PDA

View Full Version : Renovation Update: Posts in Upper Deck


joecrede
09-23-2003, 12:58 PM
One of the people I know who works at the park ran in to the guy who will be in charge of the upper deck renovation and he told my friend that they are going to cut the top 8-10 rows off.

He also said that the roof they want will extend over a good deal of the upper deck and will require installing posts.

duke of dorwood
09-23-2003, 01:05 PM
When does this start?

joecrede
09-23-2003, 01:16 PM
He didn't ask the guy when it would start, assume soon after season.

The same friend was telling me a couple of months ago that he heard that the UD renovation would be ongoing through the '04 season. Hard to believe it would take that long though, but who knows.

34 Inch Stick
09-23-2003, 03:55 PM
Great! Blocked site line seats in the Upper Deck out to go over very well.

cheeses_h_rice
09-23-2003, 04:47 PM
I can't believe they can't make the roof out of a material light enough to get around the requirement to have beams installed to support it, especially if we're only talking about a 25-foot long overhang or so.

voodoochile
09-23-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I can't believe they can't make the roof out of a material light enough to get around the requirement to have beams installed to support it, especially if we're only talking about a 25-foot long overhang or so.

Couldn't they hang suspension beams off of the back wall and then bolt the roof to them

Randar68
09-23-2003, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I can't believe they can't make the roof out of a material light enough to get around the requirement to have beams installed to support it, especially if we're only talking about a 25-foot long overhang or so.

The problem isn't so much the support of the weight, it's the rigidity and support required to keep it stable in the wind.

joecrede
09-23-2003, 05:47 PM
Some more thinking about this and one of the things that kind of buggs me about the upper deck now is that if I bought a box seat anywhere from say row 12 on there really is no difference in those seats and reserved seats from say row 16 to 20 except of course the price.

Anyone willing to wager with me that the posts will not obstruct any view from the box seats? :smile:

Randar68
09-23-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Some more thinking about this and one of the things that kind of buggs me about the upper deck now is that if I bought a box seat anywhere from say row 12 on there really is no difference in those seats and reserved seats from say row 16 to 20 except of course the price.


Gotta make the cut-off line somewhere. Of course there will be a boundary region.

MarqSox
09-23-2003, 07:25 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Gotta make the cut-off line somewhere. Of course there will be a boundary region.
Not really ... no reason not to have all UD seats cost $16 instead of some at $20 and others at $14 or whatever the prices are this season.

Randar68
09-23-2003, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
Not really ... no reason not to have all UD seats cost $16 instead of some at $20 and others at $14 or whatever the prices are this season.



Says who? The 20 dollar seats are better seats, and they are usually the first to fill or be purchased. Most of the UD goes uninhabited anyways.

From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense, I don't see your point.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-23-2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Some more thinking about this and one of the things that kind of buggs me about the upper deck now is that if I bought a box seat anywhere from say row 12 on there really is no difference in those seats and reserved seats from say row 16 to 20 except of course the price.

Anyone willing to wager with me that the posts will not obstruct any view from the box seats? :smile:

The view is definitely better in the bottom-10 rows of the infield and worth a premium price. Behind homeplate you can go even 15-20 rows up and still have a decent view of the action. Everything else--including the outfield areas--really suck. That's why LD bleacher seats are priced higher (and more quickly sellout) than even UD box seats. The current pricing structure up there makes no sense.

I also agree with your assessment about the price of seats and the obstructed views. Old Comiskey's seat price zones were similarly determined by whether your row was ahead or behind the posts. :smile: :smile:

joecrede
09-23-2003, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I also agree with your assessment about the price of seats and the obstructed views. Old Comiskey's seat price zones were similarly determined by whether your row was ahead or behind the posts. :smile: :smile:

A park is only as good as it's cheapest seats and the problem with the Cell's cheapest seats are a lot of people are scared to sit in them. Forget about bringing kids up there. (Cheapest seats unappealing to famillies, who designed this joint again? ha!) I think this plan, the roof, etc... will eliminate that fear and make the park much more intimate.

luvsox56
09-23-2003, 11:20 PM
I was just talking to someone about this tonight at the Cell and he said that they were contracted to begin October 2nd. Guess they knew about the post-season (or lack thereof) before we did... :(:

DSpivack
09-23-2003, 11:54 PM
Not that there is anyone truly wrong with Comiskey, but how long until a new stadium? 20 years? 30 years?

