PDA

View Full Version : Upper Deck at Jake


A.T. Money
04-09-2003, 07:32 PM
I'm watching this game, and I'm noticing the upperdeck. The Cell is constantly criticised for the slope and height, yet when I look at the Jake, it doesn't look any better. It appears that you're just as far away from the action. The same can be said for Safeco in Seattle.

czalgosz
04-09-2003, 08:02 PM
All the new ballparks have that cantilevered, steep upper deck.

The main differences - New Comiskey was first to do it, so it was noticed a lot more, and as someone here pointed out, the Club level at new Comiskey pushes the upper deck higher off the field than at other stadia.

steff
04-09-2003, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
I'm watching this game, and I'm noticing the upperdeck. The Cell is constantly criticised for the slope and height, yet when I look at the Jake, it doesn't look any better. It appears that you're just as far away from the action. The same can be said for Safeco in Seattle.

I've been there several times. It's just as steep. Same with OP@CY and Seattle.

hsnterprize
04-10-2003, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
I'm watching this game, and I'm noticing the upperdeck. The Cell is constantly criticised for the slope and height, yet when I look at the Jake, it doesn't look any better. It appears that you're just as far away from the action. The same can be said for Safeco in Seattle. You also have to think about this...as high as the upper deck at Jacobs Field is, fans can look outside the stadium and see downtown Cleveland and the Gund Arena. There are distractions there, unlike the "Cell". Not to mention, Clevelanders are so glad to be rid of Municipal Stadium, and the Indians were so good during the 90's, that there wasn't much reason to complain.

Many cities like Seattle, Baltimore, Denver, Arlington (TX), and other places where these modern retro-looking stadiums are had crappy places for their teams to play in (i.e., Kingdome, Memorial Stadium, Arlington Stadium) before they moved to their current surroundings. But for us here in Chicago, our team moved from an older ballpark into what was thought at the time as a modern wonder of a stadium. It was when OP@CY cam about that the criticisms mounted. I heard there were criticisms of the upper deck long before the 1992 season started, when OP@CY opened.

With all due respect, Comiskey Park II did look dull compared to OP@CY, Jacobs Field, and Safeco Field. I know many of you are tired of reading/hearing that, but in my honest opinion both as a fan and a reporter, that's how I feel. Do you think I've been talking so much about renovating U.S. Cellular Field if I didn't want to see change? Unlike many other reporters in this town...I don't write/say things just to get reaction. I really feel the ballpark has room for improvement, and I'm glad the Sox have been doing things about the ballpark to make it more of a fun place to visit.

Hangar18
04-10-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
All the new ballparks have that cantilevered, steep upper deck.

The main differences - New Comiskey was first to do it, so it was noticed a lot more, and as someone here pointed out, the Club level at new Comiskey pushes the upper deck higher off the field than at other stadia.

I think what they mean about cantilevered, is that instead of a post in the middle of a section, supporting the upper deck. Cantilevering moves the pole back in the section, less obstructing, and using the weight of the upper deck to rest on the post itself. in other words, it can hang farther over the stands without a post in the way. Comiskey failed to use this new technology, instead wanting more and more skyboxes.

DrCrawdad
04-10-2003, 01:49 PM
I've driven past the Jake several times on the way out to NY State. I haven't been to a game there though.

My younger brother has been to the Jake. In his opinion the Upper Tank is just as high, if not higher, than the ballpark formerly known as Comiskey.

I think the biggest problem with Comiskey's upper deck is the perception. It started when they built the new park with it towering over the old park. People can compare it in their mind to the old park and to then the new Comiskey has to play against Wrigley in the judgement of fans.

34rancher
04-10-2003, 02:02 PM
Originally posted by SoxDemon
I'm watching this game, and I'm noticing the upperdeck. The Cell is constantly criticised for the slope and height, yet when I look at the Jake, it doesn't look any better. It appears that you're just as far away from the action. The same can be said for Safeco in Seattle.
As far as the steepness goes. A few years ago there was an article where it pointed out that the Sox stadium was not even one of the 15 steepest in the major leagues. I think Kauffman is the the steepest with Camden second.

Irishsox1
04-10-2003, 02:23 PM
Perception is the biggest problem with the Cell's upper deck. The Tribune has never pulled back any punches when it mentions the upper deck, and as a result people never want to go up there, unless they have to. Also, the upper deck entrance is at the bottom of the upperdeck, it should be in the middle. You walk in and then look up, it looks like the top row is miles away. Also, the upper deck has no canopy which also makes it feel more open. A canopy would make it feel more enclosed with the stadium. Another screw up is that the Cell's playing surface is almost at street level. It should have been lowered so that when your in the stadium, you don't feel like your miles above the street. All of these factors, plus others gives the upper deck a bad name.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-10-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
Perception is the biggest problem with the Cell's upper deck. The Tribune has never pulled back any punches when it mentions the upper deck, and as a result people never want to go up there, unless they have to. Also, the upper deck entrance is at the bottom of the upperdeck, it should be in the middle. You walk in and then look up, it looks like the top row is miles away. Also, the upper deck has no canopy which also makes it feel more open. A canopy would make it feel more enclosed with the stadium. Another screw up is that the Cell's playing surface is almost at street level. It should have been lowered so that when your in the stadium, you don't feel like your miles above the street. All of these factors, plus others gives the upper deck a bad name.

