Slate's Bizbox
sports nut: The stadium scene.

Ashe HeapThe dump that's hosting the U.S. Open.

By Peter Dizikes
Posted Friday, Aug. 23, 2002, at 10:34 AM ET
Tennis through the wrong end of the telescope

When tennis's U.S. Open begins Monday, television viewers will be treated to endless aerial shots of Arthur Ashe Stadium, the much-heralded behemoth towering over the National Tennis Center in Queens, N.Y. Broadcasters will murmur appreciatively about the court, as they have since it opened in 1997. The New York Times' architecture critic Herbert Muschamp has called it a "gem."

It's not a gem. Arthur Ashe Stadium is a disaster, possibly the worst sports venue in America. Some stadiums are unfriendly to fans. Some are disliked by players. And some come across poorly on television. Arthur Ashe Stadium accomplishes all three at once.

The sheer size of Ashe makes it a miserable place to watch tennis. With a capacity of 23,157, it's the biggest tennis stadium in the world. But that just means it has more bad seats than any other arena. While the best tennis venues provide a sense of intimacy, Ashe's double-decker stack of luxury boxes, located immediately above the courtside seats, pushes everyone else higher, making fans in the upper deck feel as if they're watching tennis through the wrong end of a telescope.

Just how bad is it? Fans in the depressingly designated Row Z at the very top of Ashe, peering at a court a fraction of the size of a baseball diamond, sit 120 feet in the air, higher even than their counterparts at neighboring Shea Stadium. Meanwhile, Wimbledon's Centre Court packs just over 13,000 fans into an arena scarcely higher than the luxury-box level at Ashe.

Absurdly, a U.S. Tennis Association fact sheet claims that "individual seating, increased restrooms and increased concession stands are among the most visible differences between Arthur Ashe Stadium and its predecessor, Louis Armstrong Stadium." Here's one more: The old, unloved Armstrong stadium—the biggest in tennis prior to Ashe—only rose to the point where Ashe's upper deck begins. That means at least half the spectators in Ashe now sit higher than the worst nosebleed seat the Open had to offer five years ago.

Worse, because the upper deck is so far from the action, Open apparatchiks allow fans in Ashe to leave their seats and move around during play. As a result, spectators in the upper deck generally glimpse Pete Sampras or Venus Williams only when they're not staring at sunburned, hot-dog-toting fans trying to find their seats. Upper-deck denizens, incidentally, tend to be rank-and-file USTA members, season-ticket holders, or other tennis enthusiasts (like myself) who go to the U.S. Open every year and should be spreading the good word about the sport. But many have come to loathe its principal U.S. venue. Some now spend their time entirely on the outer courts.

If Ashe were packed to the rafters, then maybe you could justify the USTA's decision to build this monstrosity. But even on the U.S. Open's final weekend, when the stadium is routinely announced as being sold out and no important matches are being played on the outer courts, Ashe is rarely filled with fans. No-shows may be a fact of life in sports, but to have them so consistently at the climax of America's premier tennis event says a lot about its principal venue.

It's not just fans who feel alienated by Arthur Ashe Stadium. Players dislike the place, too. Some have said the court surface is the slowest at the whole tennis center. Many more hate the wind that whips through the large players' entrance at the stadium's north end. Lleyton Hewitt, last year's men's champion, compared Ashe unfavorably to provincial Australian courts after winning a match in 2000, saying, "It was a nightmare out there, the toughest conditions I've ever played in. … It felt like a hurricane was behind me at one end."

Then there's the dulling effect Arthur Ashe Stadium has on televised matches. While the typically roaring, buzzing crowds at Wimbledon or the French Open build the drama of a good match for those watching at home, Ashe's vastness and inevitable vacant seats—especially in the corporate-junket territory close to the court—diminish crowd noise and make even taut, hard-fought contests seem less intense. A casual TV viewer, looking at the crowd surge behind a golfer on the 18th hole of a major, must think the fans can't get enough of the sport. The same fan watching the U.S. Open's Super Saturday might believe it's not worth attending the final of a major tennis tournament. In the long run, it's not an impression tennis can afford to give.

