PDA

View Full Version : Upper Deck At US CELL.


ChiSoxBobette
10-20-2003, 09:02 AM
I've been reading and have seen an article in the Daily SouthTown about our White Sox finally tearing down the Upper Deck, so since I have upper deck box season ticket behind home plate I e-mailed my sales person to find out if the dismantling will affect my seats. I was told that the Sox are only taking down the last 6 rows and my seats down near the front won't be affected. So seeing as I've never been up there I'm asking if anyone has been that far up there and will only 6 rows really mean anything?

CHISOXFAN13
10-20-2003, 09:10 AM
Unless they are putting seats back, it looks like there is a heck of a lot more than 6 rows missing.

cwsox
10-20-2003, 09:27 AM
my seats are also in the UD also behind home - section 534 -

have been up to the top numerous times to escape the sun or rain or before I had seasons tickets - it is a fine view from up there. I regret they are doing anything like removing seats - cuts down our capacity and thus our revenue which I thought we needed for operating (payroll) expenses. But the cliches about the UD must have gotten to the point that it seemed like a thing to do from a marketing standpoint. Funny thing is I never heard a complaint about the UD from anyone who sits there regularly.

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by cwsox
my seats are also in the UD also behind home - section 534 -

have been up to the top numerous times to escape the sun or rain or before I had seasons tickets - it is a fine view from up there. I regret they are doing anything like removing seats - cuts down our capacity and thus our revenue which I thought we needed for operating (payroll) expenses. But the cliches about the UD must have gotten to the point that it seemed like a thing to do from a marketing standpoint. Funny thing is I never heard a complaint about the UD from anyone who sits there regularly.

the UD is TERRIBLE. Sure, you can see Indiana Dunes and Across lake Michigan, but those werent traits that ENDEARED
people to Ball Parks. Intimacy and Character are what DEFINES
Ballparks. What good are seats if noone sits in them. I hate it up there, and NEVER sit up there. The Problem is the PITCH
of the UD, and also with the HEIGHT. shaving 10 rows DOESNT ADDRESS THE PITCH

guillen4life13
10-20-2003, 10:10 AM
Last season, on the day the Sox acquired Alomar and Everett (though neither played), I sat in the last row of the UD right behind home plate w/ my brother. I thought it was a fine view of everything.

mike squires
10-20-2003, 10:11 AM
I''m wondering if they "proactivly" rasied the Club level tickets last year knowing they would lose revenue the following year because of the reduction of the upper deck seats. If they had done it this upcomming season it would have been obvious why they rasied ticket prices. I also wouldn't doubt them raising something else to cover the loss. Parking also went up 5 bucks last year. HMMMM.

hold2dibber
10-20-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
the UD is TERRIBLE. Sure, you can see Indiana Dunes and Across lake Michigan, but those werent traits that ENDEARED
people to Ball Parks. Intimacy and Character are what DEFINES
Ballparks. What good are seats if noone sits in them. I hate it up there, and NEVER sit up there. The Problem is the PITCH
of the UD, and also with the HEIGHT. shaving 10 rows DOESNT ADDRESS THE PITCH

I agree in part. I don't really understand how taking off the last few rows and adding a roof will help. I suppose I'll reserve judgment until I check out the finished project, but for now, it seems like not a lot of bang for the bucks.

I agree that much of the UD is lousy. But if you're in the first ten rows anywhere between 1st and 3rd, I think those seats are damn good ) (especially right behind home). And even further down the lines aren't bad, as long as you're not too far up. And the ones far up right behind home are decent (although the climb up/down is vertigo-inducing). But anything higher up down the lines is horrible.

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 10:16 AM
If they SIMPLY Destroy the TOP LEVEL of Skyboxes....
That would allow them to use the CLUBLEVEL as the NEW UD.
THey could just ADD 20-25 Rows of New Seating, AND IT WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO USE BOTH CONCOURSES. If the SOX are so
Adamant about having a "CLUB" Level, Use that concourse so that People could enter from there, and the Still INTACT UD
Concourse as the entrance for the rest of the UD. Ive made
drawings, and IT COULD WORK. THIS WOULD ADDRESS THE 2 WORSE TRAITS OF THE CURRENT UD. THE Ridiculous PITCH, and the Horrible HEIGHT AWAY from the Field it is.

MisterB
10-20-2003, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by mike squires
I''m wondering if they "proactivly" rasied the Club level tickets last year knowing they would lose revenue the following year because of the reduction of the upper deck seats. If they had done it this upcomming season it would have been obvious why they rasied ticket prices. I also wouldn't doubt them raising something else to cover the loss. Parking also went up 5 bucks last year. HMMMM.

How do you lose money by removing seats no one sits in anyway?

Randar68
10-20-2003, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
If they SIMPLY Destroy the TOP LEVEL of Skyboxes....
That would allow them to use the CLUBLEVEL as the NEW UD.
THey could just ADD 20-25 Rows of New Seating, AND IT WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO USE BOTH CONCOURSES. If the SOX are so
Adamant about having a "CLUB" Level, Use that concourse so that People could enter from there, and the Still INTACT UD
Concourse as the entrance for the rest of the UD. Ive made
drawings, and IT COULD WORK. THIS WOULD ADDRESS THE 2 WORSE TRAITS OF THE CURRENT UD. THE Ridiculous PITCH, and the Horrible HEIGHT AWAY from the Field it is.


Again, welcome to the 100+ million dollar club. Not feasible.

I have been to the new Soldier Field, and the west side UD there is almost identical. What makes the UD at the Cell so bad is the fact that you have to climb 20+ rows to get to those seats, plus you're already well away from the field. The open feeling of the UD and the steep climb into the mountains-feel ispartly due to the open exposure of the sky, IMO. If you close it off and put a more level/far extending roof on it, you close off some of that feeling.


There is only so much you can do when given an existing structure and a limited budget.

BTW, they will never tear out the Diamond Suites and luxury boxes.

Randar68
10-20-2003, 10:21 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
How do you lose money by removing seats no one sits in anyway?

You lose nothing by having them there when empty, but you gain 5-10,000 for the Yankee/Twins/Cubs series... Maybe 50-100,000 a year when the Sox are playing well/competing...

anewman35
10-20-2003, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
If they SIMPLY Destroy the TOP LEVEL of Skyboxes....
That would allow them to use the CLUBLEVEL as the NEW UD.
THey could just ADD 20-25 Rows of New Seating, AND IT WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO USE BOTH CONCOURSES. If the SOX are so
Adamant about having a "CLUB" Level, Use that concourse so that People could enter from there, and the Still INTACT UD
Concourse as the entrance for the rest of the UD. Ive made
drawings, and IT COULD WORK. THIS WOULD ADDRESS THE 2 WORSE TRAITS OF THE CURRENT UD. THE Ridiculous PITCH, and the Horrible HEIGHT AWAY from the Field it is.

I'm not sure which idea of yours is crazier, this one you keep bringing up or the playoff conspiricy. If they're going to do that much work, they need a lot more money, and they probably need to play somewhere else for at least part of the season. Not going to happen.

Viva Magglio
10-20-2003, 10:32 AM
Assuming the right field porch is not built this offseason, the ballpark will have a reduced capacity in 2004 per these renovations. I wonder how many seats total are being lost due to this.

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by MisterB
How do you lose money by removing seats no one sits in anyway?

Begs the Same Question regarding Tearing Out Skyboxes
THAT ARENT BEING USED. Tear the Mutha Down !

anewman35
10-20-2003, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Begs the Same Question regarding Tearing Out Skyboxes
THAT ARENT BEING USED. Tear the Mutha Down !

