PDA

View Full Version : Perception of the Cell now...still considered a bad ballpark? (outside of us)


tony1972
05-22-2008, 04:34 PM
We know the ballpark has changed...but is the Cell still perceived as a mistake? has popular opinion (outside of us Sox fans)..changed much?

what I mean is fans in other cities...architectural critics, etc....how much has perception changed?

turners56
05-22-2008, 04:38 PM
Ranked 8th in SI fan poll, so people are starting to recognize it. Unless, some Sox fan decided to put a bot out and spam the entire poll.

Hitmen77
05-22-2008, 05:16 PM
I don't know about fans in other cities, but my general impression in talking to people around town who are not specifically Sox fans is that they view the ballpark favorably since the renovations.

I don't think it's perceived as a "bad ballpark" by most people anymore.

Medford Bobby
05-22-2008, 05:42 PM
The design of the Cell will always be stuck in that mid 80's design period just before the boom of retro parks that started with Camden Yards. Though I don't know much more you can change to the park.

The park looks great (April 2006) compared to my last visit in 1991. Maybe a redesign of the outfield with some retro "arch window" walls would be nicer than that crummy girders look.

May be by 2040 Jerry will demand a new state of the art facility.....again!:?:

hawkjt
05-22-2008, 06:09 PM
People still have a hard time getting over the neighborhood mis-conceptions that I talk to... but whenever I bring newcomers to the park..they like it.

Ziggy S
05-22-2008, 06:13 PM
May be by 2040 Jerry will demand a new state of the art facility.....again!:?:

You know Chairman Jerry is in his seventies, right?

scarsofthumper
05-22-2008, 06:26 PM
Everyone i've taken to the stadium loves it. Between me and my gf we've converted a bunch of people from the Northside to the south

Stoky44
05-22-2008, 06:31 PM
May be by 2040 Jerry will demand a new state of the art facility.....again!:?:

I don't think Jerry will be making any earthly demands in 2040!

Hopefully he is comfortable and not dealing with a dry heat then.

In all seriousness though, I do think the Sox will have a new park in 35 years or so.

Medford Bobby
05-22-2008, 07:05 PM
I don't think Jerry will be making any earthly demands in 2040!

Hopefully he is comfortable and not dealing with a dry heat then.

In all seriousness though, I do think the Sox will have a new park in 35 years or so.

I will be a real old fart when that happens....but if I'm around I wonder if I'll shed a tear when they tare it down. Maybe not as I'm likely not going to have that relationship growing up with Comiskey Park, but others who grow up with the Cell will shed a tear....:whiner:

Jerome
05-22-2008, 07:41 PM
I don't care, I think the Sox will never quite the warm / friendly perception of outsiders as long as the Cubbies are in Chicago. It bothers me a little bit sometimes but for the most part I honestly don't care what outsiders think of the Sox. The only thing I care about is if the team wins or not.

I think (thank goodness for US Cellular) that ever since the renovations the park looks great. The green seats and the changes to the roof (and the general lack of blue in the park) makes it a great place to watch a game - there are great sightlines and no poles obstructing views.

And I used to take the orange line every day and you could see the park and from a distance it looks cool from the outside as well.

LongLiveFisk
05-22-2008, 07:45 PM
Everyone i've taken to the stadium loves it. Between me and my gf we've converted a bunch of people from the Northside to the south

I've heard some Cubs fans say they'd rather go to a game at the Cell for various reasons (parking, food, knowledgeable fans, etc). I don't think they would have said that back in the early to mid-90s.

Red Barchetta
05-22-2008, 09:05 PM
Since there have been so many new retro ballparks built since Comiskey II, I think the whole retro charm has begun to fade away. As a result, The Cell now has a unique atmosphere and personality. The roof and color them change to dark green has really helped. \

However, I think it's the smaller renovations such as the wall padding, the yellow line on top of the walls, the revamped bullpens, the Fundamentals area, the Fan Deck, etc. have all helped showcase the ballpark especially on TV. (I love the first base angle that shows the pillars of the Fundamentals deck).

I remeber watching a local Florida broadcast for the Rays and the announcers were complimenting how the renovations really changed the atmosphere of the ballpark. This from the visiting team's perspective.

I think the renovations have moved The Cell/Comiskey II from the near bottom of the list to the upper half of the list of current ballparks.

