PDA

View Full Version : Armour Field


A.T. Money
10-17-2003, 05:44 PM
I was looking for info regarding the renovations, and I once again came around the Armour Field thing by Phillip Bess. I decided to look at his site:

http://www.thursdayarchitects.com/Baseball%20Projects/armour_field.htm

I'm not sure if I like the outfield dimensions of this ballpark. It's pretty weird near the foul poles. The seats face second base, but you're almost viewing the game sideways. Sure it would be unique, but it would still have a symmetrical design, and people would rip the park for that. Any opinions on this park? We haven't talked too much about it.

MRKARNO
10-17-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
We haven't talked too much about it.

Because the park we have is not so great one at 35th and shields

doublem23
10-17-2003, 07:23 PM
WSI also has an interview with Bass, linked on the front page.

When are they ever going to built a damn Ferris Wheel in left field? Now that'd cool.

Brian26
10-17-2003, 09:42 PM
We have discussed it here before, but it's been awhile.

I'm a mark for ballpark design. I like the concept of putting a field in that location, but there are a couple of huge problems with the design.

I don't know if this guy grew up on the east coast, but the actual dimensions are almost a direct ripoff of the Polo Grounds. Nobody needs to see a Midwestern version of the Polo Grounds. What were his dimensions? Like 250 down the lines and 450 to center? It's cute, but I highly doubt MLB would have ever accepted that design.

You're correct. The seats were not facing the infield, and it would have been a terrible and uncomfortable way to watch a game.

I like the idea of having a view of the skyline, but having homeplate face due north would case some problems for lefthanded hitters and first basemen trying to catch balls at about 7:30 on a summer evening. The field needs to be rotated to the more traditional direction of northeast or southeast.

Brian26
10-17-2003, 09:53 PM
Actually he designed centerfield as 400' and the foulines are 280' according to the sketches. That's not quite as bad as I originally thought (although he has 422' to the power alleys). I still don't like the design. It's looks like he's trying to fit a baseball field into a college football stadium. It looks like Ryan Field...even the campus-style housing and buildings around the park.

soxnut
10-17-2003, 10:12 PM
I don't like the design of the ballpark either. It is a cheesy east-coast-old fashioed style. I'm glad that it did not get built. I do like the idea of integrating it into the neighborhood and having a view of the skyline, and saving Comiskey's field for a park, but other than that...forget it. I think I am going to love USCF once all of the renovations are complete..and I don't think it will be dogged as much once these things happen. :cool:

A.T. Money
10-17-2003, 10:32 PM
I honestly think that if the Cell looks like this when it's finished, it'll be a huge success.

A.T. Money
10-17-2003, 10:33 PM
If you look at this old sketch, you can see the upperdeck looks much shorter, almost as if it's 10 rows shorter.....

Huisj
10-17-2003, 11:44 PM
I agree, armour field looks like a football stadium the horseshoe at ohio state comes to mind.

soxnut
10-18-2003, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
I honestly think that if the Cell looks like this when it's finished, it'll be a huge success.

As much as I like these drawings( I have the hr porch pic as wallpaper). I would hope it looks a little better than these drawings.

I don't want to see the billboards on top of the hr porch roof.....and where is the out-of-town scoreboard?...how about the light standard?..........where is the access ramp to the hr porch? I think there should be a catwalk from the UD to the hr porch...wide enough so that it can be used as standing room, similar to old Comiskey.

The drawings also don't show the arched window design in the UD..that is going to be really cool. And I would hope for a better light standard design on the roof of the UD.

Well, anyway..the design looks fine if it is done just how it is, but there probably will be a few modifications from the drawings.

We'll see soon.............. :smile:

MiamiSpartan1
10-18-2003, 05:11 AM
Not crazy about some of the sight lines, either, but what the heck is an "east coast" design??? Frankly all the new parks resemble each other whether it's east coast, midwest, west, etc...

inta
10-18-2003, 06:44 AM
just curious, how many HR's by the sox are hit to deep right/center field to make that homerun deck live up to its name?

i love the idea of it, and think it looks great, but i just cant see many HR's going that way... we dont have bull luzinski anymore.

also, where do they plan on moving the league scoreboards?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by MiamiSpartan1
Not crazy about some of the sight lines, either, but what the heck is an "east coast" design??? Frankly all the new parks resemble each other whether it's east coast, midwest, west, etc...

It's not "east coast." It's Prairie Revival. The long, low roofline is a play on Frank Lloyd Wright's designs from 100 years ago. It's very much in the Chicago vein of architectural design.

As for the term "home run porch," I'm guessing those clueless dolts from Texas have brainwashed an entire generation into thinking an outfield upper deck is a home run porch. I always thought Texans knew way more about football than baseball, and I'm guessing this just confirms it.

Yankee Stadium has a home run porch. The Ballpark at Arlington has an outfield upper deck... regardless of what they tell you it is. In fact it's a direct ripoff of Tiger Stadium's outfield upper deck, and nobody from Detroit ever called it a home run porch, either. These Texans are idiots.

Old Comiskey had an outfield upper deck, too, and adding one to the Cell would increase capacity. Thus the nosebleed seats lost in the current upper deck will have been replaced with better seats. It's not a bad idea, but a bigger, louder, and more outrageous Monster scoreboard would be a better use of the money, IMHO.

Here's the link to WSI's interview with the architect and urban planner who designed Armour Field, Phillip Bess.

A Sox Park for Chicago's South Side (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/FixComiskey/Bess/Conversation1.htm)

It includes several photos of his Prairie Revival design.

xil357
10-18-2003, 09:40 AM
Whatever you want to call it, the stadium will be around a lot longer than any of the current players will be on the Sox.

I like the idea of incorporating the park better with the neighborhood, as in the Armour Field design. The dimensions might be quirky, but a successful GM knows how to build his team to succeed in the team's home stadium. In that case, it would increase the need for the team to have a CF with tremendous range, and would put a premium on hitters who could spray the ball to the outfield to leg out doubles and triples. A White Sox team built to play in that park, IMHO, would compete well with the fence-swinging teams that make up the majority of the AL.

But there is no sense talking about what could have been.

Rather, if you have lemons, make lemonade. And that seems to be what the Sox are doing with the renovations to the Cell.

If anyone cares, or is listening, here are my ideas to spur more development in and around the cell:

1. Pressure the RTA to build a Metra station on the Rock Island tracks between 35th and 33rd to service the Cell and even more significantly, IIT. This opens up transit options to more Sox fans who live in the South and SW burbs. This also encourages more development of the area.

2. Here's the "big picture" idea that would be very hard to pull off but would be well worth it: To cement his legacy, Mayor Daley should push for a Summer Olympics in Chicago. It might not happen until 2020 or 2024, but that would give lead time on really re-developing the South Side. The city already has the transportation and stadium facilities that would be needed. Low-rise town house-style athlete's dorms could be built along the Dan Ryan where CHA high-rises once stood. After the Olympics, the dorms could be sold for mixed-income housing.

Part of the building boom could be to build "bridge parks" over the Dan Ryan to reconnect the neighborhoods on the west and east sides of the expressway. These parks have been used with much success in places like Seattle. No structures are built on top of them, but they provide pedestrian greenways to reconnect the neighborhoods. Parts of the Dan Ryan would be covered up but the expense is MUCH lower than digging a tunnel like Boston's Big Dig. Ventilation would need to be built into the bridge decks, but instead of ugly smokestacks, these could be disguised as brick clock tower chimneys.

The only thing that would have to be changed about the Ryan would be the EL tracks and station, which could be elevated to run above the bridge park so people could walk underneath them.