How do you lose money by tearing down skyboxes that aren't being used? You lose money because to tear the skyboxes out, you have to replace the entire upper deck. That costs A LOT OF MONEY. How do you propose this gets paid for? What does the team do during the few months where there is no usable upper deck?

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
I'm not sure which idea of yours is crazier, this one you keep bringing up or the playoff conspiricy. If they're going to do that much work, they need a lot more money, and they probably need to play somewhere else for at least part of the season. Not going to happen.

It sounds Crazy Yeah. But We need CRAZY Solutions to something that was Built with No Thinking in mind. This SOLVES ALL OF THE PROBLEMS (structurally anyway). No More MEDIA BASHING about the Upper Deck, No More Fans REFUSING to sit up there. Everyone AGREES UNIVERSALLY that the first 10rows of the UD are the best. the other 20 SUCK. Why in the world would an ENTIRE DECK, be Reserved JUST FOR 10 ROWS OF FANS? Thats Why I THINK THE CLUBLEVEL is the DUMBEST piece of Construction Ive ever seen. A whole deck/Concourse specially for 5 rows of fans? Ridiculous. this isnt as farfetched as it Sounds everyone

anewman35
10-20-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
It sounds Crazy Yeah. But We need CRAZY Solutions to something that was Built with No Thinking in mind. This SOLVES ALL OF THE PROBLEMS (structurally anyway). No More MEDIA BASHING about the Upper Deck, No More Fans REFUSING to sit up there. Everyone AGREES UNIVERSALLY that the first 10rows of the UD are the best. the other 20 SUCK. Why in the world would an ENTIRE DECK, be Reserved JUST FOR 10 ROWS OF FANS? Thats Why I THINK THE CLUBLEVEL is the DUMBEST piece of Construction Ive ever seen. A whole deck/Concourse specially for 5 rows of fans? Ridiculous. this isnt as farfetched as it Sounds everyone

I'm not denying that if they had unlimited money and unlimited time that it would be a good idea (although what happens in a few years when the team is popular again and they're losing money by not having those skyboxes). You have to realize, though, that your plan is never going to happen. Besides, if they went and spent $100 million on the stadium, don't you think the media would bash them for that?

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
I'm not denying that if they had unlimited money and unlimited time that it would be a good idea (although what happens in a few years when the team is popular again and they're losing money by not having those skyboxes). You have to realize, though, that your plan is never going to happen. Besides, if they went and spent $100 million on the stadium, don't you think the media would bash them for that?

See, thats the Lovely THing about all this. Were "RELOCATING"
sky boxes THAT ARENT BEING USED (and rebuilding a couple
of them in the LF Corner (plan to be announced) Does everyone
Realize that there are like 20 skyboxes that havent even BEEN FINISHED?

voodoochile
10-20-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
the UD is TERRIBLE. Sure, you can see Indiana Dunes and Across lake Michigan, but those werent traits that ENDEARED
people to Ball Parks. Intimacy and Character are what DEFINES
Ballparks. What good are seats if noone sits in them. I hate it up there, and NEVER sit up there. The Problem is the PITCH
of the UD, and also with the HEIGHT. shaving 10 rows DOESNT ADDRESS THE PITCH

I completely disagree. This belief has been fostered by the media that you hate and allowed to be perpetuated. I don't care for down the line seats in the UD but behind the infield at any height you are fine. Naturally, I prefer to sit closer to the field, but that is because the walk is shorter to the bathroom, not because the view is bad.

anewman35
10-20-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
See, thats the Lovely THing about all this. Were "RELOCATING"
sky boxes THAT ARENT BEING USED (and rebuilding a couple
of them in the LF Corner (plan to be announced) Does everyone
Realize that there are like 20 skyboxes that havent even BEEN FINISHED?

You're missing my point completly. Let's say the Sox become popular and cool. People will want to use those skyboxes, but they won't be there, and the team will therefore be losing potential revenue on top of the millions upon millions it'll take to remove them. So why do it?

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
How do you lose money by tearing down skyboxes that aren't being used? You lose money because to tear the skyboxes out, you have to replace the entire upper deck. That costs A LOT OF MONEY. How do you propose this gets paid for? What does the team do during the few months where there is no usable upper deck?

Good Question. Like most construction projects where the "tenant" is still using the space, there would be a great deal of homework involved. They would tear 1/4 to 1/2 of the deck down immediately, and REBUILD that, so that they could use those seats immediately for next season. Construction could be ongoing, During the Days, and on OffDays..... NO doubt it,
there would be some OVERLAP with Construction....but it would WELL BE WORTH IT. As for the SKyboxes, a Majority of them ARENT EVEN BUILT OUT, and MOST ARE UNUSED. THe SOx would simply be at CAPACITY regarding those now.

voodoochile
10-20-2003, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
You're missing my point completly. Let's say the Sox become popular and cool. People will want to use those skyboxes, but they won't be there, and the team will therefore be losing potential revenue on top of the millions upon millions it'll take to remove them. So why do it?

More importantly, it ain't a gonna happen, Hangar, period. No way, No how. Not in your lifetime. :D:

The new roof over the UD will create a more enlosed space, so you won't feel like you are walking up to heaven to get to your seat, just up a long staircase. It will help the sense of vertigo people get in the UD. That alone will help change the perception and that is really all that is wrong with the seats up there...

joecrede
10-20-2003, 10:59 AM
Why not wait to see what the finished product is like? If these renovations improve the upper deck "experience" as much as the previous ones improved the look of the park, I don't think there will be much to complain about.

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
..... Naturally, I prefer to sit closer to the field, but that is because the walk is shorter to the bathroom, not because the view is bad.


The Problem of the Entrance to the seats being at the BOTTOM
while the seats reach towards the Sky is Addressed in my plan,
with the entrance being in the MIDDLE. ALSO, there are 2
entrances to the UD, kind of like KC Kauffman has 2 separate
Concourses for the Lower Deck

voodoochile
10-20-2003, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Problem of the Entrance to the seats being at the BOTTOM
while the seats reach towards the Sky is Addressed in my plan,
with the entrance being in the MIDDLE. ALSO, there are 2
entrances to the UD, kind of like KC Kauffman has 2 separate
Concourses for the Lower Deck

Okay, fine - I agree. That's what they did at the new SF and there have been very few complaints. Still, that won't be fixed anytime soon and they aren't going to lop off the whole UD. 75% if the seats in the UD are fine, they just have bad publicity.

dickallen15
10-20-2003, 11:10 AM
Bad publicity from the media, namely the Tribune Company, which in the early 90's saw the White Sox were starting to draw very significant crowds, even outdrawing the Cubs. Don't think for a second there isn't a conspiracy behind this. Wrigley Field's lower deck has obstructed views on nearly half the seats. Some seats are directly behind poles, where you have no view. Supposedly, they are going to add a few seats in the front of the UD, and with a roof over it , will make the Cell a very comfortable place, and even louder when the White Sox are playing well. I do wonder how these changes will affect the famous wind currents.

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
You're missing my point completly. Let's say the Sox become popular and cool. People will want to use those skyboxes, but they won't be there, and the team will therefore be losing potential revenue on top of the millions upon millions it'll take to remove them. So why do it?

If the SOX insist on having 12 empty skyboxes somewhere in
the place, we can put them in the LF corner, as part of that "Building" they want to be the new entrance.
Those will be just as good, and can be SOLD on a yearround
basis. So the SOX will ge GAINING something here.
like i said, were RELOCATING THEM

anewman35
10-20-2003, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
If the SOX insist on having 12 empty skyboxes somewhere in
the place, we can put them in the LF corner, as part of that "Building" they want to be the new entrance.
Those will be just as good, and can be SOLD on a yearround
basis. So the SOX will ge GAINING something here.
like i said, were RELOCATING THEM

Why would people want to rent skyboxes in december overlooking an empty baseball field?