I agree that they need to finish it off and renovate the outfield concourse. Brick arch windows replacing the existing iron lattace would be awesome!

mccoydp
05-22-2008, 09:37 PM
I can't wait to see the ballpark this Sunday; I haven't seen it since 1993.

Hitmen77
05-22-2008, 09:48 PM
I can't wait to see the ballpark this Sunday; I haven't seen it since 1993.

You definitely are going to have to report back to us on what you think of the changes since last time you visited.

chisoxmike
05-22-2008, 09:51 PM
I can't wait to see the ballpark this Sunday; I haven't seen it since 1993.

Wow. Your mind is going to be blown.

ChiSoxGirl
05-22-2008, 09:52 PM
I'll be at the game tomorrow night with a Comiskey Park rookie, so I'll let you know what their verdict is.

stacksedwards
05-22-2008, 09:52 PM
who cares what people think that have either
A) never been to the park
B) have been a few times

I go 7 or 8 times a summer and I think its great and I think most season ticket holders and people on this site would agree that we have one of the better parks in baseball

ChiSoxGirl
05-22-2008, 09:53 PM
Wow. Your mind is going to be blown.

My uncle was visiting from San Diego in August 2005 and I took him to the ballpark for the first time since 1992 and he couldn't believe it- he loved it.

TheGipper
05-22-2008, 10:02 PM
I have been to like 4 games the last couple of years and love the park. I really hope to get to a lot more games since the kids are older, but the park reminds me of cross between Dodger Stadium and Yankee stadium. All the games that I have gone to have been day games and it's awesome. Nothing like it. Place reeks of baseball and I love it.

Would always go to Minnesota to watch the Whitesox every time they are there, and the dome is a turd. Absolute worst place in the world to watch a game and instead of knocking that piece of **** down, they odd to just light a match and call it even.

itsnotrequired
05-22-2008, 10:08 PM
I'll be at the game tomorrow night with a Comiskey Park rookie, so I'll let you know what their verdict is.

I was there with a rookie tonight (Brewer fan). He had been to a couple Wrigley games before but thought The Cell was better We "snuck" into some sweet seats behind first and later behind third. He said that would be impossible to do in Milwaukee.

Da Chicago way...

kaufsox
05-22-2008, 11:15 PM
Since there have been so many new retro ballparks built since Comiskey II, I think the whole retro charm has begun to fade away. As a result, The Cell now has a unique atmosphere and personality. The roof and color them change to dark green has really helped.

That is something I've felt for a long time. I know that I'm in the minority, but I've found the whole retro thing terribly boring from an architectual standpoint. One time is innovative, three is a trend and anything over that is overkill. I'm a big fan of modern and postmodern architecture and find the lack of imagination for new ballparks just plain dull and a bit disturbing. Having said that, I think the changes to USC have been mostly positive, again I know I'm in the distinct minority. Anyway, if I want to look at old buildings, I'll look at old buildings. I for one enjoy "the shock of the new."

TomBradley72
05-22-2008, 11:21 PM
Originally it was one of the worst, only better than the domes and cookie cutters from the 70s.

But now, it's a very solid ballpark. Not among the elite (AT&T, Camden, PNC, etc.)....but it's a great place to see a game. And it was all paid by business travelers/tourists (ie. rental car fees, hotel taxes, etc.).

There's still a ton of potential to make the building even better.

ChiSox65
05-23-2008, 12:27 AM
I've been to Camden Yards a few times and done their tour twice. I gotta say that although their park is newer it looks and feels much older. I'm not talking about design, I'm talking about cracking concrete, dirty, and an unfinished feeling in some of the warehouse stores. I feel that although their unique situation allowed them to design a very cool place, I'll take our park everytime over what they have now.

Simply put: We have aged much better than our Ex.

soxfan21
05-23-2008, 05:09 AM
It is easily the best park in Chicago by far :D:.

Railsplitter
05-23-2008, 06:14 AM
I never thought it was a bad ball park.

spiffie
05-23-2008, 06:34 AM
That is something I've felt for a long time. I know that I'm in the minority, but I've found the whole retro thing terribly boring from an architectual standpoint. One time is innovative, three is a trend and anything over that is overkill. I'm a big fan of modern and postmodern architecture and find the lack of imagination for new ballparks just plain dull and a bit disturbing. Having said that, I think the changes to USC have been mostly positive, again I know I'm in the distinct minority. Anyway, if I want to look at old buildings, I'll look at old buildings. I for one enjoy "the shock of the new."
I think the problem for the Sox came because the new place really didn't have any of the "shock of the new" about it. It was the last of a trend that no one really liked. They were the heirs to the legacy of Riverfront, Three Rivers, Veterans, and the other large bowl stadiums, just crossed with the Skydome's understanding that the more skyboxes you have the more revenue they generate. The fact that they have been able to turn the park into something that has such an intimate feel for the fans is amazing to me.

