It’s official: the dimensions are changing.
I’ve made my position very clear that I don’t like the dimensions changing, especially in the name of making the Mets a more “offensive-friendly” team, or even handicapping the pitching (which the reality is, it doesn’t need any more challenges to being a moderate success…unless they get better pitching…which is another story in and of itself).
As far as the aesthetics of it, I happened to think they did a good job, especially making more seats, which will ultimately drive down the price, or so we hope. The prices have already come down significantly since the stadium opened in 2009, perhaps we’ll see some people who want to spring for those seats in the Mo Zone or between the outfield reserve or wherever. Fact is, for this to be a win-win for everyone, the team just needs to play better. The number of seats increasing or the team hitting more home runs will almost be inversely proportional.
Wow. I think I’ve waited since junior high to say something like that. I haven’t used that term since Algebra I class, to be sure.
Something that caught my eye is not only the dimensional changes, but the color changes. See, when CitiField first opened, one of the major complaints was that it was not cognizant of Mets history. The Jackie Robinson Rotunda was a shrine to a guy who never played for the Mets, and if you dropped a blindfolded Mets fan in the middle of CitiField, and they had no idea where they were, they’d never guess. It wasn’t just cookie cutter: it had no mention of the quirky history of the Mets. Certainly, nothing blue and orange, or anything notable besides the team on the field.
The “Great Wall of Flushing” had an orange line, but other than that, the ballpark was a generic black. I wonder if the Wilpons got a sale from Home Depot for buying it in bulk. Yet, some people thought that there was not enough blue representation. I was neutral. I could honestly care less about the wall color in the back.
But now it’s blue? And orange? According to the new schematic, it is.
I’m sure it won’t bother, but of all the things they’re concentrating on, repainting the walls in the back just smacks more of disguising a cake that’s actually full of dog doo. It’s pretty on the outside, but it covers up something hideous.
Remember 2009? My friend CharlieH said as he sat up in the Promenade Left Field, that the left fielder was simply a “rumor” from where he sat. To address the sight line issues, the Mets added some shiny new TVs, probably to distract us from the ugly product that was taking the field each night.
I went to Camden Yards over the weekend to do a tour, and I got to hear a lot about the history of how it was built, and the idea that was put behind it. The architect studied the old school ballparks and used inspiration from Ebbets Field, Polo Grounds, Wrigley Field, Fenway Park, among others. The idea was to put the generic in it and make it an overall enjoyable experience for the fans, to make it an interactive experience.
Is painting the walls really necessary?
Look, I said I was Switzerland on it. I would have been fine if they stayed black, or fine with painting. I really don’t care. It just makes me wonder how much of it is to silence the vocal minority, or maybe from doing customer satisfaction surveys, Hell maybe they are reading Metsblog for ideas. I know it’s flogging a dead horse, but out of all the things they could be concentrating on to make the team actually WIN ballgames, the emphasis on the cover-up seems to be the rigeur du jour.