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Why would people want to rent skyboxes in december overlooking an empty baseball field?

Why wouldnt they? if that Building is going to be year Round use, would be a Nice Quirk to be able to see out Onto the
Field. People said the same thing when SKydome was being built (Why are we facing hotel rooms towards the field?) SanDiegos NEW PARK NEXT YEAR, will have a Building on the Property, and will ALSO be open YEAR ROUND for views of the
Stadium. So we'd be the 3rd team doing this

anewman35
10-20-2003, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Why wouldnt they? if that Building is going to be year Round use, would be a Nice Quirk to be able to see out Onto the
Field. People said the same thing when SKydome was being built (Why are we facing hotel rooms towards the field?) SanDiegos NEW PARK NEXT YEAR, will have a Building on the Property, and will ALSO be open YEAR ROUND for views of the
Stadium. So we'd be the 3rd team doing this

It's one thing to have a hotel that happens to have a stadium view, because people have to sleep somewhere anyway, so why not somewhere cool? But a skybox, what point does a skybox serve besides watching a game from it? Don't you think the skybox would get old after a few minutes if there's nothing to see but an empty stadium?

Hangar18
10-20-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
..... But a skybox, what point does a skybox serve besides watching a game from it? Don't you think the skybox would get old after a few minutes if there's nothing to see but an empty stadium?

Like I said, the Padres thought the same thing, but are Proceeding anyway with the concept. one thing were forgetting, is that the "Building" will be year-round, so there are other things to do in the Place, OffSeason, a View of the Park would be one of the Quirks, Especially to Tourists and the Like.
The Urinal, among other parks, gives tours of otherwise "empty
parks" all the time. A Fixed up CELL Id love to have a beer, with that place in the background

anewman35
10-20-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Like I said, the Padres thought the same thing, but are Proceeding anyway with the concept. one thing were forgetting, is that the "Building" will be year-round, so there are other things to do in the Place, OffSeason, a View of the Park would be one of the Quirks, Especially to Tourists and the Like.
The Urinal, among other parks, gives tours of otherwise "empty
parks" all the time. A Fixed up CELL Id love to have a beer, with that place in the background

I wouldn't mind checking out the park in the off season once or twice, but I think it's crazy to think that renting out skyboxes in the winter would be a significant form of revenue. Just hiring the people needed to staff the park would probably eat up most of the profits...

CHISOXFAN13
10-20-2003, 11:37 AM
You can't compare the idea with San Diego's. If you head to southern Cali int he winter months, you'll be able to see the park. Chances are decent that if you rent the skybox at the Cell in January that you'll be looking at nothing but snow.

Sorry, I can do that at my aprtment three blocks away.

jortafan
10-20-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by ˇViva Mágglio!
Assuming the right field porch is not built this offseason, the ballpark will have a reduced capacity in 2004 per these renovations. I wonder how many seats total are being lost due to this.

With the renovations of recent years, they actually increased the stadium's capacity by putting in more seats down the foul lines in the lower deck AND in the outfield. The stadium went from being able to seat just over 44,000 to just over 47,000 now.

I can't help but think that increase offsets some of the lost seats in the upper deck. The figures I keep hearing would indicate about 6-7,000 seats being lost upstairs. So at worst, U.S. Cellular Field next year would have about 40,000 seats. That's not too bad.

And if they do the outfield upper deck (I refuse to call it a home run porch), that could easily add back the lost seats for future years.

soxnut
10-20-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
More importantly, it ain't a gonna happen, Hangar, period. No way, No how. Not in your lifetime. :D:

The new roof over the UD will create a more enlosed space, so you won't feel like you are walking up to heaven to get to your seat, just up a long staircase. It will help the sense of vertigo people get in the UD. That alone will help change the perception and that is really all that is wrong with the seats up there...

Voodoochile.....you are right on about the UD. I like sitting in the first 10 rows.....or the last 10 rows--because of the roof there...........those are the only seats that don't give me the feeling of vertigo.

So, I can understand what they are trying to do and I think it's the right thing to do, with the budget they have.

thepaulbowski
10-20-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I completely disagree. This belief has been fostered by the media that you hate and allowed to be perpetuated. I don't care for down the line seats in the UD but behind the infield at any height you are fine. Naturally, I prefer to sit closer to the field, but that is because the walk is shorter to the bathroom, not because the view is bad.

I agree with you on this...some of the best seats (or maybe most underrated) in the house (IMO) are in the upper deck behind home plate. You are above the action and able to see the entire plate as the ball crosses.

thepaulbowski
10-20-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Why would people want to rent skyboxes in december overlooking an empty baseball field?

because I love paying $4.75 for a 16 oz beer :D:

ChiSoxBobette
10-20-2003, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by CHISOXFAN13
Unless they are putting seats back, it looks like there is a heck of a lot more than 6 rows missing.

I'd hope so but my season ticket sales person said only the top six rows, my seats are behind home plate row 8 and my wife and I would hate to loose those seats they're actually great seats for seeing the whole field and they are'nt that high up.

jortafan
10-20-2003, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
I'd hope so but my season ticket sales person said only the top six rows, my seats are behind home plate row 8 and my wife and I would hate to loose those seats they're actually great seats for seeing the whole field and they are'nt that high up.

Somebody refresh my memory. Aren't there like 29 rows of seats in the upper deck?

This would reduce it down to about 20-23, depending on whose figure you want to believe.

It still sounds like ample upper deck seating, for those who choose to sit up there.

cheeses_h_rice
10-20-2003, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
Somebody refresh my memory. Aren't there like 29 rows of seats in the upper deck?

This would reduce it down to about 20-23, depending on whose figure you want to believe.

It still sounds like ample upper deck seating, for those who choose to sit up there.

There are 30 or 31 rows in the UD.

ChiSoxBobette
10-20-2003, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
Somebody refresh my memory. Aren't there like 29 rows of seats in the upper deck?

This would reduce it down to about 20-23, depending on whose figure you want to believe.

It still sounds like ample upper deck seating, for those who choose to sit up there.

Thats what I think there is around 28/29 rows , and also the reason I e-mailed my season ticket salesperson because when I read the article in the South Town I thought they were maybe taking down around 15 rows. She said no only the last 6. So maybe theres something else going in up there I've heard mention of offices so maybe if they do that it would eliminate another 9/10 rows could be the whole plan has'nt been annouced yet and theres more to it, maybe they are going to build a right field H.R. porch , all I know is that I don't want to have to give up my seats like some of the season ticket holders did at the new Soldiers Field.

anewman35
10-20-2003, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
Thats what I think there is around 28/29 rows , and also the reason I e-mailed my season ticket salesperson because when I read the article in the South Town I thought they were maybe taking down around 15 rows. She said no only the last 6. So maybe theres something else going in up there I've heard mention of offices so maybe if they do that it would eliminate another 9/10 rows could be the whole plan has'nt been annouced yet and theres more to it, maybe they are going to build a right field H.R. porch , all I know is that I don't want to have to give up my seats like some of the season ticket holders did at the new Soldiers Field.

It's quite possible that they took a few more out than they need, to give them some room to work and to avoid damaging seats. I really can't understand why you're so worried about your seats, if you're 8th row, they'd have to remove over 20 rows for your seats to go anywhere, and that's not happening.

bc2k
10-20-2003, 01:48 PM
The upper deck sucks, not because of the view of the game, but because of the looong walk down the ramps at a 2 degree decline.

Adding insult to pain in my ass, they always have the escalator blocked off after games with an usher blocking fans from walking down it. Why is this not available to fans?