What are now the Cell's parking lots should be converted into two and three-story parking garages with retail and restaurant "frontages." This both beautifies the area, bringing year-round traffic, and increases parking capacity.

Brian26
10-18-2003, 10:12 AM
The only reason I used "east coast" design is because I was comparing the dimensions of the park to old Polo Grounds in New York. MLB would never allow a ballpark designed with those dimensions now anyway. No way would they allow a 280' rightfield and leftfield line.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
The only reason I used "east coast" design is because I was comparing the dimensions of the park to old Polo Grounds in New York. MLB would never allow a ballpark designed with those dimensions now anyway. No way would they allow a 280' rightfield and leftfield line.

I believe Bess's point was to make the ballpark "fit" the neighborhood and the dimensions of the site. That is how all of the old ballparks were designed, including the Polo Grounds, Fenway Park, Tiger Stadium, and yes, even Old Comiskey Park, too. It is also how all the new "retro" ballparks were designed like Camden Yards and Jacobs Field.

If New Comiskey had been built with the same considerations to the existing street grid, Shields Avenue would still exist west of the ballpark, and left field in the Cell would be far shorter than it is today. This obvious difference is what puts Bess's design in step with both the best old ballparks and the best new ones, too. It is also what makes New Comiskey such a disaster. How many millions have been spent already fixing this joint? It's only 12 years old, and only now are we adding the "personality" the Sox were too cheap, timid, and stupid to plan for back in 1991.

TornLabrum
10-18-2003, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
The only reason I used "east coast" design is because I was comparing the dimensions of the park to old Polo Grounds in New York. MLB would never allow a ballpark designed with those dimensions now anyway. No way would they allow a 280' rightfield and leftfield line.

IIRC there is an MLB rule that 300' is the minimum foul line distance for any new ball park.

TornLabrum
10-18-2003, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I believe Bess's point was to make the ballpark "fit" the neighborhood and the dimensions of the site. That is how all of the old ballparks were designed, including the Polo Grounds, Fenway Park, Tiger Stadium, and yes, even Old Comiskey Park, too. It is also how all the new "retro" ballparks were designed like Camden Yards and Jacobs Field.

If New Comiskey had been built with the same considerations to the existing street grid, Shields Avenue would still exist west of the ballpark, and left field in the Cell would be far shorter than it is today. This obvious difference is what puts Bess's design in step with both the best old ballparks and the best new ones, too. It is also what makes New Comiskey such a disaster. How many millions have been spent already fixing this joint? It's only 12 years old, and only now are we adding the "personality" the Sox were too cheap, timid, and stupid to plan for back in 1991.

The cheapness has to be shared with the Illinois Sports Facilities Authority which had control of the budget.

anewman35
10-18-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I believe Bess's point was to make the ballpark "fit" the neighborhood and the dimensions of the site. That is how all of the old ballparks were designed, including the Polo Grounds, Fenway Park, Tiger Stadium, and yes, even Old Comiskey Park, too. It is also how all the new "retro" ballparks were designed like Camden Yards and Jacobs Field.

Yes, but all those old ballparks were designed a century ago, and none of the new ones have dimensions anywhere near as extreme as the ones proposed here. Unless the walls were about 40 feet high, 280 lines would make the game a joke

If New Comiskey had been built with the same considerations to the existing street grid, Shields Avenue would still exist west of the ballpark, and left field in the Cell would be far shorter than it is today. This obvious difference is what puts Bess's design in step with both the best old ballparks and the best new ones, too. It is also what makes New Comiskey such a disaster. How many millions have been spent already fixing this joint? It's only 12 years old, and only now are we adding the "personality" the Sox were too cheap, timid, and stupid to plan for back in 1991.

Call the Sox cheap, fine. But remember, it was taxpayer money they were using - they didn't really have the means to go on spend $300 million on a stadium, and even if they could have, I'm not sure it would have been smart. I know this is where somebody's going to call JR cheap for not spending his own money, but I can't blame him for that, very few owners do.

doogiec
10-18-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Actually he designed centerfield as 400' and the foulines are 280' according to the sketches. That's not quite as bad as I originally thought (although he has 422' to the power alleys). I still don't like the design. It's looks like he's trying to fit a baseball field into a college football stadium. It looks like Ryan Field...even the campus-style housing and buildings around the park.

Major league baseball has to approve dimensions, and would not approve foul lines under 300 feet in a new stadium under any circumstance.

The fact that the designer did not even consider the legality of the dimensions pretty much proves that this design was not serious in the first place.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
Major league baseball has to approve dimensions, and would not approve foul lines under 300 feet in a new stadium under any circumstance.

The fact that the designer did not even consider the legality of the dimensions pretty much proves that this design was not serious in the first place.

You're right. It was a design excercise. Read the WSI interview and you can learn more about it. Final details of the ballpark's design were never worked out. In fact it was only brought forward as a serious alternative design when the politicians began to center their new ballpark funding legislation on the 35th and Shields site, sometime in late-1987/early-1988.

Knocking out this design simply because of the outfield dimensions is pretty lame. If there was anything "illegal" about the design, it could have easily been modified before final funding approval by the state, MLB, and the Sox. None of them wanted any serious public discussion on the subject. Those are your tax dollars at work...

anewman35
10-18-2003, 12:37 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Knocking out this design simply because of the outfield dimensions is pretty lame. If there was anything "illegal" about the design, it could have easily been modified before final funding approval by the state, MLB, and the Sox. None of them wanted any serious public discussion on the subject. Those are your tax dollars at work...

Above, you say how one of the good things about this park is that the dimensions would have been made to fit the site. If MLB had forced the designers to push the lines back, say, 50 feet, wouldn't that make the stadium no longer fit the site?

KingXerxes
10-18-2003, 12:46 PM
This park was the first example of Illinois's "put the thing up before anybody tries to stop us" stadium construction history. Example #2 looms just off of Lake Shore Drive as one of the ungliest ad hoc pieces of construction ever put on this earth.

ewokpelts
10-18-2003, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
I honestly think that if the Cell looks like this when it's finished, it'll be a huge success.

where did you get those pics?
Gene

SouthSideHitman
10-18-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Call the Sox cheap, fine. But remember, it was taxpayer money they were using - they didn't really have the means to go on spend $300 million on a stadium, and even if they could have, I'm not sure it would have been smart. I know this is where somebody's going to call JR cheap for not spending his own money, but I can't blame him for that, very few owners do.

Yeah, I agree that should JR have spent his own dough or got private investors (like the Giants did to build PacBell) to put out some money which could have been combined with city money to give the orginal park better aesthetics while helping everyone. You have to remember that while Comiskey II was built with public funds, it returned something like $10 million dollars withing four years, plus however much after that, so it was really more of a gracious investment by taxpayers that an outright gift.

voodoochile
10-18-2003, 01:46 PM
Originally posted by SouthSideHitman
Yeah, I agree that should JR have spent his own dough or got private investors (like the Giants did to build PacBell) to put out some money which could have been combined with city money to give the orginal park better aesthetics while helping everyone. You have to remember that while Comiskey II was built with public funds, it returned something like $10 million dollars withing four years, plus however much after that, so it was really more of a gracious investment by taxpayers that an outright gift.

What is going to be the final investment in the place when all is said and done?

They are putting in $60M+ this time around including the stuff already done, as I understand it. That will put the total around $230M when all is said and done. Less in 1990 dollars, more in current money, but still, not a bad total if they actually do everything they are talking about. Heck, we even get trees supposedly, right? :D:

Daley will give them even more money if they create a little green space...

doogiec
10-18-2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
You're right. It was a design excercise. Read the WSI interview and you can learn more about it. Final details of the ballpark's design were never worked out. In fact it was only brought forward as a serious alternative design when the politicians began to center their new ballpark funding legislation on the 35th and Shields site, sometime in late-1987/early-1988.