Stoky44
05-23-2008, 08:49 AM
just crossed with the Skydome's understanding that the more skyboxes you have the more revenue they generate.

I find it so funny that they wanted so many skyboxes, and over 15 years later there are still unfinished boxes, not just unused ones; UNFINISHED! You think they would not want to waste such prime realestate.

KenBerryGrab
05-23-2008, 08:58 AM
I never thought it was a bad ball park.

Somehow I hear this in the voice of Linus from "Peanuts," as he comments on the Charlie Brown Christmas tree.

chisoxfanatic
05-23-2008, 10:06 AM
I never thought it was a bad ball park.
Me neither. It's home to me during the summer months. The only thing that needs to be finished are those few skyboxes down the third base line.

Those who rip the ballpark and neighborhood obviously are stuck in the early 90s.

kitekrazy
05-23-2008, 10:49 AM
Those who rip the ballpark and neighborhood obviously are stuck in the early 90s.

I'm more impressed with how the neighborhood has changed. With a city the size of Chicago any new park should be built outside the city for better access.

roylestillman
05-23-2008, 11:00 AM
I'm more impressed with how the neighborhood has changed. With a city the size of Chicago any new park should be built outside the city for better access.

What?

What better access can you have than alongside a 14 lane expressway, within a few blocks of two rapid transit lines and acres of parking lots?

Almost all of the new parks are being built near city centers and, if anything Comiskey II's fault is the fact that it wasn't built even closer to the Loop.

russ99
05-23-2008, 11:06 AM
What?

What better access can you have than alongside a 14 lane expressway, within a few blocks of two rapid transit lines and acres of parking lots?

Almost all of the new parks are being built near city centers and, if anything Comiskey II's fault is the fact that it wasn't built even closer to the Loop.

Well, that has to do a lot with neighborhood continuity. I for one am glad Comiskey is still in Bridgeport and not where it could have been, like by the United Center.

My only issue is if they had built it 2-3 years later (after PNC, Comerica and some of the other more panoramic outfield view parks), would they have faced the outfield towards downtown?

I seem to recall the wind study as a reason why they didn't do that in the first place.

I also like to bring groups from work to Sox games, and it's quite often a Cell newbie comments to me that it's a really nice ballpark.

Red Barchetta
05-23-2008, 11:33 AM
Well, that has to do a lot with neighborhood continuity. I for one am glad Comiskey is still in Bridgeport and not where it could have been, like by the United Center.

My only issue is if they had built it 2-3 years later (after PNC, Comerica and some of the other more panoramic outfield view parks), would they have faced the outfield towards downtown?

I seem to recall the wind study as a reason why they didn't do that in the first place.

I also like to bring groups from work to Sox games, and it's quite often a Cell newbie comments to me that it's a really nice ballpark.

I never understood that whole wind study argument. The old park was faced that way (even thought the outfield had upper decks) and it didn't appear to make Comisky I a pitchers park. At least after the moved the outfield fences in.

Personally, I wished they would have built north of I55 in the south loop so we could still be considered south siders, but we would have had a better outfield backdrop of the Sears tower and skyline.

tebman
05-23-2008, 11:42 AM
My uncle was visiting from San Diego in August 2005 and I took him to the ballpark for the first time since 1992 and he couldn't believe it- he loved it.

I had a similar experience this year. I had tickets to the May 8th Twins game but found out I couldn't go. I was talking with a friend of mine and asked if she could use the tickets. It turned out she and her husband were both off that day and were able to use them.

This is a 50 year-old couple who, remarkably, had never been to a major league game. My tickets were in LF, a couple of rows behind the bullpen. I got two phone calls from her that afternoon absolutely giddy with excitement: "It is so awesome, it is so incredibly...(laugh)...I don't have words to express how unbelieveable it is inside this ballpark!" And that was before Dye and Uribe hit their home runs right in their section. Uribe's homer hit his hand but he couldn't hold on to it, while she leaned out of its way.