BeerHandle
09-24-2003, 08:06 AM
Well, the park is what 13 years old, there has been a lot of money pumped into the park for renovations and that will continue through the 2004 season; therefore, my guess is that we won't see a new park for another 30 years minimum.

greenpeach
09-24-2003, 09:44 AM
I'm really getting sick with all of the complaining about the Cell. It's not perfect, and the neighborhood could be better. However, if management really wants to improve attendance then I suggest that they focus on providing fans with a consistent winner on the field.

I've been to Yankee Stadium numerous times & the stadium itself is no better (maybe worse) than the Cell. Plus, the South Bronx makes the south side of Chicago look like Heaven. Yet, the Yankees will draw over 3 million fans this year. Win & the people will come. It's a pretty simple concept.

TDog
09-24-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
A park is only as good as it's cheapest seats and the problem with the Cell's cheapest seats are a lot of people are scared to sit in them. Forget about bringing kids up there. (Cheapest seats unappealing to famillies, who designed this joint again? ha!) I think this plan, the roof, etc... will eliminate that fear and make the park much more intimate.

By these standards, there are no decent major league ballparks. Miller Park has seats far worse than anything you will find in the Cell. Wrigley has many seats from which you can't follow the game, even with high-powered binoculars, as if people attending games at Wrigley would use binoculars to watch the game.

The Cell's current design would be accepted in most places. In many places features not unlike those most deplored about the Cell go unnoticed.

I find it disturbing that the vocal critics of the Cell -- many of whom wouldn't sit in the upper deck anyway -- apparently have coerced a renovation that will obstruct the view of people who do sit in the upper deck.

Mammoo
09-24-2003, 01:13 PM
MLB should move the Expos to Chicago (Comiskey) and then Reinsdorf can build himself a new place to play in Naperville!!! :smile:

Then I'll hit the Powerball and fulfill my dream of buying the Arizona Cardinals from the Bidwells and move them back to Chicago where they belong, to play in Comiskey as well!!

All right!!! Who's with me???? :D:

BeerHandle
09-24-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by greenpeach
I'm really getting sick with all of the complaining about the Cell. It's not perfect, and the neighborhood could be better. However, if management really wants to improve attendance then I suggest that they focus on providing fans with a consistent winner on the field.

I've been to Yankee Stadium numerous times & the stadium itself is no better (maybe worse) than the Cell. Plus, the South Bronx makes the south side of Chicago look like Heaven. Yet, the Yankees will draw over 3 million fans this year. Win & the people will come. It's a pretty simple concept.

I agree with you.......it is time to stop complaining. Although I'm always interested in hearing what type of renovations are being planned to continue to improve the park. I enjoy going to games and especially tailgating.

I have also been to Yankee Stadium and it was a complete dump. Also, that neighborhood is so rough. I did find it funny that everyone parties in a bowling alley before the games!

A.T. Money
09-24-2003, 02:35 PM
It's not that people are complaining about the Cell, at least I'm not. I just am very excited to see how much better it's going to be eventually, that's all.

Hangar18
09-24-2003, 03:33 PM
The Problem with this "plan" is that it doesnt solve the TWO BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THE UPPERDECK.
1. Pitch. Because of the TripleDeck stacked levels of skyboxes,
they make the pitch Ridiculously Steep.

2. Proximity. Because of the LOCATION of the upperdeck, directly above the skyboxes, with NO OVER HANG, virtually IGNORING THE CONCEPT OF CANTILEVERING, a unique construction technigue that allows the upper decks of stands to "hang over" the lower deck, with minimal use of support posts,
bringing INTIMACY to a stadium.

This "Plan" solves NONE OF THESE PROBLEMS. the UD will be JUST AS STEEP, and WILL BE JUST AS FAR AWAY.

What needs to be done, is the TOP LEVEL of skyboxes (most unused ironically) need to be destroyed, and the CLUBLEVEL
the new upperdeck

joecrede
09-24-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Problem with this "plan" is that it doesnt solve the TWO BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THE UPPERDECK.
1. Pitch. Because of the TripleDeck stacked levels of skyboxes,
they make the pitch Ridiculously Steep.

