PDA

View Full Version : Seats Being Removed


duke of dorwood
10-03-2003, 07:53 AM
From the train today, I could see the seats being removed from the top part of the upper deck. Mostly from behind the plate towards right field. Looks like at least the top 10 rows.

Fisk72
10-03-2003, 08:09 AM
Here's a hypothetical question for you guys. Would you rather have them remove the seats in order to chop off the top 10 rows or so? Or would you rather have them replace all of the seats with green ones? I figured it's been a while since we've dragged up the green seat issue. Anything to keep me from being drowned with all of the Scrub playoff crap. :gulp:

anewman35
10-03-2003, 08:17 AM
Originally posted by Fisk72
Here's a hypothetical question for you guys. Would you rather have them remove the seats in order to chop off the top 10 rows or so? Or would you rather have them replace all of the seats with green ones? I figured it's been a while since we've dragged up the green seat issue. Anything to keep me from being drowned with all of the Scrub playoff crap. :gulp:

I don't especially care about the color, but I would like new seats, just because I know a lot of new stadiums have seats that are more comfortable (I haven't been there yet, but I know the Soldier Field ones are supposed to be nice).

soxnut
10-03-2003, 08:25 AM
The more I think about it, the more I would prefer green seats. I would also like the seats to be more comfortable. I understand that at the BOB, they hae seats that are turned more towards the mound--I think that would be a great addition.

But hey, I'm glad they aare starting the process. I just wish that there would be an official announcement--with some artists renderings or some comuputer generated images. Don't they want to promote these changes? Get people interested in wanting to buy season tickets?

Randar68
10-03-2003, 08:51 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
But hey, I'm glad they aare starting the process. I just wish that there would be an official announcement--with some artists renderings or some comuputer generated images. Don't they want to promote these changes? Get people interested in wanting to buy season tickets?


Might as well wait till the offseason and the Cubs being eliminated. If they held a press conference now, I'm not even sure if Mayor Daley would show up. It wouldn't make the evening news.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
The more I think about it, the more I would prefer green seats. I would also like the seats to be more comfortable. I understand that at the BOB, they hae seats that are turned more towards the mound--I think that would be a great addition.

Huh? Comiskey II was designed with that in mind. All of the new parks pretty much hold true to that as well. All of the seats around the lower bowl basically are turned towards the infield.

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Huh? Comiskey II was designed with that in mind. All of the new parks pretty much hold true to that as well. All of the seats around the lower bowl basically are turned towards the infield.

No they aren't. The lower box seats at Sox Park all face straight out into the field. If you are sitting between 1st/3rd base and the foul pole, your seat is not pointed towards the infield. I think that was a major design flaw but I don't see them fixing that problem.


I can't wait to hear an official announcement on what they are doing. I agree that it's pointless for them to announce anything now since the Chicago media is totally immersed in a Cubs orgy.

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by GoSox2K3
No they aren't. The lower box seats at Sox Park all face straight out into the field. If you are sitting between 1st/3rd base and the foul pole, your seat is not pointed towards the infield. I think that was a major design flaw but I don't see them fixing that problem.


I can't wait to hear an official announcement on what they are doing. I agree that it's pointless for them to announce anything now since the Chicago media is totally immersed in a Cubs orgy.

All the seats are pointed to a spot in CF just beyond the infield. If you want to see seats pointed away from the field go to Wrigley or Fenway. The box seats down the line are brutal.

jortafan
10-03-2003, 09:30 AM
Originally posted by GoSox2K3
No they aren't. The lower box seats at Sox Park all face straight out into the field. If you are sitting between 1st/3rd base and the foul pole, your seat is not pointed towards the infield. I think that was a major design flaw but I don't see them fixing that problem.


Actually, they are.

The angling of the seats becomes more pronounced as you move down toward the foul poles so that the seats face out toward second base. Even the ones between the bases and the poles are at a slightly differing angle than the seats perched over the infield. That's why there are fewer rows of seats in the lower deck bowl as you move farther down the foul line. It's the way all new stadiums for baseball are done these days.

What do you think needs to be done, put all the seats at sharp angles directly facing home plate? It can't be done, and would look ridiculous.

Sorry if I'm coming off too snide in this post. It's just that stadium architecture is actually a subject that interests me. And in many ways, our team's ballpark is no different than the other stadiums built in the 1990's, other than that it isn't located downtown within walking distance of the visiting team hotels. Take the mention of the BOB earlier in this thread. That stadium's uppermost decks are angled identical to our building's upper deck. Only there, team officials brag about how the angle allows the fans in the top rows to be a little closer to the playing field, and people believe them. Here, we laugh in JR's face when he spews that because we realize that the few feet closer to the field is compensated for by the fact that the fan is also higher above the field.

Now, I'll go back and crawl under my rock, at least until the Cubs go down to glorious defeat.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 09:31 AM
It's good to see they've started already.

thepaulbowski
10-03-2003, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by duke of dorwood
From the train today, I could see the seats being removed from the top part of the upper deck. Mostly from behind the plate towards right field. Looks like at least the top 10 rows.

If they were smart, we'd see these seats for sale at Soxfest or Online auctions.

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
If they were smart, we'd see these seats for sale at Soxfest or Online auctions.

Since they have only been sat in a handful of times they must be "like new"

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
All the seats are pointed to a spot in CF just beyond the infield. If you want to see seats pointed away from the field go to Wrigley or Fenway. The box seats down the line are brutal.

At Old Comiskey Park there were seats in the corners that faced away from the field and straight ahead into the rows of SEATS on the opposite side of the corner. There was a forest of posts to see through, too. My friends and I used to joke about these seats. We'd walk pass, point at one and quip, "Some poor ******* had to sit in this seat for the all-star game." :smile:

HOK contoured the rows at New Comiskey specifically to face the seats towards the field. You can clearly see this from any aerial shot of the ballpark. The rake of the seats if far steeper than the Urinal's (and higher in the outfield corners than along the infield), which eliminates virtually all the blocked views from the heads of those seated in front of you, too. That's why you no longer have to rubber-neck your way through nine innings. Try that trick at the Urinal.

If we're going to complain about the ballpark, let's limit the complaints to things that actually exists. :smile:

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
At Old Comiskey Park there were seats in the corners that faced away from the field and straight ahead into the rows of SEATS on the opposite side of the corner. There was a forest of posts to see through, too. My friends and I used to joke about these seats. We'd walk pass, point at one and quip, "Some poor ******* had to sit in this seat for the all-star game." :smile:

HOK contoured the rows at New Comiskey specifically to face the seats towards the field. You can clearly see this from any aerial shot of the ballpark. The rake of the seats if far steeper than the Urinal's (and higher in the outfield corners than along the infield), which eliminates virtually all the blocked views from the heads of those seated in front of you, too. That's why you no longer have to rubber-neck your way through nine innings. Try that trick at the Urinal.

If we're going to complain about the ballpark, let's limit the complaints to things that actually exists. :smile:

I wasn't complaining, I was agreeing with you. The older parks have seats pointing towards who knows where

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I wasn't complaining, I was agreeing with you. The older parks have seats pointing towards who knows where

Oh, I know. I was piggy-backing on what you had already pointed out. I never pass on an opportunity to relate my story about the funny corner seats at Old Comiskey.

:D:

fuzzy_patters
10-03-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by Fisk72
Here's a hypothetical question for you guys. Would you rather have them remove the seats in order to chop off the top 10 rows or so? Or would you rather have them replace all of the seats with green ones? I figured it's been a while since we've dragged up the green seat issue. Anything to keep me from being drowned with all of the Scrub playoff crap. :gulp:

I would rather have the green seats. Right now, the Cell has three main colors. That looks pretty tacky. Let's get rid of the blue walls, while we're at it, and make the place green and grey.

As for cutting off the top 10 rows, why cut down on the seating capacity? People may not want to sit up there during the regular season, but those seats could be useful if we actually make the playoffs sometime. I understand that people want the roof to extend over the upper deck but is that worth diminished capacity?

anewman35
10-03-2003, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters

As for cuttin off the top 10 rows, why cut down on the seating capacity? People may not want to sit up there during the regular season, but those seats could be useful if we actually make the playoffs sometime. I understand that people want the roof to extend over the upper deck but is that worth diminished capacity?