Mammoo
10-20-2003, 01:49 PM
http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8154/5m/images.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2003-10/9800503.jpg

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2003, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Mammoo
http://a1022.g.akamai.net/f/1022/8154/5m/images.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/media/photo/2003-10/9800503.jpg

I count at least 8 rows of seats taken out of that section alone.

anewman35
10-20-2003, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by bc2k

Adding insult to pain in my ass, they always have the escalator blocked off after games with an usher blocking fans from walking down it. Why is this not available to fans?

Thousands of people, all trying to go down a narrow staircase at the same time? That's a disaster waiting to happen.

voodoochile
10-20-2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I count at least 8 rows of seats taken out of that section alone.

I see 10 which I believe was the original estimate. It is definitely going to be more intimate up there. When they draw 30K it is going to look more like a full house and that will lead to even more demand.

:giangreco
"OHMIGAWD! This is TERRIBLE news. What will I do for a cheap laugh?! I don't actually have a brain, or I wouldn't be reading off this teleprompter wearing this ridiculous wig. Crap... Someone find me a writer..."

bc2k
10-20-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Thousands of people, all trying to go down a narrow staircase at the same time? That's a disaster waiting to happen.

Comiskey changed its name, but not to E2. We'll be fine.

anewman35
10-20-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by bc2k
Comiskey changed its name, but not to E2. We'll be fine.

Seriously, though, it just wouldn't be safe. Over the course of a season, hundreds of thousands would be pushing to get down those stairs, and all it would take would be one person getting trampled before the White Sox had to shell out a multi-million dollar settlement. No thanks. I'd rather do a bit more walking and not have the team spend all it's money on legal bills.

AsInWreck
10-20-2003, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Why wouldnt they? if that Building is going to be year Round use, would be a Nice Quirk to be able to see out Onto the
Field. People said the same thing when SKydome was being built (Why are we facing hotel rooms towards the field?) SanDiegos NEW PARK NEXT YEAR, will have a Building on the Property, and will ALSO be open YEAR ROUND for views of the
Stadium. So we'd be the 3rd team doing this

You read a lot of michael moore, DON' T YOU? :smile:

AsInWreck
10-20-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
But if you're in the first ten rows anywhere between 1st and 3rd, I think those seats are damn good ) (especially right behind home). And even further down the lines aren't bad, as long as you're not too far up.

I agree >> they're almost as good as the last 10 rows of the UD at the old comiskey.

xil357
10-20-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Why would people want to rent skyboxes in december overlooking an empty baseball field?

The Ballpark in Arlington has a similar structure in the outfield. KRLD 1080-AM (DFW's version of WBBM-AM) has their offices in the building at the Ballpark, as do several other businesses that are not necessarily Rangers baseball-related. These offices look out onto the field. Such a structure, as proposed by Hangar, might be a neat addition to the Cell.

Also, the Ballpark's so-called Home Run Porch in right field features a TGI Fridays restaurant and bar above the seats. There is a separate entrance to the TGI Fridays from the exterior of the stadium so that folks can dine there without having to enter the park when games are not in session. Perhaps something like this can be included in a proposed "home run porch" in right field at the Cell.

I've always thought that the designers of the Ballpark did a great job. They did have a much large plot of land with which to work, but the field is sunk below grade so that when you walk in, you walk straight onto the main level concourse. Consequently, the exterior of the park is not as vertically imposing when viewed from the street. Also, the red brick and iron facade gives a classic look. After the 7th inning, the wrought iron gates are opened to allow fans efficiently to exit the stadium to the exterior sidewalks and streets. Even when there are 40,000+ in the house the park rapidly empties.

To the naked eye, the Ballpark's upper deck (which has no roof whatosever), seems as high -- if not higher -- above the field as the Cell. It also has a similar pitch to the Cell's upper deck. However, there are not as many rows to climb to get to the absolute top. Perception is reality, especially when that perception is fueled by a media conglomerate that wants to eliminate all competition for its entertainment offerings (as any smart capitalist company would want to do).

The Sox and the ISFA (sp?) ought to build parking garages with mixed use retail, restaurant and housing on the street frontages in the place of the parking lots. Three story structures would increase parking capacity as well as bring more life year-round to the areas immediately surrounding the Cell.

ewokpelts
10-20-2003, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
I wouldn't mind checking out the park in the off season once or twice, but I think it's crazy to think that renting out skyboxes in the winter would be a significant form of revenue. Just hiring the people needed to staff the park would probably eat up most of the profits...


The Sox already do this. They rent out the Stadium Club, as well as the recently built Conference and Learning Center. Hanger's referring to meeting/banquet rooms, which is pretty much what a larger skybox is. The Sox, however, DONT rent out the terrace rooms out in the off season, despite that those rooms are pretty big and can handle non baseball events.

Point is, lots of stadiums/arenas have space to rent out in the off season.
Gene

ewokpelts
10-20-2003, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Thousands of people, all trying to go down a narrow staircase at the same time? That's a disaster waiting to happen.

Miller Park's outfield upper decks have stair cases. I didnt have any problems getting up or down on them during the ASG. That deck was separate from the rest of the upper bowl, and accomodated about 2500 people per deck(rf and lf)....it was designed to move that many people ata capacity crownb. Since it's not connected to the other bowl, it dosent have to worry about 15000 other people.
That being said, I prefer the cel to Miller, although Miller's design wsa more thought out than new comiskey.
Gene

dougs78
10-20-2003, 08:31 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Problem of the Entrance to the seats being at the BOTTOM
while the seats reach towards the Sky is Addressed in my plan,
with the entrance being in the MIDDLE. ALSO, there are 2
entrances to the UD, kind of like KC Kauffman has 2 separate
Concourses for the Lower Deck

Yep, thats the real issue with the UD. Its not steeper than any other upper deck. The problem is that you get in and you look up and see 44,000 stairs to walk up to get to a roof that looks like its above you.

Its not too steep, the problem that the incline goes too high. If they even had something in the middle to interrupt the long incline it would be fine.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2003, 08:42 PM
Originally posted by dougs78
Yep, thats the real issue with the UD. Its not steeper than any other upper deck. The problem is that you get in and you look up and see 44,000 stairs to walk up to get to a roof that looks like its above you.

Its not too steep, the problem that the incline goes too high. If they even had something in the middle to interrupt the long incline it would be fine.

I think the idea behind creating a larger roof is to close off the endless view of sky over everybody's head. When you're perched that far up in the air and you're sitting on a 41 degree angle, it tends to induce vertigo. The posts near the front of the deck might help break down the space, too. Giangreco will have to look elsewhere for his empty blue seat shots.

:giangreco
"Those posts keep getting in the way of my punchlines!"

batmanZoSo
10-20-2003, 08:55 PM
For anyone with doubts, I can assure you it's more than 6 rows they're taking off. I have a picture from a week ago and you can count ten that were completely removed. And the eleventh appeared to have some loose chairs, which means it could be 11 rows.

The best thing we could ever do was already mentioned--take off the entire UD with the top suite level and add 20 rows to the club level. But as someone else said, that's not economically feasible, nor would JR ever 86 half his precious skyboxes. What they're doing now is the next best thing. This place is going to look a lot better next year. No more football stadium on the south side. And as for the pitch, it doesn't have much of an effect unless you're sitting in the rows they're now taking off. The UD itself is marginally steeper than the next steepest in line at best. Yankee stadium might be just as steep.

Can anyone get numbers on that???

batmanZoSo
10-20-2003, 09:04 PM
PaleHoseGeorge,

What posts near the front of the upper deck?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-20-2003, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
PaleHoseGeorge,

What posts near the front of the upper deck?

Just rumors. That's all any of this is, because the Sox aren't confirming much of anything so far. The weight of the larger roof couldn't be supported by a single cantilever design like the current roof already is. If they're covering most or all of the upper deck, a set of posts near the front of the upper deck would be required.