2. Proximity. Because of the LOCATION of the upperdeck, directly above the skyboxes, with NO OVER HANG, virtually IGNORING THE CONCEPT OF CANTILEVERING, a unique construction technigue that allows the upper decks of stands to "hang over" the lower deck, with minimal use of support posts,
bringing INTIMACY to a stadium.

This "Plan" solves NONE OF THESE PROBLEMS. the UD will be JUST AS STEEP, and WILL BE JUST AS FAR AWAY.

What needs to be done, is the TOP LEVEL of skyboxes (most unused ironically) need to be destroyed, and the CLUBLEVEL
the new upperdeck

Complete reconstruction of the UD would cost a lot more than $45M. That said, I believe this plan will greatly enhance the paying customer's opinion of the UD.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-24-2003, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Problem with this "plan" is that it doesnt solve the TWO BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THE UPPERDECK.
1. Pitch. Because of the TripleDeck stacked levels of skyboxes,
they make the pitch Ridiculously Steep.

2. Proximity. Because of the LOCATION of the upperdeck, directly above the skyboxes, with NO OVER HANG, virtually IGNORING THE CONCEPT OF CANTILEVERING, a unique construction technigue that allows the upper decks of stands to "hang over" the lower deck, with minimal use of support posts,
bringing INTIMACY to a stadium.

This "Plan" solves NONE OF THESE PROBLEMS. the UD will be JUST AS STEEP, and WILL BE JUST AS FAR AWAY.

What needs to be done, is the TOP LEVEL of skyboxes (most unused ironically) need to be destroyed, and the CLUBLEVEL
the new upperdeck

Fixing the problems of pitch and proximity in the UD are prohibitively expensive. You're well on your way to building yourself an entirely new ballpark by the time you add up the demolition and reconstruction costs, not to mention all the ancilliary costs to other parts of the stadium left "unchanged" (like all those Diamond Suites getting the living **** kicked out of them while 10 million tons of concrete is rearranged overhead).

The problems of pitch and proxmity are inherent in the flawed design of the Cell, not unlike those vulnerable thermal heatshield tiles on NASA's space shuttle. You can't fix these sorts of problems without scrapping the whole design. So instead you paper them over with larger roofs and fewer rows of seats, or ejector seats for the astronauts. It helps, but it's no fix.

Mammoo
09-24-2003, 03:59 PM
...how many seats in the UD???

Hangar18
09-24-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Fixing the problems of pitch and proximity in the UD are prohibitively expensive. You're well on your way to building yourself an entirely new ballpark by the time you add up the demolition and reconstruction costs,

The problems of pitch and proxmity are inherent in the flawed design of the Cell, not unlike those vulnerable thermal heatshield tiles on NASA's space shuttle. You can't fix these sorts of problems without scrapping the whole design.

If this is the case, which it DEFINITELY is, how can the WHITE SOX afford NOT TO do this. Start over. Build something beautiful,
and FACING Downtown. Put 4 or 5 corporations together, so that they can have Property on the premises, have YEAR round bars and restaurants ON THE CONCOURSES, with access from 35th street. Build this, and they will come

anewman35
09-24-2003, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
If this is the case, which it DEFINITELY is, how can the WHITE SOX afford NOT TO do this. Start over. Build something beautiful,
and FACING Downtown. Put 4 or 5 corporations together, so that they can have Property on the premises, have YEAR round bars and restaurants ON THE CONCOURSES, with access from 35th street. Build this, and they will come

No, they won't. At least not without a decent team. Numbers 24-27 in attendence are Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit. What do they have in common? I'll let you think about that.

maurice
09-24-2003, 04:13 PM
Building even a crappy stadium today would cost, what, $200 million? No thanks. I heard a rumor that they might demolish part of the UD to reveal portions of the skyline, but I'm not sure whether this is practical. The rumored grand entrance facing the red line would be a good idea.

IMHO, they've spent enough money renovating the park itself. It's time to transform portions of the parking lots on 35th Street into some appealing mixed use developments. They probably would pay for themselves.

Hangar18
09-24-2003, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
No, they won't. At least not without a decent team. Numbers 24-27 in attendence are Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Detroit. What do they have in common? I'll let you think about that.

A: They all have BEAUTIFUL NEW STADIUMS?

Randar68
09-24-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Problem with this "plan" is that it doesnt solve the TWO BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THE UPPERDECK.
1. Pitch. Because of the TripleDeck stacked levels of skyboxes,
they make the pitch Ridiculously Steep.

