This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I know the American soccer history webpage links seem slike an odd thing to have, but most of the information regarding soccer at Yankee Stadium was discovered at that webpage, which was the reason why I had included it in the first place. Just wanted to make everyone aware since it has now been removed. Nyrmetros 11:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

• What happened to the soccer at Yankee Stadium section ?? Nyrmetros 01:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Check out "What links here" for some major ideas for enriching this entry. Wetman 22:25, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It would be great to have a nice photo of the exterior.-- Pharos 04:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I challenge the notion that the shortness of the right field area was not intentional. When the Stadium was first built, the upper deck did not extend into the outfield, and the bleachers in the right field area were very wide. The architects could have made the entire right field area quite a bit deeper without much trouble, and without creating a Fenway-type wall. Oddly enough, when they extended the upper deck around and rebuilt the lower deck in the late 1930s, they actually made right field somewhat more spacious than it had been previously. Also, the plot of land is not a triangle, it's actually five-sided... and although I don't know with absolute certainty, I think the dog-leg street behind home and the third base side was added as part of the design of the Stadium. I think they had plenty of flexibility, and went with a design that suited their purposes. Wahkeenah 07:10, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Right field was shorter by necessity of design. One can look at the stadium and see that the field could easily be made symetrical. However, that is the current stadium. In the original 1920's design, where right center was 490 feet, a symetrical outfield fence wouldn't fit in the stadium. It would slide under the tracks for the 4 train. Even in the stadium before the most recent change, a symetrical field would allow for less room for seating than you can find between the outfield fence and the retired numbers.

And no, it's not a perfect triangle, but it's not regular enough to be called "pentagonal". It has three predominant sides, with two smaller ones that look like someone clipped two corners off the triangle.

Silent Wind of Doom 22:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a pentagon, I said it was five-sided. And they could have made right field deeper had they chosen to. They knew what they were doing. Wahkeenah 22:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the photo I posted today, there was even more room than I had recalled. It's the right field upper deck that's the constraint, primarily. Wahkeenah 22:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Now, hold on a second. That is a sideways picture, and it is difficult to determine. However, upon close inspection, and when put against aerial diagrams, it is obvious that a green monster type wall would have been necessary. There is a site which makes aerial diagrams of baseball stadiums, and here is the one for the original Yankee Stadium. Next to it, is the stadium if the field were symmetrical (not figuring a center field dimension, and all that). The black line is where the outer wall of the stadium would be.

File:YankeeStadium1923.gif File:YankeeStadium1923Symmetrical.GIF

To get the maximum crowd, and this stadium was built to handle the crowds Ruth was bringing in, they would have to shorten left field to fit in left field stands. Otherwise, all those seats would just be a wall in deep center. You can see it in the picture too, if you look closely. While things may have worked out well for Ruth, it's a design problem.

-- Silent Wind of Doom 04:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

That would have made it "the Big Pear". :) The diagram to the left shows that there was at least a diamond's-width (90 feet) of stands in right, and you know from the photo (and can infer from the diagram) that there was extra room between the back of the right-corner bleachers and the street. It was 295 to right in Ruth's day (at least that's what was posted in the corner) and that makes it at least 385 to the back of that bleacher, probably well over 400. Plus it was 350 to that first exit in right center (or at least it was marked that way), with another 90 feet or so behind it. There was no compelling constraint to make them shorten the right field area, they simply chose to do it. They could have had a normal right field area, and still had room for bleachers that were at least as wide as those below the scoreboard. They could have put up a "green monster" spite fence (like they have in RCF now) if they had wanted to, and it would have been well out of play. I don't question that they were maximizing the crowds. But they didn't have to build right field short, they did it on purpose. There were discussions about it even at the time, with some magazines comparing the two ballparks and the home run area in right. It was not lost on the baseball audience at all, that this park was tailor-made for Ruth... maybe not quite as cozy as the Polo Grounds, but still generous to a left-hand pull hitter with power, like Ruth. It's like with the Giants current ballpark, which was tailor-made for Barry Bonds. Same deal. Conscious choice on the part of the designers. Now, having said all that, it's worth pointing out that there were other parks that were good for left-hand sluggers: Baker Bowl, League Park, etc. But those were from the dead-ball days. By the time the Yankees starting building their stadium, home runs were becoming a big deal. They knew what they were doing. Wahkeenah 05:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You erased the facts and put back a false interpretation, which clearly belies the photo as well as the diagram you yourself cited. Wahkeenah 05:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I have modified the two separate sections (which are nearly mirrors of each other, but that's another problem) and tried to keep it neutral, without pushing either my point of view or yours too hard. However, someone needs to somehow find out some original info about the design. I don't believe the ballpark was hemmed in by the roads to the west of it, I think they were added later, to edge the ballpark. But I can't absolutely prove that. Also trying to point out that the Stadium's famous right field was not unusually shallow for its day. Wahkeenah 22:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I propose that a separate article is made for the new stadium. Just because it will have the same name doesn't mean it belongs in the article of the current stadium.