They raved about how beautiful the park was, how friendly the people were, and what a great time they had. I was glad I was able to turn them on to a real baseball experience.

comet2k
05-23-2008, 12:08 PM
Well, that has to do a lot with neighborhood continuity. I for one am glad Comiskey is still in Bridgeport and not where it could have been, like by the United Center.

My only issue is if they had built it 2-3 years later (after PNC, Comerica and some of the other more panoramic outfield view parks), would they have faced the outfield towards downtown?

I seem to recall the wind study as a reason why they didn't do that in the first place.

I also like to bring groups from work to Sox games, and it's quite often a Cell newbie comments to me that it's a really nice ballpark.

It is too bad there isn't a good look at downtown from most seats. Our seats are in the UD over 1st base, and we always walk to the top, partly to enjoy the great view of downtown.

mrfourni
05-23-2008, 12:48 PM
I never understood that whole wind study argument. The old park was faced that way (even thought the outfield had upper decks) and it didn't appear to make Comisky I a pitchers park. At least after the moved the outfield fences in.

Personally, I wished they would have built north of I55 in the south loop so we could still be considered south siders, but we would have had a better outfield backdrop of the Sears tower and skyline.


I always wished they built it along the lake. Lake Michigan Shots would have been fun.

Iwritecode
05-23-2008, 12:57 PM
Well, that has to do a lot with neighborhood continuity. I for one am glad Comiskey is still in Bridgeport and not where it could have been, like by the United Center.

My only issue is if they had built it 2-3 years later (after PNC, Comerica and some of the other more panoramic outfield view parks), would they have faced the outfield towards downtown?

I seem to recall the wind study as a reason why they didn't do that in the first place.

I also like to bring groups from work to Sox games, and it's quite often a Cell newbie comments to me that it's a really nice ballpark.


I've always heard that they faced it the opposite direction because Reisndorf wanted home plate to be at the same corner (35th and Shields) as the old ballpark.

Hitmenof77
05-23-2008, 12:58 PM
People should judge Comiskey for what it is. Every time I hear a review people say it's not like Camden or the other retro parks. No **** sherlock. But it's a damn good ballpark to watch a game, especially after the recent renovations.

TomBradley72
05-23-2008, 01:00 PM
I always wished they built it along the lake. Lake Michigan Shots would have been fun.

Towards the end of the process...I believe a downtown location was floated. Something like SW of the Loop/railyards area? That would have been spectacular.

But 35th & Shields is our home....I kinda like that we stayed in Bridgeport.

roylestillman
05-23-2008, 01:16 PM
I had a similar experience this year. I had tickets to the May 8th Twins game but found out I couldn't go. I was talking with a friend of mine and asked if she could use the tickets. It turned out she and her husband were both off that day and were able to use them.

This is a 50 year-old couple who, remarkably, had never been to a major league game. My tickets were in LF, a couple of rows behind the bullpen. I got two phone calls from her that afternoon absolutely giddy with excitement: "It is so awesome, it is so incredibly...(laugh)...I don't have words to express how unbelieveable it is inside this ballpark!" And that was before Dye and Uribe hit their home runs right in their section. Uribe's homer hit his hand but he couldn't hold on to it, while she leaned out of its way.

They raved about how beautiful the park was, how friendly the people were, and what a great time they had. I was glad I was able to turn them on to a real baseball experience.

Was this the day game in section 157? I swear I was sitting in front of these folks and I remember overhearing that call. Earlier the woman had asked her husband "What's that big yellow pole for?' They were having a great time.

PatK
05-23-2008, 01:30 PM
Those who rip the ballpark and neighborhood obviously are stuck in the early 90s.

Word.

I hear people that still complain about how high and steep the upper deck is, then I have to tell them that the section they are talking about hasn't been there for several years now.

When the park was built, the trend in sports was stadiums that were more "modern" looking. As it is in Chicago, we have a horrible habit of accepting change (even if something is nicer), and people didn't like the park. I'm sure the rejection of the park is one reason why Wrigley started getting hailed as "The Shrine".

The reaction to the park was why subsequent trend of building retro looking parks. But after a while, that retro look isn't retro, it's commonplace.

I never disliked the park when it opened, I just like it a whole lot better now.

It's like when the United Center opened. People HATED it, but I didn't mind. I loved the modern conveniences, the better food, the larger concourses where you weren't packed in like sardines, and I loved that it wasn't a dirty, smelly, old place.