Well, I think the idea is that they'd be pretty much made up for with the second deck in right and the rumored extension of the bottom of the upper deck over the home plate area...

fuzzy_patters
10-03-2003, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Well, I think the idea is that they'd be pretty much made up for with the second deck in right and the rumored extension of the bottom of the upper deck over the home plate area...

Do we know for sure that they are putting in a homer porch? That would be great, but I haven't heard any confirmation.

anewman35
10-03-2003, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by fuzzy_patters
Do we know for sure that they are putting in a homer porch? That would be great, but I haven't heard any confirmation.

Nothing's been officially announced, but it was in the concept art, and I could swear that it was mentioned in some articles (although I can't find them now), I'd think it's very likely, especially if they are taking seats out elsewhere. Maybe not this season, but next at the latest (remember, the Sox say it'll all be done by 2005, which indicates to me at least one major thing next season).

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 10:07 AM
Yeah if there is a homer porch, it must go in LEFT field. We have right-handed homerun hitters. Putting it in right field is a waste.

anewman35
10-03-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Yeah if there is a homer porch, it must go in LEFT field. We have right-handed homerun hitters. Putting it in right field is a waste.

People keep calling it a homer porch, but is there any indication or reason to believe that they'd move in the fences any? Isn't it just as possible they'd just put more seats on top of what they have and not change the dimentions?

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 10:15 AM
Jortafan and PHG,
I agree that the seat alignment at Comiskey are much better than at the Urinal or Old Comiskey. I also agree that they can't place the seats at a radical angle and I agree that the upper decks at the new parks are just like Comiskey's. But, I could swear that the angle is better at either Safeco Field or BOB (the 2 other new stadiums that I have been to).

Maybe I just happened to get seats in just the wrong spot in the lower box, but I was at a game this year where I did have to turn my head and look across the aisle and past the people in the next section to see the action. If I faced forward, I was looking right at Maggs.

But anyway, I didn't mean to steer this thread astray.... I can't wait to see what the renovations will be for next year. My guess is that they're keeping the blue seats. If they're removing them from the top 10 rows of the UD, then they may just reinstall them in one of the new rumored sections (either the extention of the bottom of the upper deck or in a new home run porch).

Maybe the Sox will actually tell us these details once the Cubs are ousted (gotta think positive!) from the playoffs.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
People keep calling it a homer porch, but is there any indication or reason to believe that they'd move in the fences any? Isn't it just as possible they'd just put more seats on top of what they have and not change the dimentions?

It's really just a second deck. Not sure why it would be called a homer porch though. I'm just going along with everyone else. :smile:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 10:21 AM
Somebody needs to explain a couple of things to me.

1.) What EXACTLY is a "home run porch"? The classic definition of a home run porch (dating back to the early-20th century) is the right field corner at Yankee Stadium. However it is not famous because of the extra deck of seats. No! What made it a home run porch was the ridiculously short foul line, 296 feet. Lefties like Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle (S) and Maris all took pokes at it. It was considered an unfair advantage by everyone who despised the Yankees, not unlike today's Sox Fans whining about the HumpDome.

2.) Is everyone excited about getting (alledgedly) a double-deck of outfield seats at the Cell, or a short corner home run distance?

Personally, I could care less...

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
It's really just a second deck. Not sure why it would be called a homer porch though. I'm just going along with everyone else. :smile:

The confusion over the meaning of the term started when the Tribe opened their new stadium and everyone started calling the OF UD a Home run porch. Now the original meaning is lost in antiquity...

fuzzy_patters
10-03-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Somebody needs to explain a couple of things to me.

1.) What EXACTLY is a "home run porch"? The classic definition of a home run porch (dating back to the early-20th century) is the right field corner at Yankee Stadium. However it is not famous because of the extra deck of seats. No! What made it a home run porch was the ridiculously short foul line, 296 feet. Lefties like Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle (S) and Maris all took pokes at it. It was considered an unfair advantage by everyone who despised the Yankees, not unlike today's Sox Fans whining about the HumpDome.

2.) Is everyone excited about getting (alledgedly) a double-deck of outfield seats at the Cell, or a short corner home run distance?

Personally, I could care less...

Answers:

1.) I believe the Rangers call their extension to the Upper Deck a "homerun porch." That park was the most recent one built with that feature, so that is what people are expecting at the Cell.

2.) I don't know that anyone is really that excited about it, but it is worth discussing since it might happen.

anewman35
10-03-2003, 10:31 AM
If anybody goes by the park anytime soon, can they take a picture of the seats being removed (and post it, of course)? It might be a while before I get to the South Side...

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 10:33 AM
Since the Sox haven't officially announced anything (right?), perhaps the "home run porch" term is just something started in the rumor mill and has just stuck. Or maybe they are using that name in their official plans because they figure it sounds nice and old-fashiondy.

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 10:39 AM
This is the artist conception of the "HR porch" that I downloaded from this website last winter:

kraut83
10-03-2003, 10:40 AM
Tiger Stadium RF = Home run porch

Randar68
10-03-2003, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
People keep calling it a homer porch, but is there any indication or reason to believe that they'd move in the fences any? Isn't it just as possible they'd just put more seats on top of what they have and not change the dimentions?


The HR porch will likely part of the final product, but I highly doubt, with all but 100% certanity, they would tackle that task as well as the Upper Deck reconstruction at the same time. The UD changes are major, and this is still going to be a multi-phase, multi-year project.

Patience is the key, but yes, I do think they'll eventually put the HR porch in RF, where, with the chopped-down UD and "roof", the RF HR porch will be a prime place to get a great look at the skyline.

BTW, draw a verticle line straight up from the RF fence, and that is where the endge of the UD would essentially be. That is what's meant by "HR Porch."

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 10:49 AM
If the skyline isn't viewable from homeplate, then it's worthless. The only logical place to put a second deck for homeruns, would be in left field, where our homerun hitters will hit them. The only lefty with pop that we have is Manos.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by GoSox2K3
This is the artist conception of the "HR porch" that I downloaded from this website last winter:

I remember somebody from the architectural firm claiming those were concept drafts and not finished or approved designs. IIRC, they took down these renderings because they were misleading vs. the others at their website for other ballparks with approved and finished designs.

Having said that, I would be careful about getting too nostalgic with this rendering. That "home run porch" wouldn't offer seats nearly as good as the upper deck at Old Comiskey. Look closely and you'll see what I mean.

Unlike Old Comiskey's upper deck, this proposed home run porch features seats far behind the playing field. The lower deck seats at the top of the aisle will be covered and have obstructed views, too. Thus by adding several thousand new seats, you've also lessened the appeal of several thousand existing ones. In fact, these new home run porch seats would only be a half-notch better than the seats in the existing upper deck that everyone complains about.

I dunno... it seems like a lot of money for not a lot of return. I'm far more excited about anything they could do to make the existing UD more appealing.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
If the skyline isn't viewable from homeplate, then it's worthless. The only logical place to put a second deck for homeruns, would be in left field, where our homerun hitters will hit them. The only lefty with pop that we have is Manos.

Sorry, but why is that "Logical?" Why do you taylor a stadium to a team of old veterans? Who know who will be here 5 years from now?

Sorry, don't see the "logic". Watch a game in RF UD with a great view of the skyline. Seems like actual logic instead of "fuzzy" logic.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 10:58 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I remember somebody from the architectural firm claiming those were concept drafts and not finished or approved designs. IIRC, they took down these renderings because they were misleading vs. the others at their website for other ballparks with approved and finished designs.

Having said that, I would be careful about getting too nostalgic with this rendering. That "home run porch" wouldn't offer seats nearly as good as the upper deck at Old Comiskey. Look closely and you'll see what I mean.