:sahaf
"How many times must I say this. There are NO empty blue seats for over 100 miles!!!"

:D:

A.T. Money
04-10-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
You also have to think about this...as high as the upper deck at Jacobs Field is, fans can look outside the stadium and see downtown Cleveland and the Gund Arena. There are distractions there, unlike the "Cell". Not to mention, Clevelanders are so glad to be rid of Municipal Stadium, and the Indians were so good during the 90's, that there wasn't much reason to complain.

Many cities like Seattle, Baltimore, Denver, Arlington (TX), and other places where these modern retro-looking stadiums are had crappy places for their teams to play in (i.e., Kingdome, Memorial Stadium, Arlington Stadium) before they moved to their current surroundings. But for us here in Chicago, our team moved from an older ballpark into what was thought at the time as a modern wonder of a stadium. It was when OP@CY cam about that the criticisms mounted. I heard there were criticisms of the upper deck long before the 1992 season started, when OP@CY opened.

With all due respect, Comiskey Park II did look dull compared to OP@CY, Jacobs Field, and Safeco Field. I know many of you are tired of reading/hearing that, but in my honest opinion both as a fan and a reporter, that's how I feel. Do you think I've been talking so much about renovating U.S. Cellular Field if I didn't want to see change? Unlike many other reporters in this town...I don't write/say things just to get reaction. I really feel the ballpark has room for improvement, and I'm glad the Sox have been doing things about the ballpark to make it more of a fun place to visit.

Dude, with all due respect, as much as I treasure my memories of the old park, it was still a dump. Perhaps they should have renovated? Either way, Comiskey II drew very well until the strike.

doublem23
04-10-2003, 03:24 PM
The only difference between the Cell's Upper Deck and the rest of the retro, beloved new parks is that none of them have a "Baseball Shrine" 11 miles north of them, where the seats are so shallow, you need a midget sitting in front of you (and then still have at least 5 poles blocking your view).

Ahhh... Wrigley.

T Dog
04-10-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
Ahhh... Wrigley.

Apparently part of the charm of baseball in Chicago is paying $100 to sit on roof across the street from Wrigley while complaining about the upper deck on the south side.

soxnut
04-10-2003, 04:42 PM
I think it's more perception than anything else. But I think that chopping offf alot of the highest seats will make a huge improvement.

When I sit in the first 10 rows of the UD, I think that they are great seats. When I sit in the middle of the upper deck, I don't like it as much. I feel less comfortable, almost like I am just floating out there. When I sit at the top of the UD I feel more secure that the middle section, and I thin that stems from the fact that I have a roof over my head, it gives me more of sense of stability.

So, when they chop off the top and then put a longer, flatter roof over the UD, they basically will have elimnated the seats that are perceived as too high and the floaty feeling of the middle section, as well as give the park a much more intimate feelng. It's gonna be great. :smile:

Dan H
04-10-2003, 05:53 PM
It's not a matter of perception, it's a matter of taste. I've never liked the upper deck and never will. And to me, it is not relevant if other balllparks have bad upper decks. Bad is bad.

hsnterprize
04-10-2003, 06:37 PM
"Dude, with all due respect, as much as I treasure my memories of the old park, it was still a dump. Perhaps they should have renovated? Either way, Comiskey II drew very well until the strike."

Hey...I know Comiskey II drew well, but even when it was drawing well, there were still problems with it. And with the next OP@CY wanna-be ballpark, whether in the major leagues or minor leagues, Comiskey II looked more and more obsolete. Of course, the constant comparisons to Wrigley didn't help, either. Still, I know I'm not the only fan who's complained about the appearance about the place. And like I said in my last post, I'm glad the Sox are doing something about it.

There's nothing wrong with a good-looking ballpark. Of course, we Sox fans don't go the the ballpark because it looks good. We go there because we love our team. However, there's nothing wrong with our team playing in a place we fans can be proud of, and not cringe in.

Daver
04-10-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
However, there's nothing wrong with our team playing in a place we fans can be proud of, and not cringe in.[/COLOR] [/FONT]

I don't cringe about new Comiskey,the only problem I had with it was the name,it should have been Veeck Field,if not that,White Sox Park.

Nellie_Fox
04-10-2003, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by daver
...it should have been Veeck Field,if not that,White Sox Park. Don't get me started again on how Bill Veeck was never good for the White Sox. He traded away prospect after prospect for over-the-hill players, he toyed with moving the team, and he was never a Sox fan, always a Cubs fan.