2. Proximity. Because of the LOCATION of the upperdeck, directly above the skyboxes, with NO OVER HANG, virtually IGNORING THE CONCEPT OF CANTILEVERING, a unique construction technigue that allows the upper decks of stands to "hang over" the lower deck, with minimal use of support posts,
bringing INTIMACY to a stadium.

This "Plan" solves NONE OF THESE PROBLEMS. the UD will be JUST AS STEEP, and WILL BE JUST AS FAR AWAY.

What needs to be done, is the TOP LEVEL of skyboxes (most unused ironically) need to be destroyed, and the CLUBLEVEL
the new upperdeck



Part of the plans I have heard involves extending the UD down behind the home plate area (at minimum) to basically overhand the press boxes and club level.

In addition, you remove the top 10-15 rows, not making it a mountainous climb to get to the top-most seats, and you have eliminated the majority of the problem.

Lowering of the roof and LF side UD seats will also make the skyline visible from the RF side as well as the eventual HR porch in RF.

It's a long term project. Enjoy the parts of the park you like, and be patient with the rest. We don't even know what the "official" plans are and were bitchin' about it already.

Can't beat White Sox fans.

anewman35
09-24-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
A: They all have BEAUTIFUL NEW STADIUMS?

Ding ding ding. So, if people don't go to them, why would our BEAUTIFUL NEW STADIUM do any better?

Foulke You
09-24-2003, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
...how many seats in the UD???

It is my understanding that New Comiskey in its current configuration holds 25,000 in the lower bowl and the Upper Deck holds 20,000.

MRKARNO
09-24-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Foulke You
It is my understanding that New Comiskey in its current configuration holds 25,000 in the lower bowl and the Upper Deck holds 20,000.

So then maybe the key is to put more seats in the lower bowl and remove some of the seats from the upped deck. I really think cutting off the top of the UD would help

Randar68
09-24-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
So then maybe the key is to put more seats in the lower bowl and remove some of the seats from the upped deck. I really think cutting off the top of the UD would help

Well then, how about removing all but maybe 10 rows of the UD and building HR porches in Left AND Right???

Hmmmm. Talk about reducing the size of the park (to the eyeball)!!!

Get some great views by doing that too!

Daver
09-24-2003, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Problem with this "plan" is that it doesnt solve the TWO BIGGEST PROBLEMS WITH THE UPPERDECK.
1. Pitch. Because of the TripleDeck stacked levels of skyboxes,
they make the pitch Ridiculously Steep.



The pitch on the UD at Comiskey is no different than the UD in the Ballpark at Arlington or Camden Yards.

The UD at Comiskey has fallen prey to the old adage,perception is reality.The media blasted the UD when the park first opened and it has never died,even though it is very similar to many parks built after Comiskey was built.

soxnut
09-24-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Daver
The pitch on the UD at Comiskey is no different than the UD in the Ballpark at Arlington or Camden Yards.

The UD at Comiskey has fallen prey to the old adage,perception is reality.The media blasted the UD when the park first opened and it has never died,even though it is very similar to many parks built after Comiskey was built.


Yeah, I think you're right about that Daver. I haven't been to any of the new stadiums yet, but I always notice the UD's of the other parks on tv, and they don't look any better.

I talked to a couple of Indians fan who were at Comiskey last year and they said our UD is no worse than theirs.

Also, I have the book from the Sporting News about ballparks. In the book there is a picture of a view from the UD in Coors Field...and to me it looks just as steep or close to it.

When I have sat in the UD at Comiskey, I either like to sit in the first 10-12 rows, or the last 10 rows. Anywhere in the middle and I feel like I'm floating. So I can see by putting a roof over the whole UD it should be a more intimate and comfortable feel.

And, if there are posts in the UD--I hate to say it, but maybe it will be similar to Wrigley's UD, as far as obstructions are concerned. The posts there, from the few times I have been there(thank God, I've only had to go to a few games) the obstructions were't that bad. :(:

SouthSideHitman
09-24-2003, 08:18 PM
I like the roof idea, but I still say that the UD from about row 14 and up is all pretty bad. The Sox should just cut their losses and do what the Rockies do, offer all the really bad seats for like 5 or 8 bucks. That would be better than empty blue that we have there now, and the Sox could start to build up a bigger following from kids, teenagers and those with little disposable income.