Unlike Old Comiskey's upper deck, this proposed home run porch features seats far behind the playing field. The lower deck seats at the top of the aisle will be covered and have obstructed views, too. Thus by adding several thousand new seats, you've also lessened the appeal of several thousand existing ones. In fact, these new home run porch seats would only be a half-notch better than the seats in the existing upper deck that everyone complains about.

I dunno... it seems like a lot of money for not a lot of return. I'm far more excited about anything they could do to make the existing UD more appealing.

I think that's where some of the seating is coming from in the end. I would not be surprised to see them add a permanent section of vending booths at the top of the sections beneath the HR Prch and remove seating in that area which would result in a poor view. Removing 10-15 rows of the UD is going to remove several thousand seats. The HR Porch doesn't look like much more than 1500-2000 seats max, the way it looks in that picture.

I do agree the UD is the #1 priority, though.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Sorry, but why is that "Logical?" Why do you taylor a stadium to a team of old veterans? Who know who will be here 5 years from now?

Sorry, don't see the "logic". Watch a game in RF UD with a great view of the skyline. Seems like actual logic instead of "fuzzy" logic.

Why did they build Pac Bell's right field for Barry Bonds? He's only going to be around around couple years. Then what?

You make your stadium for your players. We are a right-handed power hitting team. It makes sense. The beauty of the skyline should be viewable from homeplate (see Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Seattle) not right field. The problem is, the Cell is facing the wrong way. No TV camera will be able to catch the skyline in this park.

Besides, if you're in the outfield, chances are you won't even be high enough to see the skyline over the upper deck. If you want to look at buildings, then take the Chicago downtown tour.

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I remember somebody from the architectural firm claiming those were concept drafts and not finished or approved designs.

Reinsdorf probably told them that they forgot to add the 2 levels of skyboxes below this new upper deck :D:

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Why did they build Pac Bell's right field for Barry Bonds? He's only going to be around around couple years. Then what?

You make your stadium for your players. We are a right-handed power hitting team. It makes sense. The beauty of the skyline should be viewable from homeplate (see Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Seattle) not right field. The problem is, the Cell is facing the wrong way. No TV camera will be able to catch the skyline in this park.

Besides, if you're in the outfield, chances are you won't even be high enough to see the skyline over the upper deck. If you want to look at buildings, then take the Chicago downtown tour.

You do that if you have a player like Barry Bonds or Babe Ruth, one of the all time greats. The only player who even comes close to that description on the Sox is Frank and the Sox have been trying to run him out of town for the last 5 years, so WHY would they build him a special stadium feature?

anewman35
10-03-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Why did they build Pac Bell's right field for Barry Bonds? He's only going to be around around couple years. Then what?

You make your stadium for your players. We are a right-handed power hitting team. It makes sense. The beauty of the skyline should be viewable from homeplate (see Pittsburgh, Detroit, Cleveland, Seattle) not right field. The problem is, the Cell is facing the wrong way. No TV camera will be able to catch the skyline in this park.


But it's not like the "porch" is probably going to make it easier to hit homers, it'll just add more seats, and why does it really matter if the balls are going into a single deck or a double deck? A homer is a homer, I couldn't care less where it lands.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
But it's not like the "porch" is probably going to make it easier to hit homers, it'll just add more seats, and why does it really matter if the balls are going into a single deck or a double deck? A homer is a homer, I could care less where it lands.

Look, it just makes more sense to put the second deck in left. You have Frank, Maggs, Paul, Lee who will hit them out there. It will be more exciting for fans to sit there with the hopes of catching one. We have one guy who hits homeruns to right field regularly, and that is Manos.

Also, I'd like to comment on the picture. The posts look like they are behind the lower deck, which means that they would only obstruct those on the concourse.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 11:23 AM
I'm not sure the Chicago skyline would be visible from any right field home run porch. The existing UD extends the entire length of the third base line and wraps around the left field fair pole. It turns the NE corner of the stadium's footprint and extends along Wentworth Avenue, a north-south street.

With the skyline being almost exactly due north, and the height of the existing UD being greater than anything proposed in right field, I think you're barking up the wrong tree to think you'll get views of the Loop from a new home run porch. They would need to tear off the UD in left field (not just remove seats) to make it visible. That ain't gonna happen...

anewman35
10-03-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Look, it just makes more sense to put the second deck in left. You have Frank, Maggs, Paul, Lee who will hit them out there. It will be more exciting for fans to sit there with the hopes of catching one. We have one guy who hits homeruns to right field regularly, and that is Manos.


Whatever they do to the park will likely be there for decades. Some of the people you mentioned above might not even be around next year. It's silly to decide where it goes based on hitters who won't even be here in a few years.

dllrbll7
10-03-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Sorry, but why is that "Logical?" Why do you taylor a stadium to a team of old veterans? Who know who will be here 5 years from now?

Sorry, don't see the "logic". Watch a game in RF UD with a great view of the skyline. Seems like actual logic instead of "fuzzy" logic.

Exactly why would u make a ballpark that may help u for a few yrs and have it look not as nice for years and years to come. Just because they screwed up building it the first time and are redoing it doesnt mean that they are goin to make changes everytime the team starts to hit from the other side of the plate

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Whatever they do to the park will likely be there for decades. Some of the people you mentioned above might not even be around next year. It's silly to decide where it goes based on hitters who won't even be here in a few years.

Let's live in the present. If you can give me a valid reason as to why right field is better than left field for this second deck, then I'll support it. Otherwise, left field is the only logical (yes, logical) place to put it because our current YOUNG hitters are right handed. It's not like they are retiring in the next year.

Unregistered
10-03-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by GoSox2K3
This is the artist conception of the "HR porch" that I downloaded from this website last winter: Man, even in the "artist's rendering" no one shows up to games...

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 11:41 AM
The more popular lower reserved seats to sit in , for some reason are in left field. So obstructing the view on a few, which probably will occur with this, may be something they don't want to do. Also, with the way the sun goes down in the summer, left field is brutal early in the games. An upper dectk in left may not afford the people sitting there a view of the game for a few innings. I wish they would make the upperdeck in RF to scale with the upperdeck at the old park. Make the roof the same, and bring back roofshots.

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Let's live in the present. If you can give me a valid reason as to why right field is better than left field for this second deck, then I'll support it. Otherwise, left field is the only logical (yes, logical) place to put it because our current YOUNG hitters are right handed. It's not like they are retiring in the next year.

Well, if they do lop of part of the UD then the skyline would indeed be visible from a RF UD/HRP.

BTW, which of those hitters is "young"?

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 11:44 AM
Lee, Maggs, Crede, Olivo (I believe he'll become a 15+ homerun producer one day), Konerko.

And let's face it, Thomas isn't going anywhere anytime soon. He's got 5 years left.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, if they do lop of part of the UD then the skyline would indeed be visible from a RF UD/HRP.


Nah, the upperdeck is too high and the skyline is too far away. Even chopping off 10 rows won't matter. Look at the picture again. Even if you sat in the last row, you may be able to see the very top of the Sears Tower, but I still doubt it.

mrwag
10-03-2003, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Let's live in the present. If you can give me a valid reason as to why right field is better than left field for this second deck, then I'll support it.

To block the view of the projects??

daveeym
10-03-2003, 11:46 AM
First of all they are not just taking out seats but cutting out part of the upperdeck. 2nd, The home run porch in right will cut down on the wind coming off the lake and cause more balls to go out to right field. Lastly they are not building a home run porch but a water park with water slides so the kiddies can have fun and they can have a revenue producer on off days and road trips.

anewman35
10-03-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Let's live in the present. If you can give me a valid reason as to why right field is better than left field for this second deck, then I'll support it. Otherwise, left field is the only logical (yes, logical) place to put it because our current YOUNG hitters are right handed. It's not like they are retiring in the next year.

I don't particularly think right is better than left, I just don't think left is better than right, either. Basically, who really cares?

Anyway, if you believe the people here, they should trade the whole damn team for cheap shortstops and pitchers, apparently...

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Let's live in the present. If you can give me a valid reason as to why right field is better than left field for this second deck, then I'll support it. Otherwise, left field is the only logical (yes, logical) place to put it because our current YOUNG hitters are right handed. It's not like they are retiring in the next year.