Knocking out this design simply because of the outfield dimensions is pretty lame. If there was anything "illegal" about the design, it could have easily been modified before final funding approval by the state, MLB, and the Sox. None of them wanted any serious public discussion on the subject. Those are your tax dollars at work...

I absolulely agree the the White Sox and ISFA failed miserably in terms of getting public input for their plans. As a taxpayer who helped pay for the park and as a Sox fan who continues to help pay for the park, it is offensive that apparently most of the decisions were made by a few people behind closed doors. And had the White Sox actually requested suggestions from their fans and implemented the reasonable ones, fans would have viewed the park as their park, rather than one forced on them.

However, I still stand by my argument that the fact that the architect planned such ridiculous dimensions, even in a design exercise, showed a remarkable lack of respect for the integrity of the game that would have been played there. I really believe that a legitimate sized playing field should be the first step in planning a ball park, not something that is forced in after the fact. If, when considering alternatives for the new Soldier Field someone had submitted plans that called for a 100 yard long field, and then suggested that he would find a way to squeeze in the end zones later, he would have been laughed out of the room. Likewise I think the playing field should be the first consideration, not the last one. While there are some aspects of Armour Field that should have been considered, the overall plan probably would be mocked more than the current facility, IMO.

TornLabrum
10-18-2003, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
As a taxpayer who helped pay for the park and as a Sox fan who continues to help pay for the park, it is offensive that apparently most of the decisions were made by a few people behind closed doors.

I take it this means you've stayed in hotels or motels in Chicago over the past decade or so.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Above, you say how one of the good things about this park is that the dimensions would have been made to fit the site. If MLB had forced the designers to push the lines back, say, 50 feet, wouldn't that make the stadium no longer fit the site?

Now this is *really* getting absurd. If the current foul line dimensions are 280 feet, and MLB requires 300 feet, that's a 20 foot difference. Where on earth did you come up with 50?

20 feet is roughly 7 rows of seats. You think this design can't be modified to remove 7 rows of seats in two measly corners? The White Sox are chopping off more than that across the entire first and third base lines, and those rows are over 100 feet in the air on an existing baseball stadium.

Sheesh...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I take it this means you've stayed in hotels or motels in Chicago over the past decade or so.

It's taxpayer's money any way you split it. Chicago continues to lose more and more conventions specifically because of the costs of accommodations. If the hotels aren't generating as much tax revenue as they otherwise would, guess who ends up making up the difference?

The politicians created this charade because they figure taxpayers are stupid. It's like creating a lottery to fund the schools. That sure worked great!

doogiec
10-18-2003, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I take it this means you've stayed in hotels or motels in Chicago over the past decade or so.

Even though I live in the area, yes I have stayed overnight in hotels in downtown quite a few times, mostly for short weekend type things (DUI avoidance, nights out with wife, etc). And obviously your point is that it is not the state income tax, regular sales tax or our property taxes that paid for this. But when you make the cost of staying downtown more expensive, there is a economic effect that causes the state government to collect less sales tax, and therefore can cause other taxes to increase. While the government likes to put things in seperate buckets to make things more palatable to the taxpayers, it really is one big chunk of money in the end.

1951Campbell
10-18-2003, 02:20 PM
I love that park, I love those dimensions, I love how the neighborhood would have looked.

And, specifically about the dimensions, you could add 20' down the lines easily. Also, yes, it is shaped like the Polo Grounds--so what? Will any poster here say that every game ever played at the Polo Grounds is illegitimate/a joke? I doubt it. I'd kill for that park.

doogiec
10-18-2003, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Now this is *really* getting absurd. If the current foul line dimensions are 280 feet, and MLB requires 300 feet, that's a 20 foot difference. Where on earth did you come up with 50?

20 feet is roughly 7 rows of seats. You think this design can't be modified to remove 7 rows of seats in two measly corners? The White Sox are chopping off more than that across the entire first and third base lines, and those rows are over 100 feet in the air on an existing baseball stadium.

Sheesh...

I don't think that the foul lines are the only issue in the dimensions. The power alleys are insanely long. No legitimate power hitter would want to play here and be automatically eliminated from MVP or Hall of Fame consideration because 30 hr's would be a miracle with 81 games here. I'll bet Thomas would have lost 10 hr's per season here. And the view from the outfield seats would be terrible.

While I understand that old ballparks were laid out to fit their surroundings, I have to assume that some parks were never built in certain locations because there was no reasonable way to do so. This looks like such a site. It would have been a beautiiful ballpark that fit into the neighborhood perfectly, but the game itself would have really suffered as a result.

voodoochile
10-18-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
I don't think that the foul lines are the only issue in the dimensions. The power alleys are insanely long. No legitimate power hitter would want to play here and be automatically eliminated from MVP or Hall of Fame consideration because 30 hr's would be a miracle with 81 games here. I'll bet Thomas would have lost 10 hr's per season here. And the view from the outfield seats would be terrible.

While I understand that old ballparks were laid out to fit their surroundings, I have to assume that some parks were never built in certain locations because there was no reasonable way to do so. This looks like such a site. It would have been a beautiiful ballpark that fit into the neighborhood perfectly, but the game itself would have really suffered as a result.

I thought Comiskey rated out as hitter friendly. Not like Coors, but still...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
I don't think that the foul lines are the only issue in the dimensions. The power alleys are insanely long. No legitimate power hitter would want to play here and be automatically eliminated from MVP or Hall of Fame consideration because 30 hr's would be a miracle with 81 games here. I'll bet Thomas would have lost 10 hr's per season here. And the view from the outfield seats would be terrible.

While I understand that old ballparks were laid out to fit their surroundings, I have to assume that some parks were never built in certain locations because there was no reasonable way to do so. This looks like such a site. It would have been a beautiiful ballpark that fit into the neighborhood perfectly, but the game itself would have really suffered as a result.

Are you aware that for over 50 years the most famous of all ballparks -- Yankee Stadium -- had a left field power alley as much as 500 feet deep? There were monuments to all the great Yankees in the field of play, too. Meanwhile the right field home run porch was less than 300 feet from homeplate. It seems some people here have a hard time dealing with baseball history they "like" vs. the baseball history they don't like.

If you don't like the dimensions or Armour Field, fine. Lots of people don't like "unfair" dimensions, and one of them is Jerry Reinsdorf the old Brooklyn Dodgers fan. He never liked Yankee Stadium either, citing it as why New Comiskey has smooth symmetrical dimensions. Unfortunately I've read too many posts around here from Sox Fans pissing and moaning about how vanilla New Comiskey is. So now we have others pissing and moaning about a ballpark (that wasn't even built) because it IS NOT vanilla.

Boy... Sox Fans... go figure...

doogiec
10-18-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I thought Comiskey rated out as hitter friendly. Not like Coors, but still...

I was referring to the dimensions at the proposed Armour Field, not new or old Comiskey Park.

I believe the current dimensions at US Cell are fair, if not a little too hitter friendly.

doogiec
10-18-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Are you aware that for over 50 years the most famous of all ballparks -- Yankee Stadium -- had a left field power alley as much as 500 feet deep? There were monuments to all the great Yankees in the field of play, too. Meanwhile the right field home run porch was less than 300 feet from homeplate. It seems some people here have a hard time dealing with baseball history they "like" vs. the baseball history they don't like.