Until the Sox release official information, we'll just have to wait and see.

:(:

ChiSoxBobette
10-21-2003, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
It's quite possible that they took a few more out than they need, to give them some room to work and to avoid damaging seats. I really can't understand why you're so worried about your seats, if you're 8th row, they'd have to remove over 20 rows for your seats to go anywhere, and that's not happening.
I'm not worried , but the article in the South Town made it sound like the Sox were going to take down the whole upper deck , so I wanted to know because the seats I have now are pretty darn good and I would hate to have to move.

steff
10-21-2003, 07:56 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
the UD is TERRIBLE. Sure, you can see Indiana Dunes and Across lake Michigan, but those werent traits that ENDEARED
people to Ball Parks. Intimacy and Character are what DEFINES
Ballparks. What good are seats if noone sits in them. I hate it up there, and NEVER sit up there. The Problem is the PITCH
of the UD, and also with the HEIGHT. shaving 10 rows DOESNT ADDRESS THE PITCH

I'll remember this Henry when the Sox are in the series, you don't have a ticket, and I have an extra up there.

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

anewman35
10-21-2003, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
The Sox already do this. They rent out the Stadium Club, as well as the recently built Conference and Learning Center. Hanger's referring to meeting/banquet rooms, which is pretty much what a larger skybox is. The Sox, however, DONT rent out the terrace rooms out in the off season, despite that those rooms are pretty big and can handle non baseball events.

Point is, lots of stadiums/arenas have space to rent out in the off season.
Gene

Yeah, I guess I knew that. I was more thinking he meant to use the skyboxes to rent to one person/group the whole year, which makes very little sense. It makes a little more this way, but I don't see what building new ones has to do with it - if the Sox wanted to rent out skyboxes during the winter, they could easilly do it now.

thepaulbowski
10-21-2003, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Thousands of people, all trying to go down a narrow staircase at the same time? That's a disaster waiting to happen.

Example: Coors Field

hold2dibber
10-21-2003, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by steff
I'll remember this Henry when the Sox are in the series

Deeppink for pipedreams, Stef. :whiner:

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by steff
I'll remember this Henry when the Sox are in the series, you don't have a ticket, and I have an extra up there.



Heh heh, Yeah, I'll remember that too when I sit up there,
while YOU are in the Lower Bowl behind the Sox Dugout heh heh

cwsox
10-21-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by steff
I'll remember this Henry when the Sox are in the series, you don't have a ticket, and I have an extra up there.




Steff, when that day comes, remember who loves you!

voodoochile
10-21-2003, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by steff
I'll remember this Henry when the Sox are in the series, you don't have a ticket, and I have an extra up there.

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

I love the UD... :D:

steff
10-21-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Does everyone
Realize that there are like 20 skyboxes that havent even BEEN FINISHED?


Nope. Cause it isn't the truth. There's 3. Down the first base line.

steff
10-21-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Heh heh, Yeah, I'll remember that too when I sit up there,
while YOU are in the Lower Bowl behind the Sox Dugout heh heh

I'll take pictures for you :D:

steff
10-21-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by cwsox
Steff, when that day comes, remember who loves you!

LOL... everyone loves me when I have extra tickets. :D:

Vince.. you're keeping your season tickets, right?

steff
10-21-2003, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by hold2dibber
Deeppink for pipedreams, Stef. :whiner:


There is no crying in baseball... :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2003, 12:19 PM
Originally posted by steff
Nope. Cause it isn't the truth. There's 3. Down the first base line.

Isn't the newly-christened "Terrace Box" in the left field corner simply unsold (and unfinished) Diamond Suites space? The Sox set up some banquet tables inside an empty room and made it available for rent to large parties? :smile:

steff
10-21-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Isn't the newly-christened "Terrace Box" in the left field corner simply unsold (and unfinished) Diamond Suites space? The Sox set up some banquet tables inside an empty room and made it available for rent to large parties? :smile:



Actually, it was "kinda" finished. They had been using it for Sox employees to watch the games, then at the AS break last year the spruced it up and began selling the space for games. Bekins was looking into renting it, but the SOB's nixed that ID when they realized that the beer would be free flowing :gulp: :gulp: .

I know that BankOne had 2 parties in there at the end of last year cause we were invited to one and TexTron did as well. AT&T rented last year, too - but for some reason I don't think they will be again. :D: Blue Cross Blue Shield also did...

This year it was used quite a bit. I don't know how much. I never paid attention, really.

But there are only 3 that are really not finished and used for storage. When I sat in the Miller Suite (and called Henry to rub it in.. :D: ) I walked down both lines, and upstairs. Almost all of them were being used that night.

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Isn't the newly-christened "Terrace Box" in the left field corner simply unsold (and unfinished) Diamond Suites space? The Sox set up some banquet tables inside an empty room and made it available for rent to large parties? :smile:

Yes......and right next to that "terrace box" (which looks awful, looks like a Hospital Cafeteria with a view of the Field) are
a bunch of "skyboxes" that still have the Metal Studs and Framing up, but not used. Those are on the third level also.....
down the 3B line. they add up to about 20 in total
(including the space taken up by the Hospital Cafeteria in the LF Corner)

steff
10-21-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Yes......and right next to that "terrace box" (which looks awful, looks like a Hospital Cafeteria with a view of the Field) are
a bunch of "skyboxes" that still have the Metal Studs and Framing up, but not used. Those are on the third level also.....
down the 3B line. they add up to about 20 in total
(including the space taken up by the Hospital Cafeteria in the LF Corner)



Obviously you haven't been in there Henry...

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by steff
Obviously you haven't been in there Henry...

If its spruced up, why does that Place look like theres a bunch of Broken Chairs, High School-esque Lunch Tables and Cheap
Flouroscent Lighting in there? maybe I need to go in there...
you offering Steff ? :smile:

cheeses_h_rice
10-21-2003, 01:15 PM
Steff, please do share what that "open" space is just above the concourse down the 3B line. I've often wondered -- is it a public-meeting place that they rent out for group parties? It looks like there aren't any fixed seats inside there, just folding chairs.

I've always wondered.

ewokpelts
10-21-2003, 02:19 PM
Originally posted by thepaulbowski
Example: Coors Field
That was a malfunctioning escalator. If I remember correctly, it sped up for no reason.
Gene

ewokpelts
10-21-2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Isn't the newly-christened "Terrace Box" in the left field corner simply unsold (and unfinished) Diamond Suites space? The Sox set up some banquet tables inside an empty room and made it available for rent to large parties? :smile:
George,

You're not referirng ot the Terrace Suites, are you? I was in the lower terrace suite back in 1999. That's at the exteme end of the upper bowl. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Gene

steff
10-21-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Steff, please do share what that "open" space is just above the concourse down the 3B line. I've often wondered -- is it a public-meeting place that they rent out for group parties? It looks like there aren't any fixed seats inside there, just folding chairs.

I've always wondered.

Storage. There is one on both sides. I have no idea why.

steff
10-21-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
If its spruced up, why does that Place look like theres a bunch of Broken Chairs, High School-esque Lunch Tables and Cheap
Flouroscent Lighting in there? maybe I need to go in there...
you offering Steff ? :smile:


Henry.. there is one on each end. They are used for storage. The outdoor terrace is what I described to PHG. If I ever get advance notice that I am in the Miller Suite I will let you know.. assuming Jim, the Aloha's or the Wilkes' can't go of course :D:

steff
10-21-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
George,

You're not referirng ot the Terrace Suites, are you? I was in the lower terrace suite back in 1999. That's at the exteme end of the upper bowl. I'm not sure what you're referring to.
Gene


I hope he was referring to the upper one cause that's the one I was talking about.

cwsox
10-21-2003, 02:35 PM
they did massive remodeling of whatever was in the space where the Terrace thing is now and I can't remember what was there for the life of me - if we are talking about the same thing, right above the club section, right in the left corner

looking at it from my seats (in the UD) it looks neat and some day when I feel inclined I will find out how to get in there.