You won't have the sun in your eyes for the first 3 innings in RF. You would in LF.

Iwritecode
10-03-2003, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by daveeym
First of all they are not just taking out seats but cutting out part of the upperdeck. 2nd, The home run porch in right will cut down on the wind coming off the lake and cause more balls to go out to right field. Lastly they are not building a home run porch but a water park with water slides so the kiddies can have fun and they can have a revenue producer on off days and road trips.

Where did this info come from?

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 12:02 PM
New Comiskey originally had bleacher seats in both LF and RF. A few years ago, they made it so that only LF has bleachers. The benches in RF were replaced w/ seats and the area was changed to lower reserved.

Does anyone know why they did this? Were they already planning for an upper deck in RF?

Stoky44
10-03-2003, 12:08 PM
I think that if they are removing part of the ud this winter then they will also have to add more seats this winter. I know many say that that would be too much to do in one winter and the park is not going to be done until 2005. Baseball is all about making money, though the sox don't sell out much, they will do so a at least 5 times. Removing seats would make no sense. Wouldn't you think that they would add the new seats first then remove the top part of the upper deck?

Here is just a approximation of the seat loss:

Sections: 53
Rows: 10
Seats per section: 25

Total loss: 13,250 (approx)

Current Capacity: 44,500(approx)

Est Future Capacity w/o adding new seats: 31,250

When looking at these numbers I think the estimated 10 row removal is a bit much, that 1/3 of the upper deck. I think the number of rows removed must be closer to 5 or 7.

Removing 5 Rows: 6625 (approx)
Removing 7 Rows: 9275 (approx)

Now I think there are 25 seats per row the upper deck, though i am not completely sure. No way would JR let the capacity drop below 40,000. Unless.... JR might figure he would never sell out for an entire season, only a handfull of games during the reg. seasons and the post season. I know there is a number set that if the attendence reaches a certain nuymber JR has to pay more rent. He might figure that it would be more beneficial to lessen the capacity. That way he would never have to pay more rent b/c he figure the little bit he would go over that set attendance number would not cover the extra costs in rent.

Just a theory

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by Stoky44
I think that if they are removing part of the ud this winter then they will also have to add more seats this winter. I know many say that that would be too much to do in one winter and the park is not going to be done until 2005. Baseball is all about making money, though the sox don't sell out much, they will do so a at least 5 times. Removing seats would make no sense. Wouldn't you think that they would add the new seats first then remove the top part of the upper deck?

Here is just a approximation of the seat loss:

Sections: 53
Rows: 10
Seats per section: 25

Total loss: 13,250 (approx)

Current Capacity: 44,500(approx)

There are 36 sections in the upper deck. I would say the average number of seats per row is 20 so that is eliminating 7,200 seats. They are supposedly adding a 5 row overhang for atleast 1/3 of the upper deck. 20x5x12 would be 1,200. With between 1,500 and 2,000 new homerun porch seats your looking at a drop of about 4,000, which is about how much capacity has increased since the construction of the park.

Est Future Capacity w/o adding new seats: 31,250

When looking at these numbers I think the estimated 10 row removal is a bit much, that 1/3 of the upper deck. I think the number of rows removed must be closer to 5 or 7.

Removing 5 Rows: 6625 (approx)
Removing 7 Rows: 9275 (approx)

Now I think there are 25 seats per row the upper deck, though i am not completely sure. No way would JR let the capacity drop below 40,000. Unless.... JR might figure he would never sell out for an entire season, only a handfull of games during the reg. seasons and the post season. I know there is a number set that if the attendence reaches a certain nuymber JR has to pay more rent. He might figure that it would be more beneficial to lessen the capacity. That way he would never have to pay more rent b/c he figure the little bit he would go over that set attendance number would not cover the extra costs in rent.

Just a theory

CHISOXFAN13
10-03-2003, 12:18 PM
There are 29 rows in the upper deck, so based on those calculations there would be 35,000 plus seats in the upper deck. Chopping 10 rows probably cuts the capacity by 7-8,000, IMO.

Also, the current capacity is closer to 47,000.

Unregistered
10-03-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by Stoky44
Here is just a approximation of the seat loss:

Sections: 53
Rows: 10
Seats per section: 25

Total loss: 13,250 (approx)

Current Capacity: 44,500(approx)

Est Future Capacity w/o adding new seats: 31,250 Maybe this will cause JR and Friends to justify not spending any money on this team.
I can see it now: "We felt it wouldn't be fair to the fans to field a competitive team this year, because only 31,000 people can fit on any given night."

:reinsy
"Genius!"

TDog
10-03-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
...1.) What EXACTLY is a "home run porch"? The classic definition of a home run porch (dating back to the early-20th century) is the right field corner at Yankee Stadium. However it is not famous because of the extra deck of seats. No! What made it a home run porch was the ridiculously short foul line, 296 feet. Lefties like Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle (S) and Maris all took pokes at it. It was considered an unfair advantage by everyone who despised the Yankees, not unlike today's Sox Fans whining about the HumpDome....

People seem to be referring to something like the Dew Deck in Miller Park's right field. The problem I have with that design is that it is impossible to see the game from beneath the Dew Deck. The Brewers have television monitors on the (ugh) poles that hold the second deck up, but the last time I was there, the televisions were tuned to the Bucks and the Simpsons.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Somebody needs to explain a couple of things to me.

1.) What EXACTLY is a "home run porch"? The classic definition of a home run porch (dating back to the early-20th century) is the right field corner at Yankee Stadium. However it is not famous because of the extra deck of seats. No! What made it a home run porch was the ridiculously short foul line, 296 feet. Lefties like Ruth, Gehrig, Mantle (S) and Maris all took pokes at it. It was considered an unfair advantage by everyone who despised the Yankees, not unlike today's Sox Fans whining about the HumpDome.

If anyone has one of the older Sporting News baseball park books, there are some really neat pictures of the "home run porch" Charley Finley built in KC when the A's played there. He called it the "Pennant Porch". I don't have access to a scanner right now, but I'll try to look for a photo online somewhere. He basically built a set of bleachers in the rightfield corner and had the fence wrap around them in a shape of a triangle (almost a pennant). However, the foul pole wasn't at the front of this set of bleachers...it was still back in it's original position maybe 30-ft behind it. There was a very small area (maybe 5' wide) of fair territory on the rightfield side of the pennant porch. So, a ball hit in the corner could go in this little nook, and the rightfielder would have to chase after it around the corner of the pennant porch. The closest part of the pennant porch was like 296' to home plate, but the actual rightfield foul pole was '320 from the plate.

Jortafan - I too am a big fan of stadium design. I've done a lot of reading about the older stadiums and how architects didn't take into account the need to rotate seats and not have such straight sight lines. Old Comiskey and Wrigley are classic examples of stadiums with this problem. Keep in mind, this wasn't a problem in Old Comiskey when football and soccer games were played there. It actually helped the viewing of the game...same thing when the Bears played in Wrigley.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I dunno... it seems like a lot of money for not a lot of return. I'm far more excited about anything they could do to make the existing UD more appealing.

I'm not a huge fan of the upperdeck in right field either. It could be nice, but I want to make sure we don't get carried away and end up with an enclosed stadium. Riverfront, The Vet, Three Rivers, Fulton County, Busch...they all had upperdecks in the outfield. If we do put something out there, it should be smaller than larger.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Well, if they do lop of part of the UD then the skyline would indeed be visible from a RF UD/HRP.


Actually, I agree with PHG on this one.