The New Mets Stadium has its own article, and in fact will be built closer to Shea than the new Yankees park.

Someone keeps on copying and pasting a long article on the new stadium, with an anti-stadium slant at the end of this article. All of that information is in the article for New Yankee Stadium, yet the same person keeps on posting it here anyway. Can you please stop or at least state your reasoning on this talk page?

I suggest that users of Wikipedia who are not aware of the plans for a new Yankee Stadium will not search for "New Yankee Stadium" so they will remain ignorant of what the plan calls for. I maintain that it would be inacurrate to have a page for "New Yankee Stadium" as there isn't a "New Yankee Stadium," only a "Proposed New Yankee Stadium." It would be accurate to have a page titled "Plans for a New Yankee Stadium." For those Yankee fans who want information on Yankee Stadium, current and proposed, should be able to find it under "Yankee Stadium." This is the correct place for it. It is disingenious to say that this information is accessable to users under "New Yankee Stadium", when there is no link to such a page. I submit that the above holds true for the proposed Mets Stadium (a "New Mets Stadium" does not exist at this juncture). I disagree with the previous poster above: there is no anti-stadium slant at the end of this article. If the previous poster finds such a slant, it is suggested that the previous poster edit it out. [anon-user]

• For consistency with other articles, such as the way Busch Stadium was handled, a brief mention and a link to the New Yankee Stadium should be sufficient. If the project is abandoned, you can always kill the link and the article.
• Articles for future stadiums and arenas have their place on Wikipedia, even if they ultimately don't happen. The section for West Side Stadium is a perfect example. The proposal failed, but it is a record worth keeping, as it tells the history of the stadium and the events that killed it. The bulk of this new stadium project should be on a separate page, with only a brief mention of the plan on the main Yankee Stadium page.

I am the second poster who feels that the info on the stadium proposal should be included on the Yankee Stadium page. Now a word by the author of the piece the first guy finds so offensive:

For starters, I intentionally refer to it as "new stadium," not "new Yankee Stadium." Yankee Stadium already exists. It has since 1923. Tearing it down and building anew results in a completely different structure with no historical significance. The name "Yankee Stadium" means something; it's used for the most famous sports facility in U.S. history. Appropriating it for a replica is misleading and inaccurate. I'm trying (futilely, I admit) to retain the words "Yankee Stadium" to apply only to the building by that name. The Yankees, on the other hand, are trying to make the words a separate brand. Since this new stadium does not actually exist with a name outside it that says "Yankee Stadium," I feel it's perfectly approprate to use a generic moniker. The Yankees use the term "new Yankee Stadium" because it implies that we can tear down Yankee Stadium without losing it. That's not true. It may sound subtle, but it's not to me, in part because I work with words for a living. Think about the words "Madison Square Garden." They don't really apply to a building. How could they: The stadium with that name today is number four by that name, and number five may be on its way. Few people alive today know anything about Madison Square Garden--the building demolished in 1890 or its same-site replacement, demolished in 1925. By misusing the name, the businesses that use the facility have been able to establish that those buildings don't matter today. Generations from now, the Yankees will have relegated Yankee Stadium to the same verbal dust heap.

Beyond that, I don't buy the logic of breaking it into a separate article. As I said, like it or not, at the present time there is only one building. Years from now, assuming this stadium comes to fruition, there will be a need to have separate articles for separate stadiums. One stadium, one article.

As a trained journalist, I take issue with being accused of writing an antistadium piece. I could have easily done that, but didn't. A biased piece would have no credibility. I pointed out that the mayor and other elected officials say that everyone--the neighborhood, the city, the taxpayers--will benefit from a new stadium. I mentioned that the borough president says the new parks will be better than the current park. I explain the city's fears over the Yankees' leaving the Bronx or New York altogether. What makes my article different from those we've read in most newspapers is that I also explain the opposing view: Are the replacement parks of equal value? Will this harm the neighborhood long after construction is completed? I absolutely did not "create" a controversy where none previously existed. Opposition to this stadium is just as fierce as it was for the Jets' stadium. Two differences: One is that Cablevision doesn't care about this stadium. Put another way, you won't see commercials on television opposing the Yankees' stadium project because its opponents don't have nearly the money that Cablevision does. Second: This proposal involves a private business annexing a large swath of public parkland. The brazen assumption that a public park is just another undeveloped tract of real estate is unprecented in New York City. My article presents the opinions of the Yankees and elected officials. But it also presents the opposing viewpoint and considers the consequences of the project, things left out of most news accounts. Perhaps the bias lies with the news organizations who have presented only the Yankees' point of view.

