This was posted as comment last week. Very interesting stuff, thanks Lou!
Lou has left a new comment on your post “Solutions For Citi Field’s Obstructed View Problem…“:
The question I have is why did the Mets change the design from the original concept first introduced at the press conference held April 6, 2006. If you go here (NOTE THIS LINK WILL REDIRECT IN 5 SECONDS IT ISN’T BUSTED – SHANNON) there is an original computer rendering (scroll to the bottom) of (then simply known as Mets Ballpark).
The promenade had portals or tunnels instead of staircases with the landings that have been causing so many complaints. It’s the same design as the new Yankee stadium. Another cut away image shows a split staircase tucked in under the deck with no obstructing landing. Why did the Mets change the original design? The newer design, via computer animation, shows the obstructions. You can see them for yourselves at http://www.seats3d.com/mlb/new_york_mets/.
Ripping out the first three rows of the promenade is not going to happen. As it is, Citi Field only holds 41,900. They don’t want to move below that. A cheap solution is to remove the Plexi-glass on the stair ways. That just does not work because of glare and smudges. Replace the glass with standard rails. The railings will obstruct but at least if you can manuever a bit, you can get a more clear shot at the action not having to look through scratched up Plexi-glass. A very expensive, and unlikely solution, would be to go back to the original design concept. But that would involve cutting through sections of cast concrete risers then moving the stairs under the deck. Honestly, I can’t see that ever happening. I have been to Citi Field twice and I love the park. But I do think the Mets blew it with the promenade. The other problem that can never be corrected easily is that parts of the left and right field corners are blocked (in the promenade) the further down the lines you go. Many outfield seats prohibit seeing all of the outfield. This is a more common problem found in many of the new retro parks. The Mets wanted a small intimate ballpark with tight seating and “unprecedented” sight lines. They got that but not for everybody.