But for the Cell to really shine, I'm still waiting for the grand entrance and the HR porch.

ewokpelts
09-24-2003, 09:39 PM
Two things:

The Sox plan to add an "upper deck" to the outfield seats. These seats would be where the beer stands are now, constructed similar to the fan deck, with the beer stand existing UNDER the seats. This idea destoys the organization's boasts of a concourse where you can see the action at all times, since there would be a fan deck and extra seating obstructing the view. It is my opinion that this" mini deck" would be replacing the soon to be chopped off 10-15 rows of the ud. And they are planning a grand entrance, as well as relocating Sox offices to a separate structure and "cadmenizing" the former office area with stores and bars.

Also, the Sox have no incentive to lower ud prices, what with thier rent structure(see the crain's article). If the Sox lower the full price of the ud tickets, it will count toward thier rent check. Better to have empty blue seats than to have to pay more rent.
Gene

ewokpelts
09-24-2003, 09:51 PM
sorry...meant to add to the upper deck roof post thread
Gene

voodoochile
09-24-2003, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
sorry...meant to add to the upper deck roof post thread
Gene

merged...

IronFisk
09-25-2003, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Daver
The pitch on the UD at Comiskey is no different than the UD in the Ballpark at Arlington or Camden Yards.

The UD at Comiskey has fallen prey to the old adage,perception is reality.The media blasted the UD when the park first opened and it has never died,even though it is very similar to many parks built after Comiskey was built.


BUT...it's not steepness...its where you enter. Climbing 30 rows to your seat on a angle like that has to the most adurous in all of sports. Why the numbskulls who designed the place didn't locate the entrance about 10 rows higher up makes no sense to me. Look at Camden, Ballbark, etc. Seems like those upperdecks have mid-level entrances. Hell, even those cookie-cutter jokes were smart enough to do that.

Another real problem is the distance from the 1st row of the UD to home plate - its mamoth! My idea would be to tack on another 3-5 rows IN FRONT of the UD to bring people closer to the action - as well as shave 10-15 off the top. Replace the "lost" seats with the homerun porch, and round off the seating to 40,000. Hell, PNC in Pittsburgh only holds 38,000.

Mammoo
09-25-2003, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by Foulke You
It is my understanding that New Comiskey in its current configuration holds 25,000 in the lower bowl and the Upper Deck holds 20,000.

Thanks :smile:

jabrch
09-25-2003, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by joecrede
A park is only as good as it's cheapest seats.

I totally disagree. A park is only as good as the seats you are willing to pay to sit in. If all you are willing/able to pay is 12$, you are likely to not be so thrilled - unless Granton Marketing saves your day... but if you are willing to pay 25 - 30, almost any park is nice.

hose
09-25-2003, 06:04 AM
Originally posted by IronFisk
BUT...it's not steepness...its where you enter. Climbing 30 rows to your seat on a angle like that has to the most adurous in all of sports. Why the numbskulls who designed the place didn't locate the entrance about 10 rows higher up makes no sense to me. Look at Camden, Ballbark, etc. Seems like those upperdecks have mid-level entrances. Hell, even those cookie-cutter jokes were smart enough to do that.

Another real problem is the distance from the 1st row of the UD to home plate - its mamoth! My idea would be to tack on another 3-5 rows IN FRONT of the UD to bring people closer to the action - as well as shave 10-15 off the top. Replace the "lost" seats with the homerun porch, and round off the seating to 40,000. Hell, PNC in Pittsburgh only holds 38,000.


I agree with you 100% .

The entrances of the UD also ruin what would be some of the best seat locations also.

hsnterprize
09-25-2003, 07:22 AM
Hoo boy...

Hadn't posted here in a couple of days, but I gotta drop in my $.02 worth. The posts up to this point are pretty good, but I've said for a long time that renovations at the ballpark were needed and would be very well-received. I won't run through the same dreck I've written over and over again, but I will say that I'm looking forward to seeing the new roof and the truncated upper deck once it's completely done. If cutting down that upper deck means having posts there, then that's alright with me. We all know that you can build the most beautiful stadium in the world and that won't guarantee sellout crowds over and over again unless the team on the field gets renovated. Clearly, the new ballpark craze of the '90's is over, and we're seeing how people aren't flocking to stadia just for the place itself. Places like Fenway Park and Wrigley Field are often the exeption rather than the rule as far as on-field performance/attendance is concerned, but this year, the Red Sox and Cubs are playing well and look bound for the post season.