I went this whole last season without anyone busting me into the Stadium Club - just thought of that. Oh well.

dickallen15
10-21-2003, 02:49 PM
I was in the Terrace suites during the Yankee series. Its nice, They have folding chairs outside to sit and watch the game, the actual room where they serve food is carpeted and huge. I just walked in there, no one stopped me.

ewokpelts
10-21-2003, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
I was in the Terrace suites during the Yankee series. Its nice, They have folding chairs outside to sit and watch the game, the actual room where they serve food is carpeted and huge. I just walked in there, no one stopped me.

how'd ja do dat? When i was there(in 99) I was asked for my ticket every time i went in.
Gene

p.s. nice bathrooms in there...

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2003, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by steff
Henry.. there is one on each end. They are used for storage. The outdoor terrace is what I described to PHG. If I ever get advance notice that I am in the Miller Suite I will let you know.. assuming Jim, the Aloha's or the Wilkes' can't go of course :D:

Steff, all those boxes and assorted other bric-brac that fill that space the Sox are using for "storage" have some of the best views of the Sox game offered in the entire ballpark. The Sox use them for "storage" because they can't sell all the Diamond Suites they planned for when the ballpark was designed. This is the most damning evidence yet of the ineptitude of Reinsdorf's front office... there are people seated halfway to the clouds in the upper deck while boxes of nothing fill-in unsold spaces with better views of the action.

:angry:

:reinsy
"No problem, PHG. I'm charging every single box $50 per game to sit in my Diamond Suite storage area. I jack up their catering bill, too!"

anewman35
10-21-2003, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Steff, all those boxes and assorted other bric-brac that fill that space the Sox are using for "storage" have some of the best views of the Sox game offered in the entire ballpark.

Come on, you can't really mean that the boxes way down the lines have "some of the best views". Better than upper deck seats down the line, perhaps, but not better than any of the lower deck seats, and (IMO) not better than upper deck seats (even high upper deck seats) in the infield.

ewokpelts
10-21-2003, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


:reinsy
"No problem, PHG. I'm charging every single box $50 per game to sit in my Diamond Suite storage area. I jack up their catering bill, too!"

Hey, boxes get hungry too.....

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Come on, you can't really mean that the boxes way down the lines have "some of the best views". Better than upper deck seats down the line, perhaps, but not better than any of the lower deck seats, and (IMO) not better than upper deck seats (even high upper deck seats) in the infield.

LOL! Those boxes are filling space on a CATERED DECK! The Sox are getting top-dollar for every Diamond Suite sold. By design, those are the best seats in the house and easily the most profitable, too. The Sox completely blew it designing New Comiskey by overestimating how many Diamond Suites they could sell. They have NEVER been able to sell 2 full decks of Diamond Suites (even back in the hey-dey of the early 90's), and they may never need to finish the "storage area" if the Sox keep going along the path Reinsdorf seems intent on following.

Meanwhile the upper deck is jacked an extra 20 feet into the air and the Sox struggle to sell those seats, too. This isn't even debatable...

anewman35
10-21-2003, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
By design, those are the best seats in the house and easily the most profitable, too.

See, that's simply not true. Ask anybody where the best seats on a baseball field are. Are they going to say "Skyboxes, no matter where they are"? No, they'll probably say seats in the front row by the plate or the infield, and they'd be right.

I'm not denying that skyboxes are the most expensive and the most comfortable and have the best food and all that, but you can't possibly be saying that the view from a skybox near the right field corner is "the best seat" in the house from a view standpoint, can you?

Mammoo
10-21-2003, 03:55 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
The weight of the larger roof couldn't be supported by a single cantilever design like the current roof already is...

I don't know George, they did wonders with cantilever techniques in Soldier Field. They might be able to tie something into the existing system.

Pete Ward
10-21-2003, 04:16 PM
Can someone explain how taking out the top 8 rows will ...

A) add intimacy
B) decrease the steep grade
C) make the other seats closer to the field
D) make people stop complaining about the UD

I really dont understand (not being a smart @ss here). How does this help?

I can understand the right field HR porch adding to the park but how does chopping off seats accomplish any of the above?

anewman35
10-21-2003, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Pete Ward
Can someone explain how taking out the top 8 rows will ...

A) add intimacy
B) decrease the steep grade
C) make the other seats closer to the field
D) make people stop complaining about the UD

I really dont understand (not being a smart @ss here). How does this help?

I can understand the right field HR porch adding to the park but how does chopping off seats accomplish any of the above?

A. If they put a roof over it, it won't feel as open, which will help. Besides, it'll be smaller, which also makes it more intimate.
B. It won't, but if people have to climb less of it, they won't care as much.
C. It won't, unless they add more seats below.
D. It probably won't.

I'm curious, did you have a better idea of what they could do to the upper deck (keeping in mind they only have $65 million and an offseason to do it)?

steff
10-21-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Steff, all those boxes and assorted other bric-brac that fill that space the Sox are using for "storage" have some of the best views of the Sox game offered in the entire ballpark. The Sox use them for "storage" because they can't sell all the Diamond Suites they planned for when the ballpark was designed. This is the most damning evidence yet of the ineptitude of Reinsdorf's front office... there are people seated halfway to the clouds in the upper deck while boxes of nothing fill-in unsold spaces with better views of the action.

:angry:

:reinsy
"No problem, PHG. I'm charging every single box $50 per game to sit in my Diamond Suite storage area. I jack up their catering bill, too!"


George.. it's one room on each end. Down 1st base, it's the very end one and down 3rd it's the second to the last one. By the way.,.. the Sox have no issues selling them. All but 9 are season owned and paid for in full.

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
LOL! Those boxes are filling space on a CATERED DECK! The Sox are getting top-dollar for every Diamond Suite sold. By design, those are the best seats in the house and easily the most profitable, too. The Sox completely blew it designing New Comiskey by overestimating how many Diamond Suites they could sell. They have NEVER been able to sell 2 full decks of Diamond Suites (even back in the hey-dey of the early 90's), and they may never need to finish the "storage area" if the Sox keep going along the path Reinsdorf seems intent on following.

Meanwhile the upper deck is jacked an extra 20 feet into the air and the Sox struggle to sell those seats, too. This isn't even debatable...

Excellent !!!! I agree WholeHeartedly, and this was my point with DESTROYING that THIRD, and UNNECESSARY TIER OF SKYBOXES. They dont SELL ALL OF THEM AT ANY GIVEN TIME

steff
10-21-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Excellent !!!! I agree WholeHeartedly, and this was my point with DESTROYING that THIRD, and UNNECESSARY TIER OF SKYBOXES. They dont SELL ALL OF THEM AT ANY GIVEN TIME


Get the facts straight would ya guys... sometimes us or the Aloha's can't make our games.. and our seats are empty. But they're paid for.

anewman35
10-21-2003, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
Excellent !!!! I agree WholeHeartedly, and this was my point with DESTROYING that THIRD, and UNNECESSARY TIER OF SKYBOXES. They dont SELL ALL OF THEM AT ANY GIVEN TIME

They don't sell out all the seats at any given time either. Does that mean they should destroy all the seats that aren't used every single game?

steff
10-21-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
They don't sell out all the seats at any given time either. Does that mean they should destroy all the seats that aren't used every single game?