Finally, the replacement articles that have been offered are inaccurate. It says the stadium will cost $800, which is not true. It says the taxpayers will be responsible only for "infrastructure," which is a blatant lie. Those are figures put forth by the Yankees to make their stadium sound more palatable. Isn't citing environmental impact statements and presenting both interpretations of it more accurate than just telling people the Yankees' side of the story?

• The previous poster said, "As I said, like it or not, at the present time there is only one building." However, while this building might not exist yet, the proposal to construct it does exist. This is no secret, being a major topic in the media. It's not neccesarily a 'New Yankee Stadium' as much as it is a 'new stadium to replace Yankee Stadium'. This does not belong on the main Yankee Stadium, as this stadium proposal is not part of a renovation to Yankee Stadium, but a completley separate structure that is NOT Yankee Stadium, although it may share a name with it.

I request the Wikipedia commmunity to broker a peaceful end to this stalemate.

The journalist also said "The Yankees use the term "new Yankee Stadium" because it implies that we can tear down Yankee Stadium without losing it. That's not true. It may sound subtle, but it's not to me, in part because I work with words for a living. Think about the words "Madison Square Garden." They don't really apply to a building. How could they: The stadium with that name today is number four by that name, and number five may be on its way." It is a very fine point. If Wikipedia had been around when all these MSGs were being planned and built, would Wikipedia have pages such as "New Madison Square Garden", "Son of New Madison Square Garden", "New New New Madison Square Garden"? Until there is a new Yankee Stadium, the rightful place for information on the plans to construct one is on the Yankee Stadium page. I also call for the Wikipedia community to broker a peaceful end to this and in the meantime request that you cease in deleting information on the plan to tear down Yankee Stadium from the Yankee Stadium page!

• One of my problems with that article you keep on putting back is that it is too long. I have no problem with one to two paragraphs, tops.

About Madison Square Garden, it is an events promotion company before it is an arena, and therefore fits into one article. The stadium that they are planning to build next door to Yankee Stadium is a separate structure, and belongs on its own page.

There are many articles on Wikipedia about future events, including stadiums and other buildings yet to be built. Using your logic, the Freedom Tower doesn't deserve its own page, but ONLY belongs on the World Trade Center page.

• It's fairly obvious that the writer's real motive is anger over Yankee Stadium being targeted for demolition. I felt the same way about the "New Comiskey Park", but that didn't change the reality. There should be a brief mention on this page and a link to a separate article, for consistency with other situations such as Busch Stadium and U.S. Cellular Field. Wahkeenah 17:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You say your reason for putting this info on a separate page is that it is too long. Well, is the section on Monument Park too long? Should it be on a separate page? You say the author's motive is anger over the demolition of the Yankee Stadium. I say does it matter what his motive is, if the entry is accurate? Doesn't someone interested in the stadium deserve to find the information they find relevant? I say your reason for putting this info on a separate page is to obscure reality from fans. I say this: edit the longer entry so that it portrays the controversy on the issue and then direct the reader to the page you are so keen on. That to me is a fair compromise. But the fluff you offer doesn't cut it. User:BoogieDown 22:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Your response fairly much proves that you are repeating the info on this page, particularly the "controversy" part, in order to prove a point or to push a point of view. Truth to tell, wikipedia is not going to have any influence on what the Grand Pooh-Bahs in New York City decide to do (or not) about a replacement for Yankee Stadium. Wahkeenah 22:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter in the least. Information wants to be free.

• I have made an effort of compromise. Instead of putting back what BoogieDown called "fluff", I took elements from both New Stadium articles and summarized them into a 3 paragraph article, highlighting the major points of the Stadium and the campaign against it. Personally, I have mixed feelings about the new stadium plan. I hope this ends the arguement that the formerly brief mention did not say enough and that the longer version was not only too long, but was too opinionated. What I still believe, however, is that the bulk of the details belong on the New Yankee Stadium page, which i have noticed has not had much work done to it.

I have a very very serious problem with you characterizing the "longer version" as being too opinionated when the writer of the piece, as a professional journalist, made every effort to delete opinion and leave only facts. Not only was it not too opinionated, it was not opinionated. You can't argue with facts. And I challenge you to dredge up a statement from the longer piece which is not a fact. So I will edit your new shorter piece when I have a chance. In the meantime I will allow your revision to stand.