If you don't like the dimensions or Armour Field, fine. Lots of people don't like "unfair" dimensions, and one of them is Jerry Reinsdorf the old Brooklyn Dodgers fan. He never liked Yankee Stadium either, citing it as why New Comiskey has smooth symmetrical dimensions. Unfortunately I've read too many posts around here from Sox Fans pissing and moaning about how vanilla New Comiskey is. So now we have others pissing and moaning about a ballpark (that wasn't even built) because it IS NOT vanilla.

Boy... Sox Fans... go figure...

I am aware of the old dimensions of Yankee Stadium. And I am aware that they, for some reason, opted to make the left center alley more reasonable and remove the monuments from being in play when the Stadium was rebuilt in the mid 70's. And I have never heard a Yankee fan or player complain about that decision, nor is there any discussion about moving them back. And through all the new ballparks that have been built since 1963, none attempts to copy or really borrow anything from the Polo Grounds. I never saw a game there, so I can't say anything for sure, but it sure looks like a crappy place to watch baseball.

I also have to agree that I don't like perfectly symmetrical cookie cutter stadiums. New Comiskey went to one extreme. Armour Field is at the other.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by doogiec
I am aware of the old dimensions of Yankee Stadium. And I am aware that they, for some reason, opted to make the left center alley more reasonable and remove the monuments from being in play when the Stadium was rebuilt in the mid 70's. And I have never heard a Yankee fan or player complain about that decision, nor is there any discussion about moving them back. And through all the new ballparks that have been built since 1963, none attempts to copy or really borrow anything from the Polo Grounds. I never saw a game there, so I can't say anything for sure, but it sure looks like a crappy place to watch baseball.

I also have to agree that I don't like perfectly symmetrical cookie cutter stadiums. New Comiskey went to one extreme. Armour Field is at the other.

Yes, I agree we all have our personal preferences, especially when it comes to outfield dimensions for a ballpark. Reasonable people can reach different conclusions. :smile:

I remember the furor over what the White Sox and the State of Illinois were proposing for 35th & Shields back in 1987-88. Lots of people besides myself were very uncomfortable with how the final decisions were made. I remember one group of fans (who I vehemently disagreed with) that insisted the Sox should be allowed to leave for St. Pete because they wanted to pursue bringing another team to Chicago to play in a newly-renovated Old Comiskey Park.

With 20/20 hindsight, I'm sure most of us agree those fans were smoking dope. "Save our Sox" became the general rallying cry for most reasonable observers. Old Comiskey was thus sacrificed inorder to keep the White Sox franchise for Chicago.

Our differences are small. Compare them to the real-world situation of 1987-88. The huge differences of opinion combined with the real threat that the Sox were leaving resulted in the New Comiskey Park we got. It's a disaster, and it has cost several million dollars in renovations to fix. Armour Field might not have been the ideal solution, but clearly what we actually got with New Comiskey was far short of a success.

:reinsy
"Pfft... I got my 100 Diamond Suites and a sweetheart lease. If that's not success, I don't know what is."

:ohno
"Everything else is strictly the fans fault..."

Hangar18
10-18-2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
This park was the first example of Illinois's "put the thing up before anybody tries to stop us" stadium construction history. Example #2 looms just off of Lake Shore Drive as one of the ungliest ad hoc pieces of construction ever put on this earth.

heh heh. Yes It Was. Yes It was. I cringe every time I drive
past Soldier Field. Do you realize that People in the upper deck
at SpaceShip Field have to walk even HIGHER to their seats in the uppermost reaches, while the Exits are at the Bottom of the deck than they do at The Cell ??

Ridiculous. Didnt We Learn Anything from REINSDORFS FOLLY?
Sure, theyre shearing off 10 rows of seats in the upperdeck.
BIG DEAL. That still DOESNT solve the problem of the PITCH of the UpperDeck, NOR does it solve the problem in HOW FAR BACK, and HOW FAR AWAY you are from the Action on the Field. This is a Football Stadium, Being Modified to look like a ballpark.
Reinsdorf and Illinois Sports Facilities FAILED with the design.
Just another in a long long list of FAILURES that allowed the Medias Assault of Cubpoganda to trudge on Unchecked

TornLabrum
10-18-2003, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It's taxpayer's money any way you split it. Chicago continues to lose more and more conventions specifically because of the costs of accommodations. If the hotels aren't generating as much tax revenue as they otherwise would, guess who ends up making up the difference?

The politicians created this charade because they figure taxpayers are stupid. It's like creating a lottery to fund the schools. That sure worked great!

So a couple of bucks tax a night is driving more conventioneers away than the recent bad economy? Interesting....

PaleHoseGeorge
10-18-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
So a couple of bucks tax a night is driving more conventioneers away than the recent bad economy? Interesting....

Nope. A couple million dollars in added hotel costs for every night in every room within the Largest Hotel Market in the Midwest is what drives more conventioneers elsewhere. The people who manage these conventions (and decide where to hold them) do look at these things you know.

It's not like the good ol' days when all the railroad lines started and ended in Chicago. Plenty of competitors to Chicago's convention trade now exist, and they don't even need to be located in the geographic center of the nation anymore, thanks to the screwball fare system of our nation's airlines.

Nobody pays taxes but taxpayers. They're in your pocket for the full load whether you know it or not.

batmanZoSo
10-18-2003, 06:27 PM
It would be so unbelievably stupid to put that "thing" in right field. It is an EXACT copy of Texas, which itself copies Tiger stadium.

Second, we have no left handed home run hitters and haven't for years. Umm, stupids, how about a left field deck? That home run "porch" will be for Eric Chavez. None of our guys will ever hit one up there.

And are the Sox so hell bent on advertising that they would retain those goofy ### billboards despite the huge upper deck being put in? I doubt even the Sox would go so far as to put them on top of the freakin home run porch.

These renderings have to be taken lightly because there are many errant details. One of which was already mentioned, the UD canope is just floating and reminds us of the old one. The new one will be flat bottomed with a triangle roof and with arches in the back. Also, the batters eye in the rendering is totally different. Just proof that this is not the official rendering. They will come out in November and be computer designed like the ones in previous years.

What they should do is put a second level in left field for Frank and company and with the same canope as the rest of the park. And no poles. Who wants that anyway? Who wants their view of the batter be blocked by a pole? You know, that's why they tear old stadiums down.

TornLabrum
10-18-2003, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
It would be so unbelievably stupid to put that "thing" in right field. It is an EXACT copy of Texas, which itself copies Tiger stadium.

Second, we have no left handed home run hitters and haven't for years. Umm, stupids, how about a left field deck? That home run "porch" will be for Eric Chavez. None of our guys will ever hit one up there.

And are the Sox so hell bent on advertising that they would retain those goofy ### billboards despite the huge upper deck being put in? I doubt even the Sox would go so far as to put them on top of the freakin home run porch.

These renderings have to be taken lightly because there are many errant details. One of which was already mentioned, the UD canope is just floating and reminds us of the old one. The new one will be flat bottomed with a triangle roof and with arches in the back. Also, the batters eye in the rendering is totally different. Just proof that this is not the official rendering. They will come out in November and be computer designed like the ones in previous years.

What they should do is put a second level in left field for Frank and company and with the same canope as the rest of the park. And no poles. Who wants that anyway? Who wants their view of the batter be blocked by a pole? You know, that's why they tear old stadiums down.

How about upper decks on both sides, similar to the old ball park?

Jerry_Manuel
10-18-2003, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Just proof that this is not the official rendering. They will come out in November and be computer designed like the ones in previous years.

Those drawings of which you speak are from 2001. Before the 2003 season began, 4 computer designs we're published by hksinc.com, they lasted if I recall less than a week, and we're pulled down.