We're so far away from the downtown area that the skyline buildings are closer to the ground. The homerun porch in right won't be as tall as the existing rightfield upper deck. Even after the chop off the top 10 rows of the upperdeck behind 3rd base, you still won't even be able to see the top of the Sears tower from rightfield. In the new rightfield homerun porch, you'll be staring straight across into maybe the first row of the upperdeck at the highest...and more likely into the skyboxes or club level. The Skyline will still be hidden behind the remaining upper deck behind 3rd base.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
If anyone has one of the older Sporting News baseball park books, there are some really neat pictures of the "home run porch" Charley Finley built in KC when the A's played there. He called it the "Pennant Porch". I don't have access to a scanner right now, but I'll try to look for a photo online somewhere. He basically built a set of bleachers in the rightfield corner and had the fence wrap around them in a shape of a triangle (almost a pennant). However, the foul pole wasn't at the front of this set of bleachers...it was still back in it's original position maybe 30-ft behind it. There was a very small area (maybe 5' wide) of fair territory on the rightfield side of the pennant porch. So, a ball hit in the corner could go in this little nook, and the rightfielder would have to chase after it around the corner of the pennant porch. The closest part of the pennant porch was like 296' to home plate, but the actual rightfield foul pole was '320 from the plate.

I've got that book, Brian. "Take Me Out to the Ballpark" by the Sporting News. My copy dates back to the 80's. If I get a chance I'll scan that photo of the Pennant Porch from KC's old Municipal Stadium. It's a classic. The commissioner made Finley take it down after only a few games, too.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
To block the view of the projects??

What projects? What's left of them (2 or 3) buildings are viewable way in the distance in center field beyond the scoreboard. And they are knocking them down and rebuilding the neighborhood. In rightfield, you have nothing but parking lots.

You obviously don't know the area.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I've got that book, Brian. "Take Me Out to the Ballpark" by the Sporting News. My copy dates back to the 80's. If I get a chance I'll scan that photo of the Pennant Porch from KC's old Municipal Stadium. It's a classic. The commissioner made Finley take it down after only a few games, too.

Yep, you have the same book I have. I think I got it in '84 or '85. Some really, really neat photos in there. The Sporting News has come out with a couple of different versions since then, but all of them are really lacking in photos and details. Not only does this version have great written histories of all of the old parks, but they have multiple pictures from different angles.

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by TDog
People seem to be referring to something like the Dew Deck in Miller Park's right field. The problem I have with that design is that it is impossible to see the game from beneath the Dew Deck. The Brewers have television monitors on the (ugh) poles that hold the second deck up, but the last time I was there, the televisions were tuned to the Bucks and the Simpsons.

They didn't want to show the Brewers, people might not come back.

Mammoo
10-03-2003, 12:44 PM
Can the new cantilever construction techniques that were employed at Soldier Field be used to reconfigure the upper deck??? :?:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I've got that book, Brian. "Take Me Out to the Ballpark" by the Sporting News. My copy dates back to the 80's. If I get a chance I'll scan that photo of the Pennant Porch from KC's old Municipal Stadium. It's a classic. The commissioner made Finley take it down after only a few games, too.

KC's Pennant Porch, Charlie Finley's answer to Yankee Stadium's "home run porch." Anybody from Texas claiming theirs is a "home run porch" ought to be taken out back and shot! :smile:

mrwag
10-03-2003, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
What projects? What's left of them (2 or 3) buildings are viewable way in the distance in center field beyond the scoreboard. And they are knocking them down and rebuilding the neighborhood. In rightfield, you have nothing but parking lots.

You obviously don't know the area.
When I was there 9/20 there was still the highrise across the Dan Ryan. It's not like the view on either side of the scoreboard is breath-taking. Left field porch, right field - doesn't matter aestheically. Seems odd to me because of the lack of left handed power hitters.

Sorry if I "don't know the area", but my last adventure for my family ran $100 just to get inside the park (bleacher seats even), so it's not something I can afford to attend several times a year like in my single days.

joecrede
10-03-2003, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Stoky44
I think that if they are removing part of the ud this winter then they will also have to add more seats this winter. I know many say that that would be too much to do in one winter and the park is not going to be done until 2005. Baseball is all about making money, though the sox don't sell out much, they will do so a at least 5 times. Removing seats would make no sense. Wouldn't you think that they would add the new seats first then remove the top part of the upper deck?

Here is just a approximation of the seat loss:

Sections: 53
Rows: 10
Seats per section: 25

Total loss: 13,250 (approx)

Current Capacity: 44,500(approx)

Est Future Capacity w/o adding new seats: 31,250

When looking at these numbers I think the estimated 10 row removal is a bit much, that 1/3 of the upper deck. I think the number of rows removed must be closer to 5 or 7.

Removing 5 Rows: 6625 (approx)
Removing 7 Rows: 9275 (approx)

Now I think there are 25 seats per row the upper deck, though i am not completely sure. No way would JR let the capacity drop below 40,000. Unless.... JR might figure he would never sell out for an entire season, only a handfull of games during the reg. seasons and the post season. I know there is a number set that if the attendence reaches a certain nuymber JR has to pay more rent. He might figure that it would be more beneficial to lessen the capacity. That way he would never have to pay more rent b/c he figure the little bit he would go over that set attendance number would not cover the extra costs in rent.

Just a theory

US Cellular Field Capacity: 47,098
Rows in Upper Deck: 29
Seats in Upper Deck: ~19,600
Number of Seats taken out (10 rows): ~6,728
New Capacity w/o Home Run Porch: 40,370

(Got that upper deck seats figure from one of those inspection signs stating max capacity, but it does seem somewhat low.)

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
Actually, I agree with PHG on this one.

We're so far away from the downtown area that the skyline buildings are closer to the ground. The homerun porch in right won't be as tall as the existing rightfield upper deck. Even after the chop off the top 10 rows of the upperdeck behind 3rd base, you still won't even be able to see the top of the Sears tower from rightfield. In the new rightfield homerun porch, you'll be staring straight across into maybe the first row of the upperdeck at the highest...and more likely into the skyboxes or club level. The Skyline will still be hidden behind the remaining upper deck behind 3rd base.

Okay... here is the aerial photograph that will prove beyond even a shadow of a doubt that NO home run porch can possibly offer fans a view of the downtown skyline.

Memories of Old Comiskey Park. Sox Fans, who loves ya, baby! (http://flyingsock.com/OldComiskey/Progress.htm)

The skyline is due north, straight up the Dan Ryan Expressway. There is NO WAY anything in right field or left field could possibly view downtown unless the left field upper deck was completely sheared off. Even then, the view would probably be limited to just the top rows on the new "home run porch."

This "home run porch" idea keeps looking dumber and dumber all the time...

GoSox2K3
10-03-2003, 02:32 PM
Even if it were possible, would having a view of the skyline really improve Sox attendance? I doubt it would have much of an impact. No one seems to mind that the Urinal faces away from downtown.

If they're adding a HR Porch, the main reason would be to maintain seating capacity that would otherwise be lost by removing the top rows of the upper deck.

My guess is that a 2nd reason for the HR porch would be that some believe it would improve the aesthetics of the ballpark and take away that symmetrical bowl look.

kraut83
10-03-2003, 02:46 PM
You mean the Tigers don't sell out even though fans can see the beautiful Detroit skyline???

dickallen15
10-03-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by GoSox2K3
Even if it were possible, would having a view of the skyline really improve Sox attendance? I doubt it would have much of an impact. No one seems to mind that the Urinal faces away from downtown.

If they're adding a HR Porch, the main reason would be to maintain seating capacity that would otherwise be lost by removing the top rows of the upper deck.

My guess is that a 2nd reason for the HR porch would be that some believe it would improve the aesthetics of the ballpark and take away that symmetrical bowl look.

What it does is when ever it is talked about,the view of the beautiful Chicago skyline would always be mentioned, and it would help brainwash people. Wrigley Field, one of the world's biggest dumps, it thought of as a shrine due to similar propaganda. Come look at the weeds growing on our outfield walls etc.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
KC's Pennant Porch, Charlie Finley's answer to Yankee Stadium's "home run porch." Anybody from Texas claiming theirs is a "home run porch" ought to be taken out back and shot! :smile:

You're the man, PHG. I'm the man, too. I haven't looked at the book in years and somehow I remembered 296'.

MisterB
10-03-2003, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
US Cellular Field Capacity: 47,098
Rows in Upper Deck: 29
Seats in Upper Deck: ~19,600
Number of Seats taken out (10 rows): ~6,728
New Capacity w/o Home Run Porch: 40,370

(Got that upper deck seats figure from one of those inspection signs stating max capacity, but it does seem somewhat low.)