• At least you are willing to compromise. Peace to our wiki-society. Now to concentrate on better things like ensuring that Robinson Cano is voted in as the All Star second baseman!
  • And it's extraordinarily generous of that one user to "allow" your revision to stand, don'cha think? Wahkeenah 01:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In the section on college football games played at Yankee Stadium: The Nov. 28, 1963 Thanksgiving game between Notre Dame and Syracuse was originally scheduled for that date. Notre Dame's Nov. 23, 1963 game with Iowa in Iowa City was cancelled. Also the final score of that Thanksgiving game was Syracuse 14, Notre Dame 7.

Oh my god, who really cares!!! God of Chaos 00:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, you cared enough to comment on it. >:) Wahkeenah 01:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I attended the game and my recollection is the same as Wahkeenah's. An pre-assassination article entitled "Syracuse Drills for Notre Dame" (NY Times, 11/20/1963, page 53) confirms that the game had always been scheduled for Thanksgiving (11/28). The Times also reports the final score of 14-7 in the 11/29 edition. The game drew much attention because it was the first rematch between the teams involved in a controversial 1961 game that Notre Dame won due to an officiating error on the final play. I've changed the text accordingly.

1. Removed some superflous language that did not conform to nPOV. 2. Removed the list of Yankees World Series wins "on the road." Better suited to the Yankees article, as they have nothing to do with the stadium.

Why isn't there a word on the 1998 Yankee Stadium concrete beam collapse? That was a huge turning point in the history of the stadium for that was the year George began designing for a new yankee stadium —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.27.200 ( talk) 04:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest a separate article for Monument Park, since there is a lot of information that will be relevant for both Yankee Stadium and New Yankee Stadium. Plus, it would make the Yankee Stadium article a bit smaller. What do you think?

Milchama 17:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• A brief mention in the article with a link to this new article, with photos of the monuments and the history of the monuments, etc. That could work. Wahkeenah 22:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the frieze above Yankee Stadium officially called The Facade? It's a frieze, and when the Yankees unvieled designs for the new stadium, they stressed it was a frieze.

I do like the edits on the distinguishing characteristics section, but the mention of the "facade" as a frieze at the end of the description cheapens it. Milchama 11:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The fans refer to it as the Facade. The broadcasters refer to it as the Facade. Originally, the word Frieze was used in the whole section and it was briefly mentioned that it is mistakenly refered to as the Facade. It's like calling Ty Cobb "Tyrus" though the whole article and mentioning once that people call him "Ty". "The Facade" is definitely used more prominantly, and has pretty much become the name of it. It is used almost unanimously, and so it should be the prominant term. I just kept the statement of the mention as a frieze so as not to offend the original writer. It seems a fair compromise, and keeps the truth about the facade without unduly confusing someone who doesn't know this information.

Silent Wind of Doom 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a frieze, not a facade. With the new stadium, the Yankees are making an effort to correct years of people incorrectly calling it a facade. "Facade" is not a nickname like Ty is for Mr. Cobb.

213.219.31.34 17:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Facade" is basically a nickname. It's what everyone calls it, and the name it is most known as. We'll see in the future if it will be called "the frieze" in the new stadium, but unless this causes a huge change in the way people see it, it seems that it will always be called "The Facade" in respects to the current stadium. The quotes around "Facade" in the title of the section seems a bit much. Do we really need it, when the distinction between frieze and facade is made? The fact is even given it's own paragraph, rather than buried in the middle or end of a large one.

Silent Wind of Doom 20:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm hearing the term "frieze" being used a lot more now, by both fans and broadcasters, especially since it's a prominent feature of the new Yankee Stadium. Sterling keeps referring to the "frieze being restored to its true place in the Stadium" and some such. Google searches give us many examples of each being used, and "frieze" being used on yankees.com and mlb.com. I don't think we can support the assertion that "it is called "the Facade" by fans, broadcasters, and Yankees officials" exclusively. As noted above, the team was pretty clear when it unveiled the new stadium designs that it was a frieze. I'm going to change the section to reflect both nicknames (and remove the overly technical fascia). SixFourThree ( talk) 21:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)SixFourThree

The entrance to the small area around the flagpole that holds the plaques and monuments has always been marked with the words "Welcome to Monument Park". If you take an official tour at Yankee Stadium, your tour guide announces, after passing the retired numbers, that you are about to enter Monument Park. In fact, our last guide said that were were going to go now to Monument Park, but would first pass the retired numbers. I have never heard the numbers referred to as part of Monument Park. Has anyone? Silent Wind of Doom 17:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Since they moved the walls in, the retired numbers became a part of Monument Park. The entrance to Monument Park is at the end of the left field seats, not AFTER the retired numbers. 213.219.31.34 17:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To the person who repeatedly edits the new-stadium intro on the Yankee Stadium page: Please provide documentation that the Yankee Stadium field will remain in place when the entire new-stadium has been completed. I cite the Environmental Impact Statement, drawn up by the New York City Parks Department, which says otherwise. This document, on which the entire project is based, makes no provision to preserve any portion of Yankee Stadium or its field. The draft version of this document, released in fall 2005, said otherwise; that document is no longer relevant, according to the city.

