Jerome Crosson wrote, re: new Mets park:

> Other than imitating the HP
> entrance, what other features, if any, are borrowed
> from Ebbets ?

They seem to have imitated the acute angle of Sullivan
and McKeever from Ebbets Field, despite the fact that
the Mets have no such space consideration. They are
building in the middle of a gigantic parking lot. The
whole third base - entrance - first base external wall
looks like an almost exact copy of Ebbets Field, at
1.25 scale.

They are wasting no chance to exploit the connections,
too. A couple of sample quotes from the Mets website:

"Inspired by tradition, the new ballpark will be clad
in brick, limestone, granite and cast stone, with the
brick closely resembling the masonry used at Ebbets
Field, both in color and texture."

"Various areas of the new ballpark will reinforce the
setting of the venue and the Mets connection to the
City of New York and baseball history, including: the
Ebbets Club behind the plate, Coogan's Landing beyond
the leftfield fence, the 'East Side' stands in
rightfield, and 'The Orchard' picnic area in
centerfield."

And now they are dragging in the Polo Grounds, too,
although I can't see any common design element. All
this seems odd to me. The Mets are 44 years old now-
they don't need to build a uniform from pieces left by
the Dodgers and Giants any more.

I like mallparks ok, although I'd very much prefer
them to be privately funded. The one problem I've had
at Camden Yards et al that I never had at a concrete
bowl is viewing angles. There are seats far along the
lines at Camden Yards which face the bullpen, and no
part of the playing field at all. It causes severe
neck strain to see home plate. Circles are good for
some things, even if they make for ugly looking
fields.

- David Dyte

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com