Yeah, Stoky's numbers are a little off. If a 'section' is measured from aisle to aisle, there are only 35 sections in the upper deck. (The UD is from sec. 506 to 558, but some numbers are skipped (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/ticketing/cws_seating_pricing.jsp); the wheelchair sections in the UD get their own numbers i think) If you take his estimate of 25 per section then 25 x 10 x 35 = 8750, bringing total capacity to 38,348.

maurice
10-03-2003, 03:22 PM
The rumor I heard had them exposing the skyline by demolishing several sections of the UD in the LF corner. I suppose the diamond suites in that corner would have to go also. While this sounds extremely expensive, it might afford a skyline view from the fan deck in CF.

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by maurice
The rumor I heard had them exposing the skyline by demolishing several sections of the UD in the LF corner. I suppose the diamond suites in that corner would have to go also. While this sounds extremely expensive, it might afford a skyline view from the fan deck in CF.

Whats Most Ridiculous, even though the SOX have 3 Levels of Skyboxes (and rumored to have wanted up to 5 levels of skyboxes) There are a BUNCH OF THEM THAT ARENT EVER SOLD.
In Fact, THERE ARE A BUNCH THAT WERE NEVER FINISHED!!
You can still see the Steel Studs, drywall lying around etc in there.
What a Waste. Eliminate the 3rd level of skyboxes, and relocate/consolidate All of them to the unused 1st level skyboxes.

Get rid of that Terrible "meeting" type area of the skyboxes in LF
and put about 8 more skyboxes there. That would Set the Groundwork for using the INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY IN PLACE,
of making the CLUBLEVEL the New UpperDeck. All that would happen, would be the Removal of the top tier of Skyboxes, and Use The Pitch of the ClubLevel, which is closer and MUCH More Favorable, and simply ADD about 25-30 more Rows behind that.
Doing this, there would be between 2-4 Less Skyboxes total, but ALL WOULD BE IN USE then.

anewman35
10-03-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18

Get rid of that Terrible "meeting" type area of the skyboxes in LF
and put about 8 more skyboxes there. That would Set the Groundwork for using the INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY IN PLACE,
of making the CLUBLEVEL the New UpperDeck. All that would happen, would be the Removal of the top tier of Skyboxes, and Use The Pitch of the ClubLevel, which is closer and MUCH More Favorable, and simply ADD about 25-30 more Rows behind that.
Doing this, there would be between 2-4 Less Skyboxes total, but ALL WOULD BE IN USE then.

I can't even imagine how much that would cost, but it would sure as hell be a lot more than 65 million dollars, and take more than an off season. You're asking them to demolish the entire upper deck and build a new one (and a new concourse, I presume) in 6 months?

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by GoSox2K3
Even if it were possible, would having a view of the skyline really improve Sox attendance? I doubt it would have much of an impact.


Chicago has the best skyline in the world, and Looks Best when viewed from the South Side of the City. To have faced the park away from the one Built In Marketing Tool that was in their favor was Foolish and Shortsighted

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I can't even imagine how much that would cost, but it would sure as hell be a lot more than 65 million dollars, and take more than an off season. You're asking them to demolish the entire upper deck and build a new one (and a new concourse, I presume) in 6 months?

NO......your demolishing the whole upper deck yes.
but your ONLY REBUILDING HALF OF IT, to align with the CURRENT CLub Level seats. Also.......The CONCOURSE IS ALREADY IN PLACE for the UpperDeck using the current Club level.
It could be done....and it would Look GREAT

Randar68
10-03-2003, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
NO......your demolishing the whole upper deck yes.
but your ONLY REBUILDING HALF OF IT, to align with the CURRENT CLub Level seats. Also.......The CONCOURSE IS ALREADY IN PLACE for the UpperDeck using the current Club level.
It could be done....and it would Look GREAT

That might cost over 100 million dollars alone. How do you remove all that concrete without destroying the whole stadium??? That kind of care doesn't come cheap, I'll assure you.

anewman35
10-03-2003, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
NO......your demolishing the whole upper deck yes.
but your ONLY REBUILDING HALF OF IT, to align with the CURRENT CLub Level seats. Also.......The CONCOURSE IS ALREADY IN PLACE for the UpperDeck using the current Club level.
It could be done....and it would Look GREAT

The club level is, what, 5 or 6 rows? You'd have to build at least 15 or 20 more rows on top of it, which is still far more work than they could do in an off season. It would be one thing if they were starting fresh, but it would take months just to remove the upper deck, especially since they'd have to be careful not to damage anything below. Also, the Club level concourse is not set up for the vastly more people it would have as the upper concourse, especially after they just went through all that work to make it nicer. I haven't been up there in years, but are they really any food stands up there at all?

thepaulbowski
10-03-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
NO......your demolishing the whole upper deck yes.
but your ONLY REBUILDING HALF OF IT, to align with the CURRENT CLub Level seats. Also.......The CONCOURSE IS ALREADY IN PLACE for the UpperDeck using the current Club level.
It could be done....and it would Look GREAT

To do that would cost more the it did to build the whole stadium. You would have to re-engineer the whole structure, way too much $$$.

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I haven't been up there in years, but are they really any food stands up there at all?

The Club level is only like 5 rows. An Incredible Waste Of Space(which to me, was Preposterous and a Humongously Inefficient Use Of Available Space, as we see how it made the Pitch of the Upper Deck remarkably Steeper than that of a RollerCoaster)

The Food stands, even though there are maybe only 5 or 6 people roaming the concourses, are JUST AS SLOW :smile:

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
To do that would cost more the it did to build the whole stadium. You would have to re-engineer the whole structure, way too much $$$.


No You wouldnt have to Re-engineer anything. The Current
Steel Support Columns that are in use, 3 Rows of them (theyre noticable, ONE is at the TOP of the 1st level concourse, easily visible, TWO is at the back end of the Concourse, not as noticable, since this area is "filled in" with food stands etc. Set THREE is the Important one, as this is the SET that DEFINES
the Uppermost Part and Outside of the Park. This is Noticable
if your Outside the STADIUM and see this Little Beams Sticking UPWARDS out of the UpperDeck, and the Upper DECK Reaching BEYOND about 15 rows. The Only thing reworked is the Cutting of about maybe 50 ft of Steel that wont be used anymore

joecrede
10-03-2003, 04:35 PM
Hangar, what's the estimated cost of your proposed plan?

Brian26
10-03-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
No You wouldnt have to Re-engineer anything. The Current
Steel Support Columns that are in use, 3 Rows of them (theyre noticable, ONE is at the TOP of the 1st level concourse, easily visible, TWO is at the back end of the Concourse, not as noticable, since this area is "filled in" with food stands etc. Set THREE is the Important one, as this is the SET that DEFINES
the Uppermost Part and Outside of the Park. This is Noticable
if your Outside the STADIUM and see this Little Beams Sticking UPWARDS out of the UpperDeck, and the Upper DECK Reaching BEYOND about 15 rows. The Only thing reworked is the Cutting of about maybe 50 ft of Steel that wont be used anymore

Hangar obviously drinking early on a Friday afternoon.

It can't be done for less than 100 million dollars and a year of work. The engineering and construction work to get this done would be a major project.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 04:40 PM
How about blowing this stadium up and building a new one?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-03-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
How about blowing this stadium up and building a new one?

I'm pretty sure that's the gist of Hangar's plan for the upper deck.

:smile:

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Hangar, what's the estimated cost of your proposed plan?

Im trying to see if a couple of my Friends in the Const. Industry can take a look at this, and give me a Rough Estimate.
I will have a total for everyone in a few days. Maybe we can get alittle tip jar and start getting some $$$ together?
I can see a big Save our Skyline Telethon, Joan Cusack
would be the hostess, going on her 20th hour of being on the air, her hair a mess as usual, and PHG presenting a check for 900 bucks from us here heh heh 100million huh?
that is a bit costly

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm pretty sure that's the gist of Hangar's plan for the upper deck.

:smile:

Now that you mention it .........