The field will not remain intact. However, a field will constructed ABOVE the location of the current field. Earlier plans involved :keeping the field and part of the stadium, but was deemed to not be feasible as the elevation would be far below the rest of the :surrounding parkland. It will host organized ballgames. I'll find a citation for you. Milchama 01:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, the cost of this stadium is $1.3 billion. It's misleading to call it an $800 million stadium. City and state taxpayers are being billed for replacement recreational facilities, tearing down Yankee Stadium, and building parking garages. The balance of the costs will be tax breaks offered by city, state, and federal taxpayers. All of this public money is being spent solely to accommodate the Yankees' desire for a stadium. All of the money is being spent for the Yankees' benefit. With that in mind, it is only fair to give the public a fair estimate of what this stadium will cost. (Frankly, the $1.3 billion figure is low. The city very recently admitted that it never factored in the cost of acquiring new land and preparing that land for new recreational facilities. But I think raising that figure would be equally unfair right now, until we have a clearer idea of what the project will cost.)

Its more misleading to call it a 1.3 billion dollar stadium, and the most expensive stadium ever built. The cost of the stadium is :listed at $800 million, with $400 million for surrounding areas. They are two separate elements in this project, and not a $1.3 :billion stadium. Milchama 01:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Milchama, you are unfairly trying to make the stadium more palatable for its detractors. You say "the cost of the stadium is listed at $800 million." Where is this "listed." Who "listed" it as an $800 million stadium. If I built a new multilevel house but didn't include the cost of building stairs to get to the second floor, I wouldn't be presenting the full cost of my new house. If I omitted the cost of building materials, I wouldn't be presenting the full cost. The tax-free bonds alone (issued by the city, to be repaid by the Yankees) are $930 million. You can't build a stadium unless you acquire land for that stadium. So why omit land-acquisition costs from the price tag? The Yankees made parking garages a requirement of their new stadium. The only use for garages will be stadium events. Therefore, that makes this a stadium cost. The reason for tearing down Yankee Stadium is because the Yankees are building another stadium. It is being done for the Yankees' benefit, though this is probably more reasonably classified under "land-acquisition costs." Why not present the full cost of the stadium and let people make up their own minds? Frankly, independent analysts would probably say that my $1.3 billion figure is low, if anything. I'm not including the cost of a Metro-North station, though one could make a reasonable argument that I should. Since the groundbreaking, city officials have said that the $150 million they have for land-acquisition for the Yankees is probably not going to be enough. I'm talking about land along the Harlem River waterfront. According to the city, making that land habitable and accessible is going to be more expensive than originally thought. But since that is still a prediction at this point, I don't think it's fair to include it in the stadium's cost. Heck, I didn't even factor in most of the parking-garage costs. I have merely included the $70 million the state Legislature is contributing. When all is said and done, the cost will easily top $1.5 billion. Calling it an $800 million stadium gives the impression that the Yankees are donating a no-frills stadium, all expenses privately paid, to the city. Since that's not the case, I think people have a right to know the full cost of this stadium. The figure I use is being used by the news media, who have strongly supported the stadium project from the beginning. Moreover, this is how other stadium costs are calculated. Why should the Yankees' stadium be any different?

Good luck finding a citation on that "field preservation." One of the myths to evolve surrounding this stadium project is that Yankee Stadium, or some recognizable portion of it, will be preserved. Most people have reacted that "at least the old stadium will still be there." But it won't be there. None of it. When everything has been completed, you won't be able to draw an outline of where Yankee Stadium stood or even where home plate was. But you are giving people the impression that even a minuscule portion being preserved treats Yankee Stadium as a museum piece. For many fans, believing that some remnant of Yankee Stadium or its field will remain has made building a new stadium more palatable. I can understand that. But it's simply not true. The entire project is outlined in the Environmental Impact Statement. Here is my compromise: "Three baseball fields will be built on top of the land that Yankee Stadium's field now occupies. No portion of Yankee Stadium itself will remain." Here is my source: http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/nyy_stadium/html/project_map.html

You are entitled to your own opinions, Milchama, but not your own facts. Present the facts, and let people infer whatever they wish. —MIB

The fact is, according to that diagram, that the three baseball fields being constructed in the place of the original stadium will all be within the outline of the current positioning of the field. A "museum piece", in the same way that the field dimentions of Atlanta Fulton County Stadium live on as an outline of the Turner Field parking lot that was paved over it. Here is my nomination: "Three baseball fields will be built on top of the land that Yankee Stadium's field now occupies. No portion of Yankee Stadium itself will remain, however the three fields will be within the outline of the current field dimentions"