Needless to say nobody except the Sox knows what the park will look like heading into the 2004 season.

batmanZoSo
10-18-2003, 10:43 PM
Torn Labrum,

I'm for the idea of upper decks on both sides, but again it can't be symmetrical.

Two things they should do:

Go with the RF home run porch, without poles. Let it be a separate seating area like the one in Texas, but also let it be somewhat original. This will take away those horrible billboards on the right side.

In left field, just extend the existing upper deck three sections over the Sox bullpen. Again we're replacing the 25 and up nosebleed seats and replacing them with great seats where you can catch a home run ball. And this would take away the LF billboards. But there would still be room for out-of-town and lineup/message boards on either side of the main scoreboard.


Ps.....am I the only one who thinks these boards are needlessly complicated? I'm a whitesox.com regular, been for a few years, but lately I can't log in there for some reason. I like this site, it seems to have good people, no cub trolls and always good articles on the home page. But I'm just lost navigating these boards....

batmanZoSo
10-18-2003, 10:46 PM
Jerry Manuel,

You mean the drawings posted in this thread?

I'm just saying not to use those as any kind of indicator of what the park will look like in April for anyone who might have any doubts. Your statements only prove my point that they're not accurate. Of course, I never saw them before and didn't have the knowledge you had about them.

doublem23
10-18-2003, 11:23 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
IIRC there is an MLB rule that 300' is the minimum foul line distance for any new ball park.

What's the line down at the Juicebox?

Mammoo
10-18-2003, 11:56 PM
Comiskey Cell will look much better once they start playing post season baseball in it! :smile:

TornLabrum
10-19-2003, 12:07 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Torn Labrum,

I'm for the idea of upper decks on both sides, but again it can't be symmetrical.

Two things they should do:

Go with the RF home run porch, without poles. Let it be a separate seating area like the one in Texas, but also let it be somewhat original. This will take away those horrible billboards on the right side.

In left field, just extend the existing upper deck three sections over the Sox bullpen. Again we're replacing the 25 and up nosebleed seats and replacing them with great seats where you can catch a home run ball. And this would take away the LF billboards. But there would still be room for out-of-town and lineup/message boards on either side of the main scoreboard.


Ps.....am I the only one who thinks these boards are needlessly complicated? I'm a whitesox.com regular, been for a few years, but lately I can't log in there for some reason. I like this site, it seems to have good people, no cub trolls and always good articles on the home page. But I'm just lost navigating these boards....

What's wrong with symmetrical. Comiskey Park was symmetrical and fans didn't gripe about it from 1927-1990 as far as I know.

What's your problem navigating the boards? I have no problems at all. Of course I don't use any of the other boards here, so maybe that's why. I'm sure if you'd explain the problem, somebody here could help you.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 01:13 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
In left field, just extend the existing upper deck three sections over the Sox bullpen. Again we're replacing the 25 and up nosebleed seats and replacing them with great seats where you can catch a home run ball. And this would take away the LF billboards.

Pass the crack pipe over here.

No player in the history of Comiskey/Cell has ever hit a ball high or long enough to reach an extended upper deck in leftfield. Nobody has ever even hit a ball into the far leftfield corner upper deck. Do you have any idea how long of a homer that would be? I can remember going to a game in 2000 when A-Rod hit a ball onto the concourse about 20-ft to the right of the New Era Cap Corner. It sailed over my head and bounced off the back wall and several people went after it. That shot was a mammoth blast, close to 440-ft. Now imagine the upperdeck extended from the leftfield corner (where it presently is), towards the leftcenterfield area. The ball would still have to travel over 400-ft in length to just get to the front of the upperdeck's first row (which would be about the front of the concourse), but then it would have to be 60-ft higher at that point too. We're talking a gargantuan homerun to be that high at that length from home plate. That would easily have to be a 550-ft homer, if not closer to 600-ft.


Ps.....am I the only one who thinks these boards are needlessly complicated? I'm a whitesox.com regular, been for a few years, but lately I can't log in there for some reason. I like this site, it seems to have good people, no cub trolls and always good articles on the home page. But I'm just lost navigating these boards....

I have frequented many message boards over the years. The WSI format right now is BY FAR the BEST message board I have ever used. It's awesome. Don't ever change it.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If you don't like the dimensions or Armour Field, fine. Lots of people don't like "unfair" dimensions, and one of them is Jerry Reinsdorf the old Brooklyn Dodgers fan. He never liked Yankee Stadium either, citing it as why New Comiskey has smooth symmetrical dimensions.

That's odd if that's true. Would he consider Ebbets Field's dimensions as being fair? I don't have any of my ballpark books in front of me, but I recall Ebbets having some really strange dimensions in the opposite direction when compared to Yankee Stadium. I think centerfield in Ebbets was only 393', rightcenter was like 350', and the rightfield line was '287. What's odd was that the leftfield line was really deep (like 380'). I'm going by memory here...I'll try to look it up and post a reply.

Another odd stadium from that era was Griffith Stadium in Washington (I think). Old pictures show that the park was basically buit on a city block, taking up the entire block except for a small lot with a house in centerfield. I don't know the history of the park, but it almost seems like they tried to buy everyone up before the built it, and one residence held out. So, the centerfield wall was a corner that jetted into the playing field. I'll try to find a picture to include in this thread. That was another quirky park with a 400' leftfield line, too.

batmanZoSo
10-19-2003, 01:44 AM
Brian26,

The second tier hangs over 5 or 6 rows. There have been balls hit there that would've landed up there. 550-600? I'm not talking about a roof shot here. Nobody in Yankee stadiums 40th row will ever get a home run ball up there, but it's still a home run porch. They would be great seats compared to anything 25 rows and up or anything down the line facing center field. That's the point. The one you missed.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 01:47 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Brian26,

The second tier hangs over 5 or 6 rows. There have been balls hit there that would've landed up there. 550-600? I'm not talking about a roof shot here. Nobody in Yankee stadiums 40th row will ever get a home run ball up there, but it's still a home run porch. They would be great seats compared to anything 25 rows and up or anything down the line facing center field. That's the point. The one you missed.

The point you're missing is that you're calling it a "home run porch" when no homers are going to make it up there. Not even to the first row. Have you ever been to the Cell? Imagine yourself standing at the front of the concourse. Now imagine a ball having to land 50 feet above your head to make it into the first row of this new extended upper deck. It's not going to happen. It's too far removed from the left field wall.

batmanZoSo
10-19-2003, 02:03 AM
I just hate the way these boards are set up. Right now, I realized I gotta scroll down and find your name to direct this post to you. There....Torn Labrum:

All this software cares about are smiley faces. I have no idea how to post pictures with all those buttons up there. It's too cluttered and just weird here. It seems like it randomly chooses which posts it wants to show the text for and you gotta click on links to read the others. Every post in a thread should be there in full view and instead of making those huge quotes every time, there should be a "reply" link within each post. I think it's kind of weird how everybody quotes the entire text of the message they're replying to...it's like you're mocking someone. That's just unconventional...it takes up a lot of space. I don't get it.

This is the worst, most complicated message board ever, I think. And remember I'm just talking about the mechanics of it. I'm not insulting anyone here.....