Chicken Dinner
05-23-2008, 01:36 PM
The official rulebook states:

It is desirable that the line from home base through the pitchers plate to second base shall run East-Northeast.I think it's more of a sun thing then anything else. Not sure why they opted to face it southeast.

tebman
05-23-2008, 01:47 PM
Was this the day game in section 157? I swear I was sitting in front of these folks and I remember overhearing that call. Earlier the woman had asked her husband "What's that big yellow pole for?' They were having a great time.

Yes! Section 157, Row 13. They're wonderful people and I was really happy they saw a great game and had a good experience.

The husband caught Uribe's homer on his hand and it skipped on a couple rows behind him. He jammed his thumb a little but was laughing about it all the way home.

She called me the first time just before the game started and left the message I quoted in my first post. She called again after Dye's homer to tell me that it landed near them -- then after we hung up Uribe hits his.

Couldn't have asked for a better day to see their first game. There's not much doubt the Sox have two big new fans.

comet2k
05-23-2008, 01:48 PM
The official rulebook states:

I think it's more of a sun thing then anything else. Not sure why they opted to face it southeast.

Just guessing, but probably because it puts home plate close to 35th St., where the main entrances are. Plus, aren't the main parking lots where the old stadium used to be and where they give direct access to the park?

If they had put home plate in the SW corner facing NE, most of the parking would have been north of left field and a longer walk for most fans.

roylestillman
05-23-2008, 01:53 PM
Yes! Section 157, Row 13. They're wonderful people and I was really happy they saw a great game and had a good experience.

The husband caught Uribe's homer on his hand and it skipped on a couple rows behind him. He jammed his thumb a little but was laughing about it all the way home.

She called me the first time just before the game started and left the message I quoted in my first post. She called again after Dye's homer to tell me that it landed near them -- then after we hung up Uribe hits his.

Couldn't have asked for a better day to see their first game. There's not much doubt the Sox have two big new fans.

That's them. My brothers and I are in Row 12 on the 27 game plan.

tebman
05-23-2008, 02:00 PM
That's them. My brothers and I are in Row 12 on the 27 game plan.

It's funny -- I've been going to games my whole life and never got so much as a foul ball, and they went to their first game ever as complete newbies and had two Sox homers virtually fall in their laps.

I told them next time I want them to take me. :redneck

C-Dawg
05-23-2008, 02:35 PM
Word.

I hear people that still complain about how high and steep the upper deck is, then I have to tell them that the section they are talking about hasn't been there for several years now.


I hear that complaint too from time to time.... Don't the other new parks have similarly-steep upper decks if I remember right? The D-Backs ballpark gets mentioned on this forum a lot for having a steep upper deck. And Yankee Stadium is famous for its extra-tall and steep upper deck. Somehow everywhere else gets a free pass on the matter except for the Cell.

The thing I wished they had done, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is I wish they would have made the main concourse level (100) right at street level, so you walk right in from the gate and already be at concourse level. This probably would have minimized the complaints about the "nosebleed" levels of the upper deck, since they'd no longer be so high above the street. Plus it would be cool to look in through the gates at the brilliant sunlit ballpark before going inside, like you can in most other new parks. Imagine the anticipation for kids coming for the first time; waiting for the gates to open and peeking in at batting practice! Unfortunately I suspect there were soil issues why they didn't want to have the playing field lower than street level.

Red Barchetta
05-23-2008, 03:05 PM
I hear that complaint too from time to time.... Don't the other new parks have similarly-steep upper decks if I remember right? The D-Backs ballpark gets mentioned on this forum a lot for having a steep upper deck. And Yankee Stadium is famous for its extra-tall and steep upper deck. Somehow everywhere else gets a free pass on the matter except for the Cell.

The thing I wished they had done, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is I wish they would have made the main concourse level (100) right at street level, so you walk right in from the gate and already be at concourse level. This probably would have minimized the complaints about the "nosebleed" levels of the upper deck, since they'd no longer be so high above the street. Plus it would be cool to look in through the gates at the brilliant sunlit ballpark before going inside, like you can in most other new parks. Imagine the anticipation for kids coming for the first time; waiting for the gates to open and peeking in at batting practice! Unfortunately I suspect there were soil issues why they didn't want to have the playing field lower than street level.


...plus the $$$ involved with digging below street level, etc. I agree - it would have made it a lot nicer. I like how in Cleveland you can walk up to the left field corner at street level and see into the game field.