And about the full project, it is indeed $1.3 billion. However, it is made of two distinct elements, one with the money that the Yankees and MLB are putting toward the stadium construction, and the $400-$450 million in public money being used for the infastructure. I understand your point that calling it a $800 million stadium, and nothing more may be misleading, but calling it s $1.3 billion stadium is just as misleading. It is a $1.3 billion project, consiting of two elements: an $800 million privately financed stadium, and $450 million in publicly paid infastructure. Milchama 22:17, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

When the public pays for "infrastructure," it is covering costs that are customarily borne by the government. The reason for the government bearing such costs is because there is a shared benefit—the public also benefits from infrastructure. If the city were widening the Major Deegan Expressway or Grand Concourse, or putting in a new sewer system for the neighborhood, maybe installing new traffic lights outside the stadium, those would be "infrastructure" costs because there is a shared benefit. The city and state are paying for things that directly involve the stadium itself. No one—be it a city or state taxpayer or a resident of the Yankee Stadium neighborhood—benefits from allowing the Yankees to acquire, for free, public parkland and for replacing that parkland with recreation facilities up to a mile away. The Yankees benefit. No one benefits from parking garages except the Yankees. (New York City has a 50 percent car-ownership rate overall. This neighborhood has the lowest car-ownership rate in the city. I'll provide you with documentation of that figure if necessary.) Nobody benefits from tax breaks except the Yankees. Citation for this last statement is the city's Economic Development Corporation, as cited in the financing portion of the new-stadium main page. The EDC expects a $96 million benefit over 30 years, which means the city and state are not investing to reap a greater reward from the new development. This is called a subsidy. To be fair, the Yankees are not the only developers to receive city and state subsidies and federal tax breaks. Everything else is called a subsidy. Compare the Yankees with Goldman Sachs, which received hundreds of millions in city subsidies a few years ago. You may think the Yankees exist for nostalgia's sake, but they don't. They are a private, for-profit business. The Yankees are building a new stadium for their benefit. In retreading over your same arguments, you have never once cited what the public benefit is for this project. State a public benefit to the public costs, and then we can move forward.

Okay, okay. Hold on here. May I direct your attention to this page: [1]. This is the official page of the New York Parks Department, specifically it's information on the New Yankee Stadium, and, even more specifically, the information about the new parkland. Here, speaking about Heritage Park, which will rest on the site of the former Yankee Stadium, it says: "Three natural turf ballfields—a baseball field, a softball field, and a little league field— would be located in the proposed parkland at the site of the existing stadium. The proposed project would retain the playing field, dugouts, and locker rooms under the field seats of the existing stadium and adapt it to a public baseball field called “Heritage Field.”" Likely, when they say the field will be kept, it means that it will be elvated, but this point blank says that parts of the former structure will be kept intact, and this is coming from the New York Parks Department. The only more reliable source would be Yankees Global Enterprises and whoever works the wrecking ball. Unless there's been some big word from the Yankees, this is the truth, and should be treated as such on the page. Silent Wind of Doom 22:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The article needs more information on the exact reason the stadium is being torn down and another built next to it. Without knowing a lot about it myself, it seems like a big waste of money and a destruction of a world famous landmark. Yankee Stadium II was built as recent as the 70s. Is 30-35 yrs beyond the life of a typical stadium? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.126.46 ( talk) 16:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It's being built because they want a new one. Several stadiums actually built since 1976 are now gone or soon will be. Seattle's Kingdome and the Minneapolis Metrodome come to mind. And although this has nothing to do with it, the Yankees' post-season flopperoos so far in the 21st century have taken some luster off the old one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Some editors have been changing the years the Yankees have played at the stadium, ending in 2008, despite the fact they have not played their last game yet. There is always the possibility that the new stadium's opening could be delayed by a year, or, although unlikely, aborted altogether. Until the Yankees play their last game at the stadium, it should list that they presently play there. Milchama 11:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The cement used in the construction of the original stadium was produced by the Thomas Edison Portland Cement Company of New Jersey. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.39.195.146 ( talk) 19:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

I came across Yankee Stadium outfield dimensions while ranking unassessed baseball articles. Right now it's just a list of measurements, without context. There are sources listed, but no indication of what information comes from which. Obviously, any amateur photo analysis is Original Research. Some of the numbers may be verifiable. Hopefully, some experienced contributors to this article will have an educated opinion about which, if any, of these numbers are worth keeping. -- Djrobgordon 23:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