And the italics I just did are set off by brackets and don't appear to me in italic format. That's another little quirk that's annoying.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 03:13 AM
Ebbets Field dimensions towards the end of its tenure:http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?s=&postid=260729

Unregistered
10-19-2003, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
This is the worst, most complicated message board ever, I think. And remember I'm just talking about the mechanics of it. I'm not insulting anyone here..... That being said, feel free to stop visiting this site whenever you want. :cool:

FarWestChicago
10-19-2003, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
This is the worst, most complicated message board ever, I think. And remember I'm just talking about the mechanics of it. I'm not insulting anyone here.....There is a learning curve involved with any software the first time you use it. If you feel it's too steep, please feel free to not post here.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 03:39 AM
Griffith Stadium. Check out the corner in centerfield...a house sat there.

WhiteSox = Life
10-19-2003, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Griffith Stadium. Check out the corner in centerfield...a house sat there.

Although I would be astonished to find out it was true, whoever lived there must've had a great view of every ball game, huh?

:smile:

Brian26
10-19-2003, 03:58 AM
The Polo Grounds (aka Armour Park East)

Brian26
10-19-2003, 04:02 AM
One more before bed. One of my favorites, Forbes Field:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-19-2003, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
That's odd if that's true. Would he consider Ebbets Field's dimensions as being fair? I don't have any of my ballpark books in front of me, but I recall Ebbets having some really strange dimensions in the opposite direction when compared to Yankee Stadium. I think centerfield in Ebbets was only 393', rightcenter was like 350', and the rightfield line was '287. What's odd was that the leftfield line was really deep (like 380'). I'm going by memory here...I'll try to look it up and post a reply.

Reinsdorf was pissing about "unfair" ballparks in general, though in context be probably meant Yankee Stadium. This was years ago right after the final design for New Comiskey was unveiled. He said something to the effect that he always felt it was unfair that in some ballparks a left-handed batter could hit a long popup for a home run but a righty who drilled it was nothing but an out. He didn't actually single-out any ballpark, but as you note the charge applied to Ebbetts Field as well as Yankee Stadium. In light of these facts, why anybody today would claim the Polo Grounds was a "terrible" place to watch baseball is beyond me.

I still don't understand all the pissing and moaning about short foul lines and deep power alleys at Armour Field. At least those dimensions are based within *real* design considerations, not like the nonsense that they've done in places like SF, Milwaukee, and Baltimore. Those quirky designs are strictly make-believe, and still the fans love it. Go figure...

TornLabrum
10-19-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
All this software cares about are smiley faces. I have no idea how to post pictures with all those buttons up there.

I don't think I've ever posted a picture, but those are called images, and the "button" to click for that says "IMG"

It seems like it randomly chooses which posts it wants to show the text for and you gotta click on links to read the others.

If you want to see all the text of every post, click "Expand All." at the top or bottom of the page. I much prefer clicking the icon for the first unread message rather than going through every message I've already read on the page.

Every post in a thread should be there in full view and instead of making those huge quotes every time, there should be a "reply" link within each post.

I prefer to be able to quote just sections by highlighting and using the "Quote" "button" on each post that I want to quote from. I can then respond to individual points rather than the entire message at once.

I think it's kind of weird how everybody quotes the entire text of the message they're replying to...it's like you're mocking someone. That's just unconventional...it takes up a lot of space. I don't get it.

I'd say that's a matter of personal preference. We've been getting by with this feature for several years now, and we're used to it.

This is the worst, most complicated message board ever, I think. And remember I'm just talking about the mechanics of it. I'm not insulting anyone here.....

Unlike some of the other replies here, I understand. It took me several posts to figure out what I was doing, but now it's no big deal.

And the italics I just did are set off by brackets and don't appear to me in italic format. That's another little quirk that's annoying.

Click on the button that says "I" and type your italicized part in the window that comes up. Then click "Okay." Use "B" for boldface and "U" to underline. Be aware that when you do so, it automatically spaces between words for you.

anewman35
10-19-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Now this is *really* getting absurd. If the current foul line dimensions are 280 feet, and MLB requires 300 feet, that's a 20 foot difference. Where on earth did you come up with 50?



If I'm reading other people correctly on this, the absolute mininum is 300 feet, but MLB still has to approve all dimensions. I can hardly see them approving 300 feet down one line without a really good reason, and down both lines is just crazy. I fully realize other parks in the past (ie, the polo grounds) were like this, but that was a long time ago. It's like saying we should go back to having no batting helmets or not using gloves, because people used to do that. Personally, I'd hate to have a park with these dimensions, and am glad we don't.

anewman35
10-19-2003, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

I still don't understand all the pissing and moaning about short foul lines and deep power alleys at Armour Field. At least those dimensions are based within *real* design considerations, not like the nonsense that they've done in places like SF, Milwaukee, and Baltimore. Those quirky designs are strictly make-believe, and still the fans love it. Go figure...

None of those ballparks are near as "quirky" as you'd want this one to be, though.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-19-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
None of those ballparks are near as "quirky" as you'd want this one to be, though.

Actually, I neve said I wanted this much "quirky." Armour Field as proposed would be more than enough "quirky" for my tastes. Furthermore it could easily accommodate whatever modifications would better suit your taste. It faces the skyline, too, something the Cell never will.

Can't we at least agree that Armour Field was a better ballpark for Chicago's South Side than the one we got with New Comiskey back in 1991? There are $50 million+ worth of renovations to the Cell that would seem to indicate so.

anewman35
10-19-2003, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Can't we at least agree that Armour Field was a better ballpark for Chicago's South Side than the one we got with New Comiskey back in 1991? There are $50 million+ worth of renovations to the Cell that would seem to indicate so.

We can agree that neither ballpark is perfect. I think something between the two would have been best, which we're heading towards now. I just can't imagine that, this being Chicago and this being the White Sox, the park wouldn't have gotten critizied no matter what it was like.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-19-2003, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
We can agree that neither ballpark is perfect. I think something between the two would have been best, which we're heading towards now. I just can't imagine that, this being Chicago and this being the White Sox, the park wouldn't have gotten critizied no matter what it was like.

The reason we didn't get something in between was the obstinance of the Chicago White Sox. They wanted their ballpark ready for opening day, 1991, and all modifications we might have gotten were scuttled so they could collect their windfall ASAP. Even a simple suggestion to rebuild McCuddy's on the North side of 35th Street was not permitted.

I wouldn't care, except the Sox weren't paying a single dime towards the construction of that ballpark. As somebody else noted, the underhanded manner in which the design and funding were approved became the precedent for the ugly monstrosity that now smears Chicago's lakefront where the Bears play, too.

This is no way to run a railroad.

MRKARNO
10-19-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
. I can hardly see them approving 300 feet down one line without a really good reason, and down both lines is just crazy.

well Pesky's pole at Fenway down the right field line is probably the shortest distance to hit a homer at 303 feet and the Green Monster is only about 310 feet on the left field line. The left field line at Minute Maid Park in houston is only 314 and Yankee stadium has left and right field lines at 318 and 314 feet.

TornLabrum
10-19-2003, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by MRKARNO
well Pesky's pole at Fenway down the right field line is probably the shortest distance to hit a homer at 303 feet and the Green Monster is only about 310 feet on the left field line. The left field line at Minute Maid Park in houston is only 314 and Yankee stadium has left and right field lines at 318 and 314 feet.

Lou Boudreau swore to his dying day that when he managed the Indians and they paced it off, the distance down the line to the Green Monster was well under 300 feet.

jortafan
10-19-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSox = Life
Although I would be astonished to find out it was true, whoever lived there must've had a great view of every ball game, huh?


The outfield wall at Griffith Stadium was something like 35 feet high. It wasn't something that the homeowner could see over, even from their rooftop.