Medford Bobby
05-23-2008, 05:56 PM
...plus the $$$ involved with digging below street level, etc. I agree - it would have made it a lot nicer. I like how in Cleveland you can walk up to the left field corner at street level and see into the game field.
I like it too where you can walk in the front of the ball park like Safeco and Coors and see the field once you walk up the stairs. I see the new Mets ball park has a grand entrance. I wonder why the designers had no grand entrance to the Cell, instead have the business offices in the front.....Who cares when you walk in the front and see a receptionist.....:scratch:

ChiSoxFan7
05-24-2008, 11:34 AM
Something I've heard complained about is that the the view from behind home plate and down the lines isn't as nice as other parks. I don't necessarily agree, but all cell-dislikers have told me they wish the could see the city from behind home plate and down the lines. I guess this would look nice to see the city?:scratch:

Has anyone been to a park where you could? If so, does it really add "atmosphere to ballpark?

sullythered
05-24-2008, 11:56 AM
Just went to a Tigers game in Detroit. Though their place if very cool, the quirkiness also leads to inconvenience. The Cell is a beautiful park, and I have yet to find a park that is easier to maneuver, as a fan. Along with the additions they have made, I think it has aged incredibly well.

roylestillman
05-24-2008, 12:59 PM
Well, if you don't like the Cell, stick around a few years. Of the Ballparks opened since 1989 that replaced an old MLB park, the age of the parks they replaced were as follows:

Arlington: 21
Astrodome: 34
Atlanta: 30
Busch: 39
Candlestick: 39
Cleveland: 61
Milwaukee: 44
Toronto: 12
San Diego: 34
Seattle: 22
Baltimore: 37
Cincinatti: 32
Pittsburgh: 30
Detroit: 87
Chicago: 80
Philadelphia 32

If you take out the obvious outliers (Detroit, Comiskey and Cleveland), the average age of these parks was 32 when they closed. That would mean we should be due for a new park in about 14 years!

Medford Bobby
05-24-2008, 01:13 PM
Well, if you don't like the Cell, stick around a few years. Of the Ballparks opened since 1989 that replaced an old MLB park, the age of the parks they replaced were as follows:

Arlington: 21
Astrodome: 34
Atlanta: 30
Busch: 39
Candlestick: 39
Cleveland: 61
Milwaukee: 44
Toronto: 12
San Diego: 34
Seattle: 22
Baltimore: 37
Cincinatti: 32
Pittsburgh: 30
Detroit: 87
Chicago: 80
Philadelphia 32

If you take out the obvious outliers (Detroit, Comiskey and Cleveland), the average age of these parks was 32 when they closed. That would mean we should be due for a new park in about 14 years!

But will they build it with green seats this time??:o:

manders_01
05-24-2008, 01:28 PM
I hear that complaint too from time to time.... Don't the other new parks have similarly-steep upper decks if I remember right? The D-Backs ballpark gets mentioned on this forum a lot for having a steep upper deck. And Yankee Stadium is famous for its extra-tall and steep upper deck. Somehow everywhere else gets a free pass on the matter except for the Cell.

The thing I wished they had done, which hasn't been mentioned yet, is I wish they would have made the main concourse level (100) right at street level, so you walk right in from the gate and already be at concourse level. This probably would have minimized the complaints about the "nosebleed" levels of the upper deck, since they'd no longer be so high above the street. Plus it would be cool to look in through the gates at the brilliant sunlit ballpark before going inside, like you can in most other new parks. Imagine the anticipation for kids coming for the first time; waiting for the gates to open and peeking in at batting practice! Unfortunately I suspect there were soil issues why they didn't want to have the playing field lower than street level.

I've only had tickets in the UD at The Cell and Coors. I thought both were steep and I felt less comfortable in Coors. I think that's in part that I usually sit in the LD so my body is a little more used to it. And yes, in both instances, I feel like there's a significant difference between the LD and UD.

I do love that Coors is built sunk in to the surrounding grade. Every time I drive by, I always look in the gate at the field. :redneck But in all seriousness, I think it makes the entire stadium more accessible. And for the money that's spent on the trenching and retention foundations, there are significant savings elsewhere (elevators and escalators are the most obvious). Unless the soil is complete crap, it really surprises me it's not done more often.

ChiSoxGirl
05-24-2008, 02:58 PM
I'll be at the game tomorrow night with a Comiskey Park rookie, so I'll let you know what their verdict is.