• I entered the information originally, in the article. It comes from various baseball guides and from books like Green Cathedrals. Someone else decided to make a separated article out of it. You can guess what I think of that idea. Wahkeenah 02:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not in favor of the new article, but I can see why there are editors who didn't want all of those numbers clogging up this article. I certainly don't think they should all be put back here. As the dimensions article stands, without context, it's an indiscriminate collection of information. By context, I mean why it's encyclopedic. If a wall was moved in to play to the strengths of the team, or if a particular alley was the longest or shortest in baseball, I could see mentioning it. Maybe a small chart comparing the original and current dimensions would be useful. However, I don't see the purpose in including the dimensions after each renovation. Or rather, these dimensions could be notable, but there's no assertion that they are. -- Djrobgordon 18:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• The context of the Yankee Stadium dimensions are the same as for any major league ballpark: comparisons between them, and in different eras, especially as regards home run possibilities. You need to check out a book called The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs for a better understanding of this concept. Wahkeenah 20:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's my point. I shouldn't have to consult a book to figure out why the dimensions are important. If they are, this article should tell me why. As someone who follows baseball, I can draw conclusions strictly from the numbers, but encyclopedia articles are read by lay-people. In my opinion, a paragraph explaining how the evolution of the stadium affected the baseball played there, as well as the reasons for the changes (more homeruns, fewer homeruns, more seating, structural issues, etc.) is necessary to make the information encyclopedic. -- Djrobgordon 20:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Roger. Wahkeenah 21:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

• All right, that's it. I merged in the information that had to be here in a simple and non-invasive way. No one has said a word, or debated this since. No one's paying attention, so screw it. I'm not letting that template sit up there and ruin the aesthetics of the page when it's been resolved, so I'm removing it, and we can just delete the other page. Silent Wind of Doom 17:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
  • If anyone raises questions, I can flesh the paragraph out a little by citing the Jenkinson book. Wahkeenah 19:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Found this, just leaving it here if anyone finds it needs a place in the article. I can't think of a spot right now, even if it is needed at all.-- Borgarde ^talk 13:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Which is it, increasing or decreasing? The article contradicts itself and says both. JGHowes ^talk - 17:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My take is that it was first decreased significantly, and then has been slowly increasing again. Not being a Yankee Stadium denizen, I can't say definitively, and whoever wrote that needs to clarify. Wahkeenah 17:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly it has decreased drastically overall in the last 20 or 30 years, with the advent of piped-in recorded music. The organ used to be the only music at the ballpark. Whether there has been a modest increase in the last few seasons, it's hard to say. Sylvain1972 19:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction, and I have removed the tag. Use of the organ has generally declined since the time when it was the primary source of music in the stadium, but has somewhat increased recently -- as compared to recent years, *not* as compared to the previous high level. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ( talk/ cont) 03:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I translate this article for the french wikipedia.

"Yankee Stadium was the first three-tiered sports facility in the United States and the first to be called a stadium"... And what of Griffith Stadium renamed from National Park in 1920 ? Was the word stadium attached because of its capacity ? I just want to have your point of view. Thanks.

Another question : I checked college football records from the page given in reference ( http://www.mindspring.com/~luckyshow/football/ys.htm). I found :

• NYU : 97 games 51-41-5 ( http://www.cfbdatawarehouse.com/index.php)
• Army : 38 games 14-19-5 (Navy media guide)
• Notre-Dame : 24 games 15-6-3 (correct in the article)
• Fordham : 19 games 12-6-1 (Fordham football all time scores)

Feuh 19:52, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

  As this picture shows, Yankee Stadium was not the first sports facility to be called a stadium. 

http://exhibits.baseballhalloffame.org/ws_programs/ws_program_1911.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.132.55.122 ( talk) 05:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, Yankee Stadium was not the first ballpark to be called a Stadium, but it started a trend. Meanwhile, "Brush Stadium" reverted to "Polo Grounds" after owner John T. Brush died. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

We've lost a few pictures, including one of the stadium from nearby and one showing a Jehovah's Witness convention at the pre-rennovation stadium, with no explaination given. Before I bring them back, or figure some way to better incorporate them, I wanted to ask here about it. It's better to ask then to start an edit war. Silent Wind of Doom 01:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe put them in the gallery. Baseball Bugs 23:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Upon first look of this article I noticed that the lead is pretty small. For such a historic stadium, it should be fairly big, or at least bigger than what it is right now. Sportskido8 17:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• So make some suggestions. Baseball Bugs 23:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
• I added a paragraph. It's tough to do it without hype. You've got the winningest team ever, and the greatest ballplayer ever. Whatayagonna do? Baseball Bugs 00:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe there are currently a few pieces of incorrect information in the Renovation section. It currently says:

"...the upper deck was expanded downward by approximately nine rows, as modern building techniques allowed them to do this. There appears to be an extra guardrail in the upper seating of the modern stadium, and this is where the facing of the upper tier once existed. A new upper concourse was built above where the old concourse existed and the old exits were closed in by new seating. The old, closed-in upper-deck concourse still exists to this day and is used by stadium employees for transport."