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm pretty sure that's the gist of Hangar's plan for the upper deck.

:smile:

Heh, no kidding.

Didn't this stadium cost $170 million? It's almost not worth it to keep this thing for the price it's costing to fix it. Just blow the mofo up and let's start over. Maybe we can built it somewhere in Grant Park, make it face the skyline, and our problems will be solved.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Maybe we can built it somewhere in Grant Park, make it face the skyline, and our problems will be solved.

If you can get the City to sell you some land in Grant Park for less than 150 million, you should be the president.

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
If you can get the City to sell you some land in Grant Park for less than 150 million, you should be the president.

Who is the Mayor? It can get done.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Heh, no kidding.

Didn't this stadium cost $170 million? It's almost not worth it to keep this thing for the price it's costing to fix it. Just blow the mofo up and let's start over. Maybe we can built it somewhere in Grant Park, make it face the skyline, and our problems will be solved.

It cost that much in 1990. How much do you think it would cost for one of today's "State of the Art" Stadiums???

I assure you it's not a penny less than 300 million.

Brian26
10-03-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
It cost that much in 1990. How much do you think it would cost for one of today's "State of the Art" Stadiums???

I assure you it's not a penny less than 300 million.

Is that with or without the New Era Cap Corner?

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
It cost that much in 1990. How much do you think it would cost for one of today's "State of the Art" Stadiums???

I assure you it's not a penny less than 300 million.

Since he's already sold the name of the place, I'm sure he can find some company gullable enough to finance it.

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Who is the Mayor? It can get done.

The Parks department has way too much power to do what they are told. The are completely seperate from the city government. They have a seperate budget, a seperate corporate structure and have been very blunt at times in telling several different Mayors to stick the current plans (what ever the flavor of the day is) where the sun doesn't shine.

It may be the last thing Daley doesn't control in Illinois...

Hangar18
10-03-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
It cost that much in 1990. How much do you think it would cost for one of today's "State of the Art" Stadiums???

I assure you it's not a penny less than 300 million.

wait....how could that Monstrosity of the Midway they now call Soldier Field cost 600 Million then? that place looks Horrible.
The Comiskey of Football.

At Moneys right. Anything can be done. ReZone some of that area On Roosevelt Road, East of Halsted for Our New Stadium.
And Do it within the next Decade before it becomes even MORE Expensive

voodoochile
10-03-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
wait....how could that Monstrosity of the Midway they now call Soldier Field cost 600 Million then? that place looks Horrible.
The Comiskey of Football.

At Moneys right. Anything can be done. ReZone some of that area On Roosevelt Road, East of Halsted for Our New Stadium.
And Do it within the next Decade before it becomes even MORE Expensive

The original estimate was for $450M, but they had to spend almost $200M removing the asbestos which was a common building material in the 60's and early 70's because of it's flame retardant and excellent insulation properties.

Just one of the reason everyone is so concerned with the crap that got released into the air and into the workers after 9/11...

Randar68
10-03-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
wait....how could that Monstrosity of the Midway they now call Soldier Field cost 600 Million then? that place looks Horrible.
The Comiskey of Football.

Because they had to preserve the original. I don't think you're grasping the cost and care that must be accounted for when you're demolishing just a part of a major structure with the intent to preserve what is left.

A lot of the cost of Soldier Field was tied into the preservation and protection of the exterior structure and restoration of said structure.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 04:56 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The original estimate was for $450M, but they had to spend almost $200M removing the asbestos

I forgot about that extra cost as well...

A.T. Money
10-03-2003, 04:57 PM
I think Soldier Field is awesome.

Randar68
10-03-2003, 05:03 PM
don't let this one slip by ya! :D:


:tomatoaward

steff
10-03-2003, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by mrwag
To block the view of the projects??


When's the last time you were at the park?

thepaulbowski
10-03-2003, 05:30 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
Who is the Mayor? It can get done.

The Mayor's a Sox fan, lets try it! :smile:

Shoeless Joe
10-03-2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
wait....how could that Monstrosity of the Midway they now call Soldier Field cost 600 Million then? that place looks Horrible.The Comiskey of Football.


I understand the Bears have upset some people with their play but the only thing that doesn't suck about the Bears is their stadium. I'm not even going to talk about the outside of Soldier Field because it seems like everyone is resigned to dry heaving while looking at it. But as the saying goes: Don't judge a book by it's cover.

When I got inside of Soldier Field I almost felt like crying. The stadium was perfect. Every seat is great. I was in the Upper Level and the seats couldn't have been better. I saw everything that happen on the field. The seats were comfortable and the screens were awesome. If anything I wish the Cell was more like Soldier Field.

duke of dorwood
10-03-2003, 08:17 PM
Its truly spectacular inside-I was there Monday too. I think our park is spectacular inside too. They have a walk around inside lower level like Sox Park too

MRKARNO
10-04-2003, 09:45 PM
Any updates on renovation?

hsnterprize
10-05-2003, 10:12 AM
I was at the press conference when the Bears unveiled the design for their new stadium. I loved it then, and obviously, I think the new Soldier Field is awesome. It's too bad the team that plays in it is terrible. BTW, just to answer a couple of questions, the original cost of the field was going to be about $450 million, and there was more than just re-doing the stadium. You can see on the Bears' website the same things I read in my press notes...there was a lot of renovations being done in teh areas around Soldier Field. There were plans to improve the areas between the stadium and the Museum Campus, as well as put things in stadium vicinity that would make the place user-friendly year-round. Yes, the Bears only play 10 games per year, and the Fire aren't 100% sure if they will stay at Soldier Field or move into their own stadium (which I think is a much better idea). Of course, there was controversy on everything from how the place was being paid for, the cost of the work, how the place looked, and how it was designed. I don't have to re-hash the points because the stadium is up, and it looks great. Let's pray the Bears are smart enough to put a winning team on that field very soon.

As far as the Cell is concerned, I'm anxious to see what's going on there. I've been saying for years that it would be smart for the Sox to remove the upperost rows of UD seats, and I'm glad it's finally happening. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that while other new stadia have upper decks that are just as steep and such, that high UD's don't fly on the south side. Now, of course if the Sox were winning as frequently as teams like Cleveland and Atlanta back in the 90's, the attendance and other "petty" issues wouldn't exist. But the Sox are at least trying to make their ballpark a source of draw, and that's fine. But, KW and the rest of the management know that even if U.S. Cellular Field is completely torn down and replaced, all the bells, whistles, and nuances of other places won't being the fans in the ballpark. Places like Wrigley and Fenway are the exception to the long-standing rule that if the team isn't winning, the fans won't show up. Look at all the great places in Seattle, Cleveland, Denver, and other cities where their ballparks are "so much better" than the Cell. Don't you love their EMPTY, green chairs and all the quirks that make their ballparks unique? Don't you love the LOW ATTENDACE figures of places once thought to be the meccas of baseball? Hey...I'm not against making our ballpark better...Lord knows it needed the improvements. However, green chairs, quirky sightlines, classic-looking roofs, and other modern baseball park items DO NOT bring in winning baseball. If the Sox are winning like they should, you could put them in the middle of the city dump, and fans will spend money on gas masks aqnd other protective gear so they can go to the dump and cheer on the team.

Here's to the renovations of U.S. Cellular Field, and here's to sticking with our mission...making the management of our favorite team make the Sox champions. All this "Cub-love" I'm hearing about is making me sick. Anyone got any Alka-Selter?

chisoxt
10-05-2003, 10:42 AM
Heh, no kidding.

Didn't this stadium cost $170 million? It's almost not worth it to keep this thing for the price it's costing to fix it. Just blow the mofo up and let's start over. Maybe we can built it somewhere in Grant Park, make it face the skyline, and our problems will be solved.

One of the reasons new Comiskey was built so cheaply was because of how it was constructed. If you look carefully at some of the newer, more appealing stadiums, you will see that the structure of the park was built with welded steel supports and girders, while Comiskey was built with large precast concrete sections. When you build with a steel structure, you have so much more flexibility with the shape and confuguration of the stadium that you would have with precast. Notice how the neater parks have what is called a 'fractured' configuration wherby the stands are angled and even break on occasion to lend more character to the overall look. The advantage of precast involves building large sections of the stadium off-site and utilizing the same concrete mold over and over again so that in the long run, costs are lower. OTOH, with welded steel, the stuctural components are built on-site with more labor involved so the cost is higher.