Ok, so the official review was, "What a great ballpark- I love it!" I gave the Comiskey Park rookie the grand tour, including a stop on the Fan Deck, to the statues in center, the Podsednik walk-off seat, and into the Bullpen Sports Bar, and said rookie was nothing but complimentary. :thumbsup:

Hitmen77
05-24-2008, 03:01 PM
Well, if you don't like the Cell, stick around a few years. Of the Ballparks opened since 1989 that replaced an old MLB park, the age of the parks they replaced were as follows:

Arlington: 21
Astrodome: 34
Atlanta: 30
Busch: 39
Candlestick: 39
Cleveland: 61
Milwaukee: 44
Toronto: 12
San Diego: 34
Seattle: 22
Baltimore: 37
Cincinatti: 32
Pittsburgh: 30
Detroit: 87
Chicago: 80
Philadelphia 32

If you take out the obvious outliers (Detroit, Comiskey and Cleveland), the average age of these parks was 32 when they closed. That would mean we should be due for a new park in about 14 years!

I don't think you'll see a repeat of that age-at-torndown average. What skews these numbers is that so many towns built awful multipurpose cookie-cutter stadiums in the 60s and 70s. These aged very badly. On the other hand, Dodger, Angel*, and Kaufmann Stadium were built as baseball only during this era and have only needed renovations instead of total replacement.

The post-1990 ballparks may need renovations at some point, but they are going to be around for a long time.

*Anaheim Stadium started out as baseball-only, was converted to multipurpose in the late 70s and then renovated back to baseball-only in the 90s.

cbotnyse
05-24-2008, 09:00 PM
Something I've heard complained about is that the the view from behind home plate and down the lines isn't as nice as other parks. I don't necessarily agree, but all cell-dislikers have told me they wish the could see the city from behind home plate and down the lines. I guess this would look nice to see the city?:scratch:

Has anyone been to a park where you could? If so, does it really add "atmosphere to ballpark?PNC Park (http://www.baseballpilgrimages.com/national/pittsburgh.html) comes to mind.

The problem isn't with the Cell itself, its the lack of atmosphere around the park. I think the renovations were sorely needed, and for the most part, have been a huge success.

However the endless acres of parking lots and lack of even one decent bar/restaurant within a few blocks of the park is ridiculous. I think they should get rid of the parking lot that borders 35th and Wentworth and turn it into a mixed use development with plenty of eating and drinking options.

RadioheadRocks
05-24-2008, 09:10 PM
I never thought it was a bad ball park.

Me neither. It's home to me during the summer months. The only thing that needs to be finished are those few skyboxes down the third base line.

Those who rip the ballpark and neighborhood obviously are stuck in the early 90s.

I never really thought of it as "bad" either; I've always loved the exterior with the huge arched windows (in tribute to the old Comiskey Park), although the interior seemed a bit "sterile" to me and was a bit on the bland side (especially with the boring sea of blue coming from the seats and the outfield walls). Before all the retro work the best way I could describe the ambience of the park would be comparing it to the food court at the mall (pick a mall, any mall); but the improvements have given the park so much character, and like others have said before me The Cell now really stands alone in comparison to all the other "retro parks" that have come along since then.

pudge
05-24-2008, 09:24 PM
The problem isn't with the Cell itself, its the lack of atmosphere around the park. I think the renovations were sorely needed, and for the most part, have been a huge success.


Agreed - I always get absolutely ripped on this site when I start to discuss The Cell, but I was back there in '05 and '06 for the first time in years, and I was completely underwhelmed. The two parks I have been to the most (and quite often) in recent years are Seattle and San Diego, and I adore those parks and the surroundings so much that going back to The Cell was a disappointing experience to me. A lot of it is just the ease of access and the atmosphere around and near the park. The other part is that even with some of the recent changes to The Cell, it still feels like a cheesy ballpark that now has some rennovations tacked on in an effort to patch up the blemishes of its initial design. I will always love the The Cell because of the team that players there, and the exploding scoreboard and the passion of Sox fans makes for a great time. (And when Nancy is there, you realize how great a game is with a true organist.) I just wish I could combine some of the asthetics, design and surroundings of a place like Seattle or San Diego with all that.

nsolo
05-25-2008, 08:54 AM
Its a great ballpark because its where my White Sox play!

roadrunner
05-25-2008, 02:36 PM
The park itself is fine in my estimation. What I don't like is the horrible sound/PA whatever people. They basically have a license to bombard our ears with any crap they want. It's not that I don't like noise, it's that they are TERRIBLE.