However, I've never heard that the Upper Deck was expanded downwards by 9 rows - I believe it was in fact expanded upwards by 15 or so rows. The extra guardrail there today is about 3 rows above the facing of the upper deck, and is where the old concourse was before the renovation, not where the facing was.

I have a few pictures that show the upwards expansion of the Upper Deck, and show no downwards expansion. A few also show where the portals and old concourse were, where the current concourse and portals are, and that the old concourse was about 3 rows up from the facing of the Upper Deck.

Pictures from 9/19/74, 10/29/74, and 8/28/75

Joe DiMaggio at YS during renovation, clearly shows the old portals and beams for new stands above the Upper Deck

Cross-sections of the Stadium before renovation and after renovation

Does anyone know which set of information is true, because it seems that all evidence points to the addition of rows being at the top of the Upper Deck, and no changes being made to the facing of the Upper Deck or any addition of rows at the bottom?

Without question, the modification went upwards. The facts bear this out. I am from New York City and have dwelled on this too. 67.87.92.56 ( talk) 16:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

1923,26,27,28,32,36,37,38,39,41

1942,43,47,49,50,51,52,53,55,56

1957,58,60,61,62,63,64,76,77,78

1981,96,98,99,2000,01,03

That's 37. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see my comment at Talk:The_Bronx#No_it_isn.27t.. This page just goes to prove the stereotype that just because it's big in America, it must be big around the world. Which African, European, Asian or Australasian cares for the NY Yankees having won loads of titles? It is like saying that just because there is a good Lacrosse team in Australia, Ghanaians bow down to its glory. 81.105.100.178 ( talk) 12:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC).

They don't??? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:11, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The Wembley Stadium article makes a similar claim and similarly without proof. Yet I accept it, because I've heard of it. That would be "original research", I suppose. How would you go about proving that any particular structure, stadium or otherwise, is well-known beyond its neighborhood? How would you prove the Taj Mahal is famous, for example? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

"The House that Ruth Built" was a metaphor. Surely you didn't think otherwise? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is mentioned that Reggie Jackson hit 3 home runs into "the black" during game 6 of the 1977 World Series. This is not true.

Jackson hit only 1 home run into "the black" off of Charlie Hough in the 8th inning. The other home runs were into the lower deck in right field. I ask that a registed user change the text appropriately. Thanks.

How's come this article has spinoff articles about Monument Park, and Bleacher Creatures of all things, but no chronology of historic moments??? It would certainly be easy to source, and all or most them probably already have articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I have started an article called List of notable events at Yankee Stadium. Have at it. Keep it sourced and keep it notable by wikipedia standards. That is, resist the temptation to add stuff like "I remember my first trip to the Stadium". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Get rid of that Jose Molina stuff, no one cares about his 3rd HR of the year being equal to Ruth's number. Qazox ( talk) 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's original research and will be deleted on sight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The intro now calls the Stadium the "former home" of the Yankees. Even though they won't play anymore games there, the team offices and other aspects of the team have not yet moved to the new stadium and probably won't until sometime between seasons. Until that happens, I submit that it is premature to change this wording. -- rogerd ( talk) 18:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It's premature in any case, as they aren't mathematically out of the race yet. They likely will be soon, unless the ghosts of the past have one more miracle in store. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In today's Los Angeles Times, I noticed an AP article that shared some interesting statistics I didn't entirely understand. Perhaps someone here can help. The piece related the Yankees' record in the stadium as follows: "New York finished 4,133-2,430-17 at Yankee Stadium, originally built in 284 days for $2.5 million."

What is the -17 number? Was there a period of baseball during the life of this stadium in which ties were possible?

-- dpotter ( talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

There still is, it's just far less likely due to the rules covering suspended games. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Sox lost tonight. The Yanks are 6 games out with 6 to play, the final 3 being with the Red Sox. The Yankees' 2008 season, as well as their Stadium, may be on life support, but they are not quite dead yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, LOL, LOL, You jinxed it dude :-) Guess the article will need to be updated. fr33k man ^{t - c} 02:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that they would finish in a tie, but it is possible. Jinx? I got news for you: Never count the Yankees out. Yogi's words were never more true than they are with the Yankees. They also have to depend on Cleveland to sweep the Red Sox, but until the Yanks lose 1 more or the Red Sox win 1 more, anything can happen. At least for one more day, though, it keeps things interesting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Red Sox won. Yanks are done. Have your fun. d:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)