February 27, 2006
Mets hearing attendees disguised as empty seats
Today's Empire State Development Corporation hearing on the New York Mets stadium project was over almost before it began: Only two people showed up to testify, both in favor of the plan.
With nothing else to do, there was little to do but pore over the ESDC's "general project plan" for the Mets, and try to squeeze some insight from its thick bureaucratic verbiage. One interesting tidbit: While the new stadium would hold 44,100 fans, 11,900 fewer than the current Shea Stadium, it would "be approximately the same [height] as that of the existing stadium, 145 feet tall at the top of the light poles." In other words, whereas now the 44,000th fan gets a seat somewhere in the back of the mezzanine or front of the upper deck, in the Mets' new state-of-the-art facility they'd be consigned to the back row, a good 30 feet higher than where they started.
[LATE NOTE: Just noticed that another part of the ESDC document claims the new top deck would be "lower in elevation than the third seating level known as the Mezzanine Level at Shea Stadium." So either the new design will have the world's tallest light poles, or one hand at the ESDC doesn't know what the other is talking about.]
It's hard to say for sure, though, since the project plan's promise that "the exterior of the New Stadium is shown in Attachment B, Stadium Design" leads to a page that is, to say the least, a disappointment. Asked what the deal was, ESDC spokesperson Deborah Wetzel said of the design, "We don't have it. We're waiting for the Mets to release it," and theorized that an announcement might be forthcoming by the end of March. Which kinda makes one wonder how the ESDC already knows that it will "recall the past while providing modern comforts and services to the enhancement of the overall game going experience for the fans" - hey, was that Edgar Cayce I just saw walking out of Charles Gargano's office?
I was not aware that people sat on the light poles. What sort of proof do you have that the highest seat will be at the same level in the new stadium as it is in the old one? Of course, it sounds better to have something to complain about, of course.
Posted by Bill on February 28, 2006 03:18 AM
I guess it's possible that the new stadium will have humongous light poles compared to Shea, but that would be a pretty odd design. Though digging further, I see the ESDC document also claims that the new top seating level would be "lower in elevation than the third seating level known as the Mezzanine Level at Shea Stadium," which would seem to contradict the bit about "approximately the same height."
Perhaps it's best not to take anything the ESDC says too seriously, until the Mets actually reveal what the thing will look like - hopefully before the city council has to actually vote on it.
I don't see what the big deal about the height of the light poles is. I do not know anything about lighting but it is not entirely unreasonable to think that you need the same sort of lighting (at the same height) for the field at a smaller seat capacity ballpark as you do at the larger one. The light poles in question are presumably in center field and not the ones attached to the top of the stadium. I don't even know why anyone would care about this other than the folks at LGA who have to worry about planes hitting them.
Posted by Bill on February 28, 2006 05:17 PM
I was at the Public "Hearing" too -- I'm sorry I didn't know you were there, or I'd've introduced myself. It was obvious from the outset that the fix was in; the only two people to speak were a City Councilman, who read a prepared statement that took all of its information straight out of Mets' PR figures, and a local kid who thinks a new stadium will help "revitalize Flushing businesses." At least one-third of the attendees were Teamsters sent there by the Union as a show of support for new construction jobs.
The Mets didn't even bother to send a representative! Quite a difference from the Yankees brouhaha a few weeks back. This whole thing is clearly a done deal. The experience was almost laughably pro forma.
Posted by Mike S. on March 2, 2006 06:51 PM