The Yankees final opening game at ‘The House That Ruth Built’ was postponed today, not due to fan’s rioting over the coming destruction or the protests of the player, but due to our national pastime’s historic enemy: Rain. I hope my religious friends–if I have any left after last week–will excuse my blasphemy in suggesting divine intervention. If G-d, as so many in Washington presume, is truly an American, then he must certainly be a Baseball fan and, being both a fan and a perfect being, surely roots for the Yankees. And a real fan wouldn’t want the stadium to be demolished, right? Right?
After 9-11 I used to joke that if Mr. Bin Laden’s planes had gone a little northward and smashed into Yankee Stadium, we would not now be asking why our bumbling President hasn’t caught the man, but why thousands of New York’s men, women, and children saw fit to walk to Afghanistan, remove the asshole from his cave, and plant his head on the spire of the Empire State Building. And yet, as a few city officials and one truly greedy son of a bitch, prepare to commit just such an act of terrorism, we have not only been silent, but in some cases, downright exhuberant. The reason for this, that I’m most often given is: ‘Well, it is old’.
But “old” has taken on new meaning of late. It’s a rather recent trend that buildings are built with the assumption that they’ll be torn down before a century has past. The Romans–whose stadium is still standing, The Greeks and Egyptians–who had no clocks, built structures whose wrecking crew, they hoped, could only be led by God(s) and Angels (again, the first Yankee fans) after— whatever their society’s version of— the “Final Battle” took place. We however, with far too great a sense of time, construct even our greatest skyscrapers to be largely disposable.
And so without much fanfare, we will raze the place where Babe Ruth pointed his bat, where Lou Gherig showed us what true heroism was, where Micky Mantle reached 61, where more championships have been won and more hall-of-famers made than any other sports arena in North America, where the World Trade Center’s flag was hung with pride only days after the attacks, and where I use to look forward to going as a small child not because I truly understood the game, but because I enjoyed seeing my usually quiet, reserved Father get excited. ‘The house that Ruth built’ will become ‘The condos built over Ruth’ and not so there’s more seating for fans, but so there’s a few more skyboxes for corporate executives and a few more chain-restaurants for those who can’t stand a Ballgame.
I suppose it’s hard, even damn near impossible, to make such a transient city care about it’s past, but I’ll simply repeat my consistent warning: Those who forget history, will themselves be forgotten.
Have you considered Subscribing to all of this madness?
You make me miss the stadium and it’s not even gone yet.
And now it is I suspect, too late to stop the wrecking crane. I have always loved baseball but getting to watch it in Yankee stadium takes it to a whole new level. Used to go to Orioles games in the old Memorial Stadium (RIP 1991) before Camden Yards was born. Why do we have to be the disposable society?
It’s an excellent question Patty, but I’m not sure what the answer is. Perhaps it’s because America, and New York in particular, is the land of ‘fresh starts’ so we’re always trying to start fresh. The Problem is that change isn’t always good.
Reminds me of the outrage that was kicked around this city when the Old Forum went down (although that was so that they could add more seating) - the Forum was the home of this city’s all-time most electrifying player: Maurice “The Rocket” Richard. The man was so important to francophone players in this city that his (entirely warranted) suspension in the 1950s caused a riot that is considered by many historians to be the beginning of Québec’s Quiet Revolution.
Steven, interesting. I wonder if the same thing would happen today? As Patty said, our societies have gotten far more disposable of late, but this wasn’t always the case.
You absolutely nailed it. I agree 100%, and I’m a Mets fan!
I think it has something to do with Moore’s Law, I think; the fashion for nearly immediate obsolescence in electronics technology spread to (or at least inspired) other industries thanks to very successful advertising campaigns and our own need for consistency in our attitudes with regards to acquisition.
Also, they’ve put microchips in… Well… Everything.
@lux I forgive you. Especially since Shea is also getting the wrecking ball and will, unlike Yankee Stadium, be renamed after a bank and not Shea. Shea is the name of the man who’s solely responsible for bringing the Mets to New York–for better or worse–and will now, also, be completely forgotten.
The building life expectancy of baseball stadiums is limited. Considering most of them have an open roof, the structures are highly susceptible to damage from moisture. Once moisture infiltrates the walls, the structural integrity is compromised and repair can be extremely costly. Some buildings can be repaired up to a point, after which the cost outweighs the benefit of doing so. You can only win the battle against water and oxygen for so long. The sad part is the architecture of the new stadium isn’t that inspired. Why try to recreate the same building?
Marsha, certainly I find no quarrel with your structural analysis. However, I’ve never heard anyone accuse Yankee Stadium of ‘falling apart’. In fact, compared with much younger stadiums, it’s in fairly good shape. This isn’t due to some genius in it’s design, but because it’s one of the most profitable sports arenas in the world, one which has always warranted upkeep. The destruction, as for as I’ve heard, hasn’t had anything to do with the old stadium being derelict, but everything to do with, again, skyboxes.
I can’t let a cold discussion of engineering go though without asking a question: Would you say the same of St. Peter’s Basilica? A ridiculous analogy perhaps, but for New Yorkers a quite logical one.
It might have not been derelict but it was probably costly to upkeep - perhaps less costly than a new stadium, perhaps not. I can understand your attachment to a certain extent. We’ve all been there for one reason or another. I guess as I’ve grown older and more appreciative of the organic nature of city building, I look forward to seeing the changes, the innovations, the aesthetic diversity. That’s not to say we should destroy perfectly good buildings for the sake of creating architectural opportunities, but we also need to consider the needs of the building owners or tenants. A lot of things come into play. The players themselves want all of the latest comforts at the stadium and the management has to provide them in order to attract the best players, generate interest in the team, and sell tickets. I’m oversimplifying the operation but that’s kind of the way it works.
In terms of comparing it to young stadiums, it probably is in good shape, because young stadiums sadly aren’t built to last any longer than 25 years. They don’t make ‘em like they used to. That goes for a lot of buildings.
On the other hand, there are many many buildings that I would be happy to see demolished and rebuilt because they are abominations!