[image title="20080916_yankeeseats_560x375" size="full" id="1509" align="right" ]
Courtesy of Newsday:
Did some Yankee Stadium architect misread his or her protractor when the $1.5-billion ballpark was being designed? Are the Yankees alone in offering some of their fans less than the whole picture from their seats? No and no, according to a Newsday review of Major League Baseball’s existing and future stadiums.
Of the 11 major-league ballparks — including the new Yankee Stadium and the Mets’ new Citi Field — that have opened since 2000, eight have obstructed-view seats. Seven teams sell those tickets to the public; most wait until the rest of the stadium is sold out, and some sell them only at the box office……
Of the 30 ballparks that will be used in 2009, 23 have obstructed-view seats and 22 teams sell them to fans.
I did not get what the big deal was when this news first came to light, and I still struggle to see what is making people so upset. As this article shows, the argument that the Yankees spent a zillion dollars on the Stadium and therefore should only have full view seats holds no water. Almost every stadium has seats in which a portion of the field is obscured, and the Yankees have chosen to sell those seats for 5 dollars. The alternative is for them to allow 500 seats to go unsold, something that would serve no purpose and just limit the number of people that can get into the park. The Yankees have actually selected the most fan friendly option given the circumstances, and the outrage over the obstructed view seats is misplaced.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
4 Responses to Obstructed Views Not Limited To Yankee Stadium
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
I think that people are hyper-vigilant right now with their tax dollars and with high priced, high profile projects, and the idea of this multi-zillion dollar stadium showing signs of possible incompetence is particularly galling. There are so many stories out there of financiers, investors, politicians, CEOs and other bilking the public out of their hard-earned money so people are quick to jump on this and assume the worst. As more details of this era of greed, incompetence, back room deals and outright fraud come to light, everybody wants blood.
Except that it was not incompetence- they could have left that area empty. Instead, they chose to fit more seats in, at a reduced price. Are these seats worse than standing room?
right, I just said people ASSUME the worst. I was commenting on people’s reactions and the reasons behind them, not on the project, itself. You asked why people were getting upset and I was proposing a possible reason for that – that people assume something shady or incompetent is going down.
Paying 5 dollars for an obstructed seat>>> not having those seats at all.