A.T. Money
10-19-2003, 01:35 PM
The outfield dimensions can be adjusted at Armour, but you'd end up with outfield seats similar to Wrigley. You'd only have a couple rows. I think the big problem in this design would have to be the sightlines. If you look at the different sections, a lot of them face the outfield.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Lou Boudreau swore to his dying day that when he managed the Indians and they paced it off, the distance down the line to the Green Monster was well under 300 feet.

Hawk talks about this all the time, too. He mentions this a few times a year on broadcasts, how Yaz and he went out there one night at midnight and measured it.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I still don't understand all the pissing and moaning about short foul lines and deep power alleys at Armour Field. At least those dimensions are based within *real* design considerations, not like the nonsense that they've done in places like SF, Milwaukee, and Baltimore. Those quirky designs are strictly make-believe, and still the fans love it. Go figure...

I don't get this comment at all, George. How can Pac Bell (soon to be called SBC Park, I think) be make believe while Armour Park is the read deal? Pac Bell exists as an actual structure, while Armour Park exists on paper.

I'm stepping back and reading into your post a little more now. What you're saying is the real design consideration for Armour Field was trying to get the park to fit inside the city block without eliminating Shields Ave. The other parks and their non-symmetrical outfield designs are just made for the sake of being cool, but not because of any existing urban constraints. Miller Park is surrounded by 20 acres of parking lots, so why do they need quirky outfield walls? I agree with you on that. Pac Bell and Camden are slightly different. Pac Bell's rightfield wall is up against the Bay, although I'm sure they may have been able to pull the entire park back if they wanted. Camden is built around the warehouse, but I don't think the outfield there is that quirky anyway.

Brian26
10-19-2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by A.T. Money
The outfield dimensions can be adjusted at Armour, but you'd end up with outfield seats similar to Wrigley. You'd only have a couple rows. I think the big problem in this design would have to be the sightlines. If you look at the different sections, a lot of them face the outfield.

Exactly. Look at the diagram of the Polo Grounds I posted. The outfield site lines would be great if they plan on playing Fire games or Friday night Simeon football games there. Otherwise, you'd have a neckache after trying to watch a baseball game there.

SouthSideHitman
10-19-2003, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I still don't understand all the pissing and moaning about short foul lines and deep power alleys at Armour Field. At least those dimensions are based within *real* design considerations, not like the nonsense that they've done in places like SF, Milwaukee, and Baltimore. Those quirky designs are strictly make-believe, and still the fans love it. Go figure...

I don't know what you're talking about with Milwaukee and SF. Milwaukee isn't really quirky except for a little cutout in center and Pac Bell was actually shaped by the area. The Giants had to get a dispensation to have a 309 ft. right field pole because of McCovey Cove. The park then follows the water until center field at which point it just cuts straight across center and the left. The only quirks in the park were caused by nature.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-19-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
....I'm stepping back and reading into your post a little more now. What you're saying is the real design consideration for Armour Field was trying to get the park to fit inside the city block without eliminating Shields Ave. The other parks and their non-symmetrical outfield designs are just made for the sake of being cool, but not because of any existing urban constraints....

Yes, this is what I meant. Sorry if I led anybody to believe anything to the contrary. Bess was trying to fit a ballpark between Shields and Wallace Avenues while facing the ballpark north and pay homage to the original site of Old Comiskey, too.

Originally posted by Brian26
....Pac Bell and Camden are slightly different. Pac Bell's rightfield wall is up against the Bay, although I'm sure they may have been able to pull the entire park back if they wanted. Camden is built around the warehouse, but I don't think the outfield there is that quirky anyway.

As I understand it, the quirkiness of Camden Yards is strictly the invention of the architect. They deliberately placed homeplate close to the train warehouse so it would loom behind a small right field and become a target for home run hitters. That's why I claim it's fake. Similar considerations were done to make home run balls land in McCovey's Cove in SF (talk about fake!) and the Ohio River in Cincinnati. These are bogus design considerations. There was nothing that forced the architect to build the ballpark like this except to be cute.

In contrast to these bogus "quirks" is the left field wall at Jacobs Field (aka Jacobs Ladder). There is a street running directly behind that tall wall and steep set of bleachers. Both were necessitated by fitting the ballpark to the site in Cleveland. That's why they aren't bogus.

I hope this clears up what I meant in my earlier posts.

batmanZoSo
10-19-2003, 10:23 PM
Unregistered and FarWest,

I'm sorry your high reaction pea-brains couldn't comprehend what I was saying. I didn't know you guys invented the concept of the message board and I'm ripping on your life's work.

If this problem is likely to continue, feel free to you know...stop replying to me.

Daver
10-19-2003, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Unregistered and FarWest,

I'm sorry your high reaction pea-brains couldn't comprehend what I was saying. I didn't know you guys invented the concept of the message board and I'm ripping on your life's work.

If this problem is likely to continue, feel free to you know...stop replying to me.

Calling anyone a peabrain is bad form,calling the man that created this board a pea brain has other implications.Consider this your only warning,you won't get another one.

batmanZoSo
10-19-2003, 10:28 PM
Brian 26,

What else am I supposed to call it? You're going off on a tangent again. I know the difference between a real home run porch like Yankee and Tiger stadium and what could be made at the Cell. It's a little easier to say HR porch than "upper deck that extends into home run territory."

batmanZoSo
10-19-2003, 10:40 PM
I never meant anything in the first place. I was just having a hard time with the mechanics here. I suppose I should've worded it better, but nobody's gonna tell me to go away because of my opinions. What I meant was I s### at using these boards. There are features that I like, such as the fact that it tells you if the poster's online next to his message and that you don't have to login.

I have no idea who's in charge around here, so what am I supposed to do, lay down when people attack me because they just might be the board moderators?

Daver
10-19-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
I never meant anything in the first place. I was just having a hard time with the mechanics here. I suppose I should've worded it better, but nobody's gonna tell me to go away because of my opinions. What I meant was I s### at using these boards. There are features that I like, such as the fact that it tells you if the poster's online next to his message and that you don't have to login.

I have no idea who's in charge around here, so what am I supposed to do, lay down when people attack me because they just might be the board moderators?

Torn Labrum posted in this thread how to use the features here,you must have missed that.

As far as who is in charge here that is easy to find out,it can be found here. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showgroups.php?s=)

There is not a single post in this thread where anyone attacked you,the closest to that would be mine warning you,you are the only one guilty of an attack here,perhaps you failed to read this. (http://www.flyingsock.com/MainPages/ConductCode.htm)

Brian26
10-20-2003, 12:40 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Brian 26,

What else am I supposed to call it? You're going off on a tangent again. I know the difference between a real home run porch like Yankee and Tiger stadium and what could be made at the Cell. It's a little easier to say HR porch than "upper deck that extends into home run territory."

Well, whether or not an upper deck should be called a "home run porch" is an entirely different debate from what you and I were discussing. See PHG's posts from earlier in this thread. An upper deck isn't really a home run porch. Yankee Stadium's short rightfield foul pole and lower deck of seats is an example of the true definition of a home run porch. Charlie Finley created a homer run "pennant porch" at old Municipal Stadium, and a picture of that was provided by PHG in a thread last week.

Beyond that, what I disagreed with you on was the fact that you said people would be able to catch home run balls in an extended upper deck above the leftfield concourse. I pointed out that a ball would never be able to reach a seat that high. A ball has to travel approximately 450' to get to the concourse. For a ball to even reach the first row of an upperdeck extended straight across from the existing upperdeck in leftfield...it would have to be a 550' homer.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2003, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Well, whether or not an upper deck should be called a "home run porch" is an entirely different debate from what you and I were discussing. See PHG's posts from earlier in this thread. An upper deck isn't really a home run porch. Yankee Stadium's short rightfield foul pole and lower deck of seats is an example of the true definition of a home run porch. Charlie Finley created a homer run "pennant porch" at old Municipal Stadium, and a picture of that was provided by PHG in a thread last week.

