Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
2008 MLB Season
- Thread starter zioxide
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since it is too early for the hot stove and not playoff news.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3618663
Hmm, 35 years isn't THAT old. It cracks me up how people are saying it's the stadium Ruth played in. It's not. It's a new stadium built on the same site as the one Ruth played in.
Let's put it this way. If Ruth came back and walked on the field, he'd wonder what happened to the place.
In order to support the upper deck without pillars in the seating area, they had to drastically modify the foundation of the stadium. Even the core structure has been changed quite a bit. The original Yankee Stadium was falling apart at the time and would never have lasted until now.
I'm not badmouthing Yankee Stadium. I'm just saying that it's not the same place that Ruth played in.
Of course it is not the same place, but it also wasn't leveled to the ground.
I just found a site that is talking about the remodeling of the stadium with pics.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58009
I just found a site that is talking about the remodeling of the stadium with pics.
http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=58009
Personally I think this is an interesting question, not a crack-up, but then I do history for a living so this is my home turf. Historians have a method for evaluating whether an historic property has "the ability to convey its significance." The method is called "integrity" and it's divided into seven aspects, only one of which is design. The question of whether the stadium is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places was debated fiercely and apparently still is being debated. It's not a open-and-shut case.
I was wondering this, opened in 1923 and housed some of the greatest players ever. If they were going to deem it a historical landmark I would think it would have been done by now. If not it better get done soon. Now lets say it gets recognized, would they be forced to keep it standing.
Not living in the area, I haven't followed the debate, but doing a bit of quick research on the web, it appears that the city declined to list it as a landmark, a move which I suspect was highly political. Apparently efforts were made to nominate the stadium for listing on the National Register but were not successful, for reasons which are unclear. What protection these designations afford depends. I don't know what the city's landmarks ordinance says about demolishing designated buildings. National Register listing doesn't confer any protections by itself, but could complicate matters if any federal funds are involved.
One thing I do know is that the Steinbrenners were threatening to move the Yankees out of the city if they didn't get what they wanted. Did anyone seriously think for a minute that they wouldn't, history be damned?
In the 80's Steinbrenner was threatening to move the team out of the Bronx because the area was so run down. The team signed a 30 year lease in 1976 after the stadium reopened so he was stuck there anyways. Once the team starting winning security improved as more people went to the games. The next big threat by George was in 1998 when one of the beams came crashing in and talks of a new stadium began. Just before Rudy left office he promised new stadiums for both the Mets and Yankees.