Exactly what I was thinking...

anewman35
10-21-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
They don't sell out all the seats at any given time either. Does that mean they should destroy all the seats that aren't used every single game?

Now that I think about it, they only even use the park 81 days a year, which seems like a huge waste the other 284 days. Why not just tear it down and play at some public park or something? It won't matter most of the time anyway...

steff
10-21-2003, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Now that I think about it, they only even use the park 81 days a year, which seems like a huge waste the other 284 days. Why not just tear it down and play at some public park or something? It won't matter most of the time anyway...


Woah.. slow down there. You're making sense :D:

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Pete Ward
Can someone explain how taking out the top 8 rows will ...

A) add intimacy
B) decrease the steep grade
C) make the other seats closer to the field
D) make people stop complaining about the UD

I really dont understand (not being a smart @ss here). How does this help?


I answered this somewhere around here. the Answer:
A: It Wont, B: It Doesnt, C: It Wont, D It still wont

The Pitch of the UD is the problem, not the height, though that
doesnt help either. Thats like Cutting down Entire Forests so that there wont be anymore Forest Fires. Ridiculous. At some point, Jerry Reinsdorf is going to Have to ADMIT hes not as Great an Architect/Urban Planner as he is a Real Estate Mogul

steff
10-21-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I answered this somewhere around here. the Answer:
A: It Wont, B: It Doesnt, C: It Wont, D It still wont

The Pitch of the UD is the problem, not the height, though that
doesnt help either. Thats like Cutting down Entire Forests so that there wont be anymore Forest Fires. Ridiculous. At some point, Jerry Reinsdorf is going to Have to ADMIT hes not as Great an Architect/Urban Planner as he is a Real Estate Mogul



Ugh... Henry you remind me of Bobby on the AOL boards. Never a nice thing to say. :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

anewman35
10-21-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
At some point, Jerry Reinsdorf is going to Have to ADMIT hes not as Great an Architect/Urban Planner as he is a Real Estate Mogul

Where exactly did Jerry Reinsdorf ever claim he was a great Architect/Urban Planner?

voodoochile
10-21-2003, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Pete Ward
Can someone explain how taking out the top 8 rows will ...

A) add intimacy
B) decrease the steep grade
C) make the other seats closer to the field
D) make people stop complaining about the UD

I really dont understand (not being a smart @ss here). How does this help?

I can understand the right field HR porch adding to the park but how does chopping off seats accomplish any of the above?

A)Less seats + same amount of tickets sold = more people in less space = better atmosphere, more noise, more excitement,

B)It won't, but having a roof above you can make it feel more like you are not lost in the heavens and going up forever. Might change the perception about how steep the UD is.

C)People won't be able to sit as far away as they used to, so by definitiion they won't be sitting as far away on average. The lower section seats aren't that far away anyway.

D)less negative pub about how the seats are sol bad that no one buys them will again change the perception. Some of that is because of the wide open spaces whidh this will help rectify.

At least that is how I see it. In either case, even if it doesn't work, at least they are trying something...

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by steff
Ugh... Henry you remind me of Bobby on the AOL boards. Never a nice thing to say. :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:


OK! Im going to PHYSICALLY DRAW MY VERSION of what I think this park should look like VS. What theyre going to make the park look like. My version will ADDRESS the 2 main Issues of the UD, theirs only Addresses 1. I'll work on it tonite, and get it posted here.....

anewman35
10-21-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
OK! Im going to PHYSICALLY DRAW MY VERSION of what I think this park should look like VS. What theyre going to make the park look like. My version will ADDRESS the 2 main Issues of the UD, theirs only Addresses 1. I'll work on it tonite, and get it posted here.....

That's fine, but I must ask again - is this going to address the issue of cost and time? I'm not denying that it would be great if they could completly redo the upper deck, but it's a completly moot point - it's simply not feasable.

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 04:55 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Where exactly did Jerry Reinsdorf ever claim he was a great Architect/Urban Planner?

where do i start? It was HIS IDEA to have the TRIPLE DECKER LAYER of Skyboxes, like it was some kind of Cement Big Mac, WIth Layers and Layers of Tasty SKYBOXES. This in turn caused the UD to reach to Heaven, (which he was FREE to Reject, but didnt) It was HIS IDEA to Bulldoze all the buildings across the street, and to Scorch the Earth Around the Park with Parking, AND NO PRIVATE RETAIL, so that Customers would be "forced" to Buy and Drink INSIDE his Mall of Pleasure. He was Told (which will come out in the next few years) How it WASNT a good idea, but Foolishly pressed on. The Architects for HOK
have Secretly said they Had ENTIRELY DIFFERENT IDEAS of what to do for New Comiskey, but that they were Rejected entirely.
What we have is what JR Wanted.

hold2dibber
10-21-2003, 04:57 PM
:tomatoaward

Yipee!

Lip Man 1
10-21-2003, 04:59 PM
In the book "Ballpark: The Story Of The Building Of Camden Yards," the authors quote the HOK architects directly as stating that when they presented their design ideas for a retro style ballpark to Jerry Reinsdorf, he rejected them for the sytle that he has now.

The point being made by the authors was that it was Reinsdorf directly who said 'no.' Not his general manager, PR director, media relations guy, ticket manager or latest flunky but he himself.

Lip

anewman35
10-21-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
where do i start? It was HIS IDEA to have the TRIPLE DECKER LAYER of Skyboxes, like it was some kind of Cement Big Mac, WIth Layers and Layers of Tasty SKYBOXES. This in turn caused the UD to reach to Heaven, (which he was FREE to Reject, but didnt) It was HIS IDEA to Bulldoze all the buildings across the street, and to Scorch the Earth Around the Park with Parking, AND NO PRIVATE RETAIL, so that Customers would be "forced" to Buy and Drink INSIDE his Mall of Pleasure. He was Told (which will come out in the next few years) How it WASNT a good idea, but Foolishly pressed on.

Have you see the park lately? There's 2 layers of skyboxes, not 3. Anyway, you didn't answer the question. Even assuming it was all his idea (which I don't think is fair, despite being the public face of the team, he's not the sole owner, and there were other people involved), show me where he's claimed to be a great Architect/Urban Planner.

Oh, and has anybody ever told you than randomly using caps every couple of words has the effect of making you impossible to take seriously? No? Maybe somebody should.

Hangar18
10-21-2003, 05:07 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Have you see the park lately? There's 2 layers of skyboxes, not 3. Anyway, you didn't answer the question. Even assuming it was all his idea (which I don't think is fair, despite being the public face of the team, he's not the sole owner, and there were other people involved), show me where he's claimed to be a great Architect/Urban Planner.

Oh, and has anybody ever told you than randomly using caps every couple of words has the effect of making you impossible to take seriously? No? Maybe somebody should.

please look past my Grammar. What Lip said. I read that same article, and was DISGUSTED (sorry for the caps) by the idea that we couldve had something Different, but didnt because JR thought otherwise and wouldnt listen to reason

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Where exactly did Jerry Reinsdorf ever claim he was a great Architect/Urban Planner?

Pfft... being a lousy architect/urban planner is the least of Reinsdorf's worries. However, for the purposes of this discussion, being a lousy BUSINESSMAN is hurting the franchise and hurting Sox Fans, too. Consider the following facts that any GOOD businessman would understand:

1.) The folly of marginalizing the value of 10,000 upper deck seats by pushing them up THREE DECKS above the main concourse.

2.) The opportunity costs (now reaching ten of millions of dollars) for all the ticket price increases the Sox HAVE NOT been able to make on UD seats compared to other seats around the ballpark (See this analysis at WSI (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=3&id=2053) for more details). Even bleacher seats now cost more than box seats in the upper deck.