Beyond that, what I disagreed with you on was the fact that you said people would be able to catch home run balls in an extended upper deck above the leftfield concourse. I pointed out that a ball would never be able to reach a seat that high. A ball has to travel approximately 450' to get to the concourse. For a ball to even reach the first row of an upperdeck extended straight across from the existing upperdeck in leftfield...it would have to be a 550' homer.

I know for fact the architect of the Ballpark at Arlington modeled the Rangers' right field upper deck on Tigers Stadium. He bragged about it. (In fact most everything in TBPA was modeled on somebody else's earlier design. That's what makes it a lousy excuse for postmodernism.) The upper deck at Tigers Stadium stuck out above the playing surface by just a few feet. Perhaps this is where the notion of a "home run porch" came from. You can barely notice it in this picture:

The Fabulous Ruins of Tigers Stadium (http://detroityes.com/tiger/11tiger_bleacherdown.htm)
(Sox Fans, who loves ya, baby)

Anyway, the notion that having an outfield upper deck is now the same as having a home run porch is just plain wrong, yet I've heard it repeated here over and over again. Even the Cell's renovations renderings (that have been posted here by A.T. Money and others) clearly show the new upper deck sitting far back from the edge of the lower deck. As Brian here noted, that would take a hell of a poke to reach by any home run hitter.

batmanZoSo
10-20-2003, 09:07 PM
Daver,

Torn Labrum posted that after I brought up the problems I was having. I didn't miss it, in fact it was pretty helpful.

I don't wanna debate the meaning of the word attack. From my perspective at the time, two people told me to leave for no apparent reason, without me ever dissing them. Is that an attack? It doesn't matter what you call it, it was insulting and I shot back at them. In retrospect, I did insult Far West (unknowingly at that) by criticizing the boards, but I also retracted and said it's my problem and not a downfall with the software here, which is what I meant all along. Though frankly, it would've helped if he told me who he was. But at any rate, I apologize for saying that, because I should've known. But I don't apologize for defending myself from what I saw at the time, justifiably, to be a blatent insult.

I'm used to whitesox.com where you can say anything you want about the boards because god knows who created them. I should've known the guy who made these would be a poster. My bad.....

Daver
10-20-2003, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Daver,

Torn Labrum posted that after I brought up the problems I was having. I didn't miss it, in fact it was pretty helpful.

I don't wanna debate the meaning of the word attack. From my perspective at the time, two people told me to leave for no apparent reason, without me ever dissing them. Is that an attack? It doesn't matter what you call it, it was insulting and I shot back at them. In retrospect, I did insult Far West (unknowingly at that) by criticizing the boards, but I also retracted and said it's my problem and not a downfall with the software here, which is what I meant all along. Though frankly, it would've helped if he told me who he was. But at any rate, I apologize for saying that, because I should've known. But I don't apologize for defending myself from what I saw at the time, justifiably, to be a blatent insult.

I'm used to whitesox.com where you can say anything you want about the boards because god knows who created them. I should've known the guy who made these would be a poster. My bad.....

Peace.

The software for this board is the best that is out there as far as features goes,take some time and learn how to use it,in the end I think you will come to agree with me.We made a forum just for testing out the board features,you can find it here. (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=9)

There has been a lot of time and money spent to build this board,forgive me if I am short with someone that I feel is going out of their way to insult it.

batmanZoSo
10-20-2003, 09:20 PM
Brian,

Dude, I know that not all outfield upper decks are "technically" home run porches. That's not an issue. I only call them that for the sake of simplicity, I never actually debated what we should call them.

And as I said before, a person in the middle tier in left field could get a home run ball. Granted, that would be rare, but it's possible. I don't mean someone in the 18th row of the third deck. My original post about was not about catching home run balls in left anyway and I told you that already, it was just about my ideas for renovating the Cell.

I think the best thing to do after removing the nosebleeds up there is to create outfield upper deck seats on both sides. In left, extend the main upper bowl....and in right, make a separate home run porch TYPE THING, but without those stupid poles. This way we'd be free of billboards which I consider to be the parks worst feature.

xil357
10-20-2003, 10:17 PM
I personally like symmetrical dimensions in an outfield. I was disappointed that the Sox changed up the dimensions when renovating the Cell. Symmetry was one of the bits of "character" in the Cell/Comiskey II. But I'm a contrarian.

Character can't be manufactured. It is earned over a long period of time. And one man's character is another man's Urinal.

I like the Cell. I still will like it after all the renovations are complete, because it is the home of my favorite team. I hope that more folks like the renovations so that more people will go to games and the Sox will be more profitable and will increase payroll.

If Armor Field was the Sox home stadium, I would like it. However, IMHO, a view of the skyline and quirky dimensions would not be worth the obstructed views and seats angled away from home plate. As far as the Cell as it is (or even before the renovations) vs. Armour Field as detailed in the article, give me the Cell.

That being said, an Armour Field with better sight lines, no obstructed views and more "Cell-like" symmetrical dimensions would be a better stadium.

Better yet, my "dream park" would:

1. Resemble the best attributes of the Ballpark in Arlington (concourse at street level, sunken field, red brick and wrought iron, home bullpen out in right-center),

2. Have symmetrical dimensions (340 down the lines, 375 in the alleys and 400 to center),

3. Face the same direction as old Comiskey,

4. Have an office, skybox, restaurant and hotel building in right field, with a Monster exploding scoreboard on top,

5. Have only one row of suites/press boxes around the infield between the lower and upper decks to allow the upper deck to be lower and closer to the field,

6. Have left and center fields open onto bleachers and lawn seating to give a spectacular view of the Chicago skyline, and to allow street pedestrians to watch games through wrought iron fences

7. Have Armour-Field-esque red brick and wrought iron three story retail/restaurant/loft condos, townhouses and apartments around the exterior of the park, along with similarly-designed parking structures and

8. Have dark green seats and a concourse that wraps around the whole stadium.

batmanZoSo
10-21-2003, 12:26 AM
Reinsdorf can't see the forest for the trees. Whatever that means. I think it works...

He would never want us to commute because he wants that 15 bucks. Little does he realize that more fans could possibly go, which means more tickets sold and more concessions and merchandise.

I think after this upper deck thing is finished, the park will be beautiful. Maybe we should paint the seats green, that can't be too hard to do. Then I would stack it up against any other park.

JR should build a strip mall of bars and restaurants on 35th street. Maybe build a bar over the old home plate and have one of those VR hitting games where you can bat there.. That would be pret-ty cool.

ode to veeck
10-21-2003, 08:26 PM
It's taxpayer's money any way you split it. Chicago continues to lose more and more conventions specifically because of the costs of accommodations. If the hotels aren't generating as much tax revenue as they otherwise would, guess who ends up making up the difference?


As one who plans and books a number of large events, I can safely say the hotel prices in chicago are not out of line with other major cities in the US.

I think a bigger reason some shows are lost to Chicago is the rapid growth in convention center facilities at other cities in North America, eg. smaller venues like Portland, Charlotte, Montreal & Phoenix with major new convention center/hotel complexes that didn't exist a few years back, plus all the older more traditional convention venues going through major expansion/upgrading--the competition for these shows and large events is now fierce, with lots of competition whereas several years ago for shows above a certain size, there were very few choices like Chicago, Las Vegas, NY etc.


In addition, conventions, trade shows etc are mostly down in size all over the country the last couple of years (# attendees, vendors etc) mostly due to a slower economy since '01.