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Peter Dizikes is a journalist living in Boston. He often writes about science and technology.
Photo of Arthur Ashe Stadium by Duomo/Corbis.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Notes From The Fray Editor:

A majority (more or less) weighed in to say that tennis is boring no matter where it is played so it doesn't matter if you can't see it. By this logic, Arthur Ashe stadium is the best place to see tennis since you can't accidentally end up bored. So where's the best place to watch tennis if you want to watch tennis? Some thought Ashe at least had ample room; some preferred their tv screens and one savvy U.S. Open attendee (Josh Goldstein) suggested stalking the early round matches on the outer courts.

Even if Ashe is a bad stadium, is it The Worst? This being the Sports Nut Fray, competition ensued. SDH started a contest but there were few entries as good as the opener. I have collected some other possibilities, here listed West to East: Tony offered Candlestick, Dick Singer opted for Texas Stadium (&Kathleen agreed), GaT grumbled about Miller Park, John hazarded the Trop, Warren chimed in with Toronto's old Exhibition Stadium, aubsta was confident that The Vet was the bottom (P Diddy agreed), anonymous waffled between Montreal's big O and the New Comiskey, Mike picked Foxboro/Sullivan, and Nosebleed nominated Fenway. (Did you know Philly was west of Montreal? Or that Toronto was east of Tampa Bay? Neither did I.)

Remarks From The Fray:

In comparing Arthur Ashe stadium to the Armstrong and Wimbledon stadiums, Mr. Dizikes raises the question "Worst in comparison to what?" First, please remember that those fans in the nosebleed sections of A.A. would not even be in attendance at either of the other two venues he praises. The seating at A.A. is not "How far away", but "Do you wish to be there at all?" If you don't want to watch from far away, then utilize the TV screens at the center or at home.
Mr. D.'s denigration would have more validity if he offered a design that could seat 28,000 as closely as the 13 - 15,000 capacity of Wimbledon or Armstrong.
Second: the surface. Every surface - tennis, golf, football - has some detractors. Remember the "grass is for cows" comments about Wimbledon - whose courts resemble ripped-up sod farms by the last rounds. Or the pounds of red clay each player carries off with him - in his sneakers, clothes, hair, - at Roland Garros? The balls turning red and weighing in the pounds? And the jets that used to fly over Armstrong?

-- RHandelsman

(To reply, click here.)

I attended the very first match played at Ashe Stadium, the dedication ceremony and almost every men's and women's finals since it opened. I have a few remarks.

1. Yes, it sucks, for the reasons the author expresses, mainly, it is too damn big and the luxury boxes push every out. Keep in mind that if you buy tickets for the finals the MOMENT that they are made available to the public, your seat at Ashe Stadium will have a better view of the Manhattan skyline than the court.

2. The good things about Ashe Stadium are (a) its named after Arthur Ashe, tennis hero and first US Open champion and not bazuka.com, Enron, etc (b) Louis Armstrong Stadium, which Ashe replaced, has been scaled down now that it hosts the lesser matches. It is now an excellent place to see a match.

-- Josh Goldstein

(To reply, click here.)


Who cares? I have the best seat in the house...right in front of my TV. I don't have to compete with hordes of people, traffic, parking, or weather conditions. If I get bored, I can fall asleep on my couch or change the channel. Eats are in my frig....best of all, it only costs me a monthly electric bill.

-- Lady Jane

(To reply, click here.)


Lady Jane…you don't know what you're missing. For $40 dollars I can watch tennis from 11am until 11pm during the first four days, and watch courtside from more than a dozen courts. It's only Arthur Ashe stadium that stinks. And believe me, it's worth getting an up close and personal view of Anna Kournakova.

-- Geoff

(To reply, click here.)


…Yes, it is high up, and you might be somewhat 'removed' from the play, but where can you see the greatest tennis matches in the world, turn around, and see the most gorgeous skyline ever?!?! (Even without the WTC, it is still a wonderful view). Although it would be much better with the WTC.
The majority of people that go to this tourney go to say they went. It's a prestige thing. They probably couldn't even tell you the #1 player in the world.
The US Tennis Center in Flushing, NY., is one of the greatest sports venues in the country. And I wish I could be there.....especially this year.

-- Ellen

(To reply, click here.)

(8/26)

Washington Post
The Washington Post
OPINIONS
A Grand Tour
David Broder | While the stars align for Obama, McCain is looking like the odd-man-out on foreign policy.
Annette Heuser: A Honeymoon