One more thought...when the original bid for New Comiskey was let, the bid prices grossly exceeded the overall project budget, so cost-cutting measures were implemented. I would be interested to see what items were dropped from the original concept.

jortafan
10-05-2003, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by chisoxt
One more thought...when the original bid for New Comiskey was let, the bid prices grossly exceeded the overall project budget, so cost-cutting measures were implemented. I would be interested to see what items were dropped from the original concept.

I recently came across some newspaper clippings of stories written about six months after the Illinois Legislature approved the Comiskey construction project. The stories were all about how the building was having some of its details scaled back to ensure that the project remained within budget. It also quoted JR as insisting that the new building would still be a good place to watch a ballgame, even with the cutbacks.

Some of the things that were eliminated were an outer layer of brick on the outside of the building, replacing it with the precast concrete panels done in a rose color to simulate the color of brick. Also, the uppermost deck was originally supposed to have a roof. And the concourses were supposed to have been done much more elaborately and detailed, rather than the stripped down concrete look that the stadium had for its first decade.

My point in all of this is that the things that were eliminated in many ways are the same details that are being added in with the recent and proposed renovations. It's too bad all of this couldn't have been done back in 1991.

But then again, when taxpayer dollars are being used (even if its from a state hotel and restaurant tax that is aimed at tourists), I can see where staying within a budget is important. Would we really have been happier if a new Sox stadium had had the cost overruns such as those Seattle experienced (their building cost nearly $500 million, compared to the $162 million total cost for New Comiskey/U.S. Cellular).

thepaulbowski
10-06-2003, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by jortafan
I can see where staying within a budget is important.

What?!?! Staying within budget, that's unheard of in Chicago. :D:

3rdgensoxfan
10-07-2003, 03:28 PM
All of this talk concerning the stadium is quite captivating. I feel that thus far, all of the renovations have only improved the atmosphere of the stadium. Hopefully future renovations regardless of their magnitude will continue this trend. I also believe that Chicago is the city that works. If the White Sox can actually put a quality team on the field and make some noise in the postseason, the Mayor will only help the White Sox. . .he makes no bones about his baseball team preferences. One final thought--This Cubs hoopla better die down quickly. . . . .

voodoochile
10-07-2003, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by 3rdgensoxfan
All of this talk concerning the stadium is quite captivating. I feel that thus far, all of the renovations have only improved the atmosphere of the stadium. Hopefully future renovations regardless of their magnitude will continue this trend. I also believe that Chicago is the city that works. If the White Sox can actually put a quality team on the field and make some noise in the postseason, the Mayor will only help the White Sox. . .he makes no bones about his baseball team preferences. One final thought--This Cubs hoopla better die down quickly. . . . .

Hey, Welcome Aboard! :D:

RedPinStripes
10-07-2003, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
The more I think about it, the more I would prefer green seats. I would also like the seats to be more comfortable. I understand that at the BOB, they hae seats that are turned more towards the mound--I think that would be a great addition.

But hey, I'm glad they aare starting the process. I just wish that there would be an official announcement--with some artists renderings or some comuputer generated images. Don't they want to promote these changes? Get people interested in wanting to buy season tickets?

They ARE facing the IF. And they have Beer cup holders! I need nothing else. :gulp:

palehosepub
10-08-2003, 03:12 PM
see my post on US Cellular upgrades!

joecrede
10-15-2003, 04:06 PM
Crews already have removed seats from the stadium's top rows, and cranes will be installed by Friday when the first chunks of upper deck concrete are jackhammered away.

Full article from today's Daily Southtown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/yrtwn/south/155syt1.htm)

MRKARNO
10-15-2003, 04:14 PM
But it's clear the top deck's worst nosebleed seats will be gone and the steep slope will be lessened when the highest rows are removed.

This certainly is a new development. Not only will the height be fixed, but the slope too? This could turn out to be a not bad upper deck, but it doesnt fix the biggest problem, which is that the upper deck starts waaay too high up

cheeses_h_rice
10-15-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
Full article from today's Daily Southtown (http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/yrtwn/south/155syt1.htm)

Demolition crews will begin tearing down U.S. Cellular Field's hated upper deck this week, readying the stadium's top tier for a long-awaited makeover, White Sox officials said.

Whoa -- so they're going to TEAR DOWN the ENTIRE upper deck and rebuild from scratch?!?

This is too good to be true.

What will the red-asses whine about then?

:giangreco

As long as there's a speck of blue to get in a background shot, I'm happy.

anewman35
10-15-2003, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Whoa -- so they're going to TEAR DOWN the ENTIRE upper deck and rebuild from scratch?!?

This is too good to be true.


I'm quite sure that's not what they mean, if they were planning that they'd have removed a lot more seats, and probably never bothered to do the upgrades to the concourse they did this year. I'm sure that they're doing is just ripping off the top and rebuilding it - no way they could build an entire new deck in 6 months (winter months, no less).

cheeses_h_rice
10-15-2003, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I'm quite sure that's not what they mean, if they were planning that they'd have removed a lot more seats, and probably never bothered to do the upgrades to the concourse they did this year. I'm sure that they're doing is just ripping off the top and rebuilding it - no way they could build an entire new deck in 6 months (winter months, no less).

The Sox aren't saying how the renovated upper deck will look when it's done architectural drawings won't be made public until November. But it's clear the top deck's worst nosebleed seats will be gone and the steep slope will be lessened when the highest rows are removed.

They could rip out the seat part of the UD without affecting the concourse too much, IMO.

But anyway, if you're correct, there'll be just a steep slope for the first, say, 10 rows (where the existing seats are), and then a lessened slope for the remainder of the UD? That's going to look strange, to say the least.

It'd be nice if reporters could squeeze just a bit more info out of the Sox and their contractors, though. What's with the mystery?

thepaulbowski
10-15-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
This certainly is a new development. Not only will the height be fixed, but the slope too? This could turn out to be a not bad upper deck, but it doesnt fix the biggest problem, which is that the upper deck starts waaay too high up

now to find people to fill those seats.

LuvSox
10-15-2003, 04:30 PM
Once again the Sox leave me hungry for more just as the season ends.


:jerry
"I'm hungry for more"

:tumbleweed

joecrede
10-15-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
But it's clear the top deck's worst nosebleed seats will be gone and the steep slope will be lessened when the highest rows are removed.

This certainly is a new development. Not only will the height be fixed, but the slope too? This could turn out to be a not bad upper deck, but it doesnt fix the biggest problem, which is that the upper deck starts waaay too high up

I think that quote from the article was written poorly by the reporter. I think it should read when the highest rows are removed, the steep slope will be lessened.

MRKARNO
10-15-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by joecrede
This certainly is a new development. Not only will the height be fixed, but the slope too? This could turn out to be a not bad upper deck, but it doesnt fix the biggest problem, which is that the upper deck starts waaay too high up

I think that quote from the article was written poorly by the reporter. I think it should read when the highest rows are removed, the steep slope will be lessened. [/QUOTE]

But the slope has nothing to do with the height of the upper deck. What am I missing here?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-15-2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO

I think that quote from the article was written poorly by the reporter. I think it should read [B]when the highest rows are removed, the steep slope will be lessened

But the slope has nothing to do with the height of the upper deck. What am I missing here?

The confusion is created by Reifert playing cat and mouse with the Southtown's reporter. Reread the story and you'll see what I mean.

There are only four direct quotes attributed to Reifert. Everything else is the reporter's own speculation about what it all means. The Sox aren't unveiling their plans until November, and Reifert is sticking to the script.

I think anyone would need to be delusional to think the Sox have the money to shear off the entire upper deck and fix the "slope" in two consecutive Chicago winters. Either the reporter did a lousy job writing what he thought, or he is truly living a pipedream.