For example, when they started playing "let's go go white sox" in 2005 it was totally cool and was usually part of a rally. Now, they play it incessantly regardless of score or game situation.

Most people are at the game to enjoy baseball, weather, beer, food, companions etc.

Very few are there to listen to the douchebag with a sound machine.

Bobby Jenks
05-25-2008, 06:26 PM
The park itself is fine in my estimation. What I don't like is the horrible sound/PA whatever people. They basically have a license to bombard our ears with any crap they want. It's not that I don't like noise, it's that they are TERRIBLE.

For example, when they started playing "let's go go white sox" in 2005 it was totally cool and was usually part of a rally. Now, they play it incessantly regardless of score or game situation.

Most people are at the game to enjoy baseball, weather, beer, food, companions etc.

Very few are there to listen to the douchebag with a sound machine.


It is like that at every ballpark now. I think the Cell is pretty good,but i would put some of the newer ballparks ahead of it. Nothing against the cell,but some of the newer ones are simply amazing

35th&Shields
05-25-2008, 07:41 PM
In all seriousness though, I do think the Sox will have a new park in 35 years or so.

In 35 years I'll be in my mid sixties. By that time the tearing down of USCF would hit pretty hard. That would represent a lot. I was 14 when the original Comiskey was torn down and I remember feeling like that park coming down was also the end of my childhood, as melodramatic as that sounds.

HawkTheGM
05-25-2008, 09:37 PM
I don't know if this has been said yet, but I think that this park will age very well. Look at the Cell's inspiration, kauffman Stadium. When it first debuted, it was considered ugly. Now its viewed at as one of the best parks in Baseball. Similarly, the so-called "retro" ballparks have since become a joke, with each team trying to "out corky" the other.

If this park is standing in 50 years, and if the Sox put together some more World Series victories, I think that the Cell will be looked at like Yankee stadium is today.

Red Barchetta
05-26-2008, 08:40 AM
I like it too where you can walk in the front of the ball park like Safeco and Coors and see the field once you walk up the stairs. I see the new Mets ball park has a grand entrance. I wonder why the designers had no grand entrance to the Cell, instead have the business offices in the front.....Who cares when you walk in the front and see a receptionist.....:scratch:

I agree and I think this would be a relatively easy fix for the SOX. They should build a grand entrance in the LF corner so that (a) it can be seen from the Dan Ryan and help sell the park and (b) a shorter walk from the L/Metra stops for public transit.

Install the RF party deck and then connect the two corners with brick arches (instead of the metal lattace) and I think they would have a real winner and truly complete the renovations.

By original design, Comiskey II wasn't a bad park, it just looks like they ran out of money. Sort of like buying a house with just primer on the drywall and no carpeting or design elements.

C-Dawg
05-27-2008, 12:10 PM
I don't know if this has been said yet, but I think that this park will age very well. Look at the Cell's inspiration, kauffman Stadium. When it first debuted, it was considered ugly.

I remember Royals Stadium regularly being praised back in the 70s as the most (or one of the most) beautiful parks in all of baseball.

I agree about the Cell however: its clean, symmetrical lines will eventually be recognized as classic and unique, particularly after everyone else has a goofy retro ballpark.

Thome_Fan
05-28-2008, 02:47 PM
I agree. I actually like the metal lattice. You know, the French hated the Eiffel Tower at first and said it was a big, ugly, metal monstrosity. Of course, the world recognizes it as a work of art now.

Maybe someday USCF will be the same way? :tongue:

Medford Bobby
05-28-2008, 06:56 PM
The park itself is fine in my estimation. What I don't like is the horrible sound/PA whatever people. They basically have a license to bombard our ears with any crap they want. It's not that I don't like noise, it's that they are TERRIBLE.

For example, when they started playing "let's go go white sox" in 2005 it was totally cool and was usually part of a rally. Now, they play it incessantly regardless of score or game situation.

Most people are at the game to enjoy baseball, weather, beer, food, companions etc.

Very few are there to listen to the douchebag with a sound machine.

Former Sox pitcher and later broadcaster Jim Kaat eluded to why he was retiring from broadcasting was that he could no longer tolerate all the "noise" going on at all the ball parks. :o:

Tippy
05-31-2008, 11:26 PM
I love the Cell. Everyone I've invited to Sox games also thinks it is a really nice ballpark.

whitesox901
06-01-2008, 02:44 PM
When I went to the cell for the first time last year, I thought it kicked major ass