Call this naive optimism, but I think the posts in the UD won't make the Cell have a "Wrigley-esque" roof. I think the Sox management is smart enough to put in the posts in such a way to minimize the obstruction as much as possible. Not to mention, even though the Cell's UD is as steep as other ballpark UD's, the chopping off the top rows of the deck can kill some of the bad perception of the deck. Since our ballpark isn't in downtown Chicago, or that our place isn't facing the downtown area, out place is getting more heat about how high the place is. I just hope the prices are reasonable so people will actually sit up there...but once again, a good product on the field will trump any price problems and other things we often nitpick about. This is preaching to the choir, but it's something to think about.

MarqSox
09-25-2003, 07:42 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
And they are planning a grand entrance, as well as relocating Sox offices to a separate structure and "cadmenizing" the former office area with stores and bars.

This would be an awesome development ... if they do it right. Which is a big if. But such a move has the potential to be really cool.

Randar68
09-25-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by MarqSox
This would be an awesome development ... if they do it right. Which is a big if. But such a move has the potential to be really cool.


I have never understood that.... Why, when half your customers are coming from the El, don't you have an entrance right in the LF corner like you do for the Bullpen sports bar?

The original renditions of the Grand Entrace were shockingly good. I'd be disappointed if something similar were not in the eventual product.

ewokpelts
09-25-2003, 11:23 AM
Hey,
Anyone have pics/links to what the Grand Entrance may look like, or any other long term renovations?
Gene

Hangar18
09-25-2003, 11:27 AM
IM not sure if anyone remembers this, but 2 yrs ago, the sox sent out a little flier, showing the concourse with what looked like a "Pseudo Cityscape". It looked awesome, and that got me thinking, why the hell dont the SOX make those buildings REAL, with year-round entrance. Make the buildings look like the ones you see at all the Maggianos restaurants around the town.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-25-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
I have never understood that.... Why, when half your customers are coming from the El, don't you have an entrance right in the LF corner like you do for the Bullpen sports bar?

The original renditions of the Grand Entrace were shockingly good. I'd be disappointed if something similar were not in the eventual product.

The Bullpen Sports Bar was an afterthought. In fact the Sox didn't even add this amenity until the stadium had been opened several years (1996?). That's why you have to descend four long ramps from the main concourse just to get there.

As for the entrance in LF, that was never intended as the convenient location for mass transit fans to enter the ballpark. New Comiskey was meant to be surrounded by acres of parking lots at the corner of Lake & Swift in suburban Addison. The city planners had to wedge the ballpark design into Chicago's street grid--a location where it was never designed to be built. (That's the reason the Gate 5 ramps are on the north side of 35th Street.)

I agree that the Bullpen Sports Bar is a nice addition, and the LF grand entrance would be a nice addition, too. We just keep spending money "fixing" a ballpark that is only 12 years old... I wish we could spend it making the team better... but that's Sox Fans' luck...

anewman35
09-25-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I agree that the Bullpen Sports Bar is a nice addition, and the LF grand entrance would be a nice addition, too. We just keep spending money "fixing" a ballpark that is only 12 years old... I wish we could spend it making the team better... but that's Sox Fans' luck...

Well, a lot of the money being spent isn't actually the team's money to spend, is it? I know some of the previous renovations were paid with money from the State specifially for renovations, and I'm pretty sure the US Cellular deal technically is with the ISFA, not the White Sox, so it's not like we could be spending it on players anyway..

ewokpelts
09-25-2003, 12:06 PM
Hanger,

Are you referring to the outfield concourse? Cuz if you are, it looks they will be relocating Sox offices to behind the stadium, a la the orioles offices being postioned in the old train buildings outside cadmen.
Gene

p.s. Do you have this flyer still?

A.T. Money
09-25-2003, 02:47 PM
I see all this about the HR porch. If they make this, it MUST be in left field. The Sox power hitters are right handed. You have Frank, Carlos, Maggs, Konerko, Crede. We're right handed.

nasox
10-15-2003, 12:36 AM
does anyone have any pictures or artistic renditions or info about the actual plans for improvements? these would help a lot