading all the schools, health clinics, hospitals and libraries in the area so they can spend this extra money that was obviously just lying around the coffers. Unless those are the "infrastructure improvements" they talk about, and that was the ONLY place the $200million was going towards I've always been against the idea of public money being spent on privately owned buildings (arenas, stadiums, concert halls, etc). The great boondoggle is when they announce how it will "revitalize the neighbourhood" and "pay for itself over time". Studies show that it's just not worth the investment.
posted by grum@work at 12:49 AM on August 17, 2006
i think they should improve the current stadium because there is too much history at that stadium even if you move some of the items from the old stadium to the new one once its complete it still doesnt seem right. the only good news is it will still be called yankee stadium.
posted by ace at 01:33 AM on August 17, 2006
I'm awaiting the announcement of "AT&T Yankee Stadium".
posted by igottheblues at 02:27 AM on August 17, 2006
(finger in mouth) one beeeeeeeeeeellion dollars.
posted by tieguy at 06:28 AM on August 17, 2006
The current Yankee stadium is a far cry from the older one it replaced in the '70s. It's on the same site, but far from the same place all the former greats played on (even though there's been a fair share of baseball history at this remodeled stadium, too). It's all being done for the addition and financial windfall of all the major luxury suites the new stadium will have. Those alone will generate so much money (that the current venue can't), it's staggering. Even though the field/playing area of the current stadium is beautiful, the rest of the ammenities, etc. are apparently pathetic. It's tough to see the ballpark the Yanks play at not be on the same spot, though. Some of my favorite pictures, some that are hanging in my office, are of the old Yankee Stadium, from the air, showing the Polo Grounds directly across the river from it, and also a picture of lit-up Yankee Stadium, during the Mets World Series, taken from the roof of the Bronx County Courthouse building, which, of course, is the big building present beyond the right-center field wall in pictures from the Stadium for decades and decades.
posted by dyams at 07:14 AM on August 17, 2006
I just realized that I have to get there in the next two years. Never been. No money should be coming out of the city coffers for this crap. It's robbery - plain and simple.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:04 AM on August 17, 2006
In most cases, the fans and citizens of the city in question must approve the issuance of (tax free) municipal bonds for new stadiums by a vote, so apparently, most of them like being robbed.
posted by mjkredliner at 09:53 AM on August 17, 2006
Yes, they do. No one ever got poor underestimating the intelligence of the marketplace. Basically, they're shanghaied - stuck up at gunpoint. "Vote yes or lose your beloved (insert team name here)."
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:06 AM on August 17, 2006
In many cases, you are correct.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:26 AM on August 17, 2006
No one ever got poor underestimating the intelligence of the marketplace. Damn...are you sure you're Canadian?
posted by The_Black_Hand at 12:19 PM on August 17, 2006
This is a little off topic but I am glad they are spending some serious money on this. Part of baseball's charm is timeless stadiums that turn into classics. Not saying money can make a stadium timeless but I wonder how stadiums like the White Sox stadium will age.
posted by jc at 07:33 PM on August 19, 2006
I'm pretty sure the Yankees paid for the stadium themselves, which is a sight better than what the Reds did, bilking the Hamilton County taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars whilst lining the pockets of Carl Lindner and the other minority owner of the club. Not anything to get angry about, of course.