3.) The REAL costs now worth roughly $60 million that the Sox are spending on retrofitting a 13 year-old ballpark for various design mistakes they made, the biggest of these being the height of the upper deck. It's so bad, we're pissing about mere band-aid attempts to fix it, because blowing up the stadium and starting over again is not financially viable. All those U.S. Cellular sponsorship dollars aren't being spent on fielding a better baseball team!

4.) The complete innecessity of #1, #2, or #3 noted above as proven by the fact the Sox are filling in major swaths of those aforementioned 3 decks with space used for nothing more than storing boxes. They didn't need three friggin' decks, and now they (and we Sox Fans) are paying the price!

I'm sure you'll still want to debate this, but I'm hoping the essential point isn't lost on others here. New Comiskey is an albatross on the Sox franchise and it was COMPLETELY AVOIDABLE if only Jerry Reinsdorf and his front office had not been so obstinate back in 1988-89. Any good businessman would look at those Diamond Suite storage areas and cringe.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2003, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Have you see the park lately? There's 2 layers of skyboxes, not 3. Anyway, you didn't answer the question. Even assuming it was all his idea (which I don't think is fair, despite being the public face of the team, he's not the sole owner, and there were other people involved), show me where he's claimed to be a great Architect/Urban Planner.

Oh, and has anybody ever told you than randomly using caps every couple of words has the effect of making you impossible to take seriously? No? Maybe somebody should.

Two layers of Diamond Suites PLUS the Club level/press box, too. There is room for 120 Diamond Suites ringing the Cell from the Stadium Club all the way to the "Terrace Suites", aka "the part of the Diamond Suite deck the Sox won't ever sell out in a million years so let's make some money on it some other way."

2+1 = upper deck seats nobody wants to sit in.

2+1 = retrofitting a 13 year-old ballpark at a cost of tens of millions of dollars not spent on improving the team.

MiamiSpartan1
10-21-2003, 06:23 PM
I've only been up there once the year after it opened, and frankly I just don't get what the problem is. Most stadiums' upper decks are high and steep. You can't tell me that the new Soldier Field upper deck on that one side is lower that US Cellular....We would kill to have that ballpark down here!

duke of dorwood
10-21-2003, 07:09 PM
The fact that there are "improvements" every year is Reinsdorf's legacy

dllrbll7
10-21-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
OK! Im going to PHYSICALLY DRAW MY VERSION of what I think this park should look like VS. What theyre going to make the park look like. My version will ADDRESS the 2 main Issues of the UD, theirs only Addresses 1. I'll work on it tonite, and get it posted here.....

Man Hanger if u have that much free time can u come do my homework for me. Although i would probably redraw the Cell before i did my homework. Cant wait to see what it looks like

dllrbll7
10-21-2003, 09:09 PM
Does anyone know why they would spend all the money last year to paint the roof and concrete in the UD if they are just goin to replace it this year. Good to see are US Cellular money is being spent wisely

AsInWreck
10-21-2003, 10:02 PM
Originally posted by MiamiSpartan1
I've only been up there once the year after it opened, and frankly I just don't get what the problem is. Most stadiums' upper decks are high and steep. You can't tell me that the new Soldier Field upper deck on that one side is lower that US Cellular....We would kill to have that ballpark down here!

Well, for one thing, you're talking to a bunch of people who probably grew up going to games at old Comiskey, where you could spot a nose hair on Jerry Koosman from the last row of the UD. And if you were a traveling sort you might have gone to a game at Tiger Stadium(or, gaspm even wrigley) where the seats were even closer.
I agree, though, that other new parks UD, with the possible exception of the new Tiger stadium(screw the corporations), are just as bad if not worse. People on this site have said that people elsewhere don't mind at their stadiums, but if that's true, it's because they don't know any better, but i don't believe that's even true. I've sat on the UD a few times at BOB in az, but I refuse to do so again. I'd rather watch the game on TV. Even my girlfriend, who is not even a baseball fan and has never experienced going to a game at one of the old parks, hates it.

In my opinion, while the new parks definitely look great, the philosophy that its more important not to have any obstructed views at the expense of the UD being twice the distance from the field is a major flaw. Hopefully, the next wave of stadiums will be a synthesis of the two.

My idea to resolve this quandary in ballpark architecture is to create an overhanging UD w/o beams below holding it up. Instead the weight of the upper deck would be supported using a suspension system, similar the Golden Gate bridge. Call me crazy, or stupid, I don't care.

ewokpelts
10-21-2003, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Two layers of Diamond Suites PLUS the Club level/press box, too. There is room for 120 Diamond Suites ringing the Cell from the Stadium Club all the way to the "Terrace Suites", aka "the part of the Diamond Suite deck the Sox won't ever sell out in a million years so let's make some money on it some other way."



George,

The Terrace Suites were always there. I just so happened to be reading an old brochure on the new park, and it touted the terrace rooms. These things were being sold to groups and corporations since 1991. I dont know where you think that these are recent additions. Again, I was in one in 1999, and can remember thinking" wow...i wonder what it's like to sit in those"
Gene

ewokpelts
10-21-2003, 10:55 PM
Hey,

There's a book out specifically on the construction of the Cell and UC out. I dont have a title, but it's available at the Historical Society as part of thier Chicago Sports exhibit. The book uses Chicago as an example about the various factors that play into new staduim construction. From what I gleaned, the writer has some pretty bad things to say about the cell in particular, and a bit about the uc. I'll post the title later when I head back to the Historical Society.
Gene

p.s. You should go the the exhibit. While leaning pro-cub/bears, does give a generous slice of Sox history.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-21-2003, 10:55 PM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
George,

The Terrace Suites were always there. I just so happened to be reading an old brochure on the new park, and it touted the terrace rooms. These things were being sold to groups and corporations since 1991. I dont know where you think that these are recent additions. Again, I was in one in 1999, and can remember thinking" wow...i wonder what it's like to sit in those"
Gene

Thanks for the correction. It was just this season that the Sox added signage for the Terrace Suites and I guess that's how I got confused. However there are numerous Diamond Suites along both baselines that have never been finished because of lack of demand. I suppose the Sox could double or triple the size of the Terrace Suites and start making money off that space, but that hardly makes up for the obvious revenue trouble the team has created for itself by putting 10,000 upper deck seats on top of three oversized and underutilized decks.

batmanZoSo
10-21-2003, 11:41 PM
AsInWreck,

Yankee stadium used to have beams and they got rid of them in the early 70s. I don't know how that place stays up, the upper deck hangs over so far it's ridiculous. I don't know why they can do that with an 80 year old stadium, but they can't design a new park with an overhang like that. The technology's already there, it's just not being used for some reason. Our upper deck doesn't hang over into the lower level at all. In fact it doesn't hang over its own support columns more than a few feet.

Everything above the lower level at the cell was designed poorly. You would figure as steep as it is, you'd have a view of the entire foul territory below, but I've sat up there and actually had trouble seeing home plate because people in the first row up there have to lean over to see past the guardrail. The pitch provides a view that cuts off just behind the umpire. Anything back of that you can't see.

Some parks have a really large second deck with two mezzanines above it, yet their upper deck does not need to be as steep as ours. I don't get it.

batmanZoSo
10-21-2003, 11:47 PM
PaleHoseGeorge,

Some of those suites are way down the line where you have to have your head turned to see the batter. Who would ever pay all that money to sit there?

Other parks turn toward home plate down the line, like Fenway, but the Cell is almost parallel. Bad sightlines if you ask me. The old park was outstanding. The only bad seats were the ones where a beam obstructed the batter. Everything faced home though, unlike the new park.

dickallen15
10-22-2003, 07:23 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
PaleHoseGeorge,

Some of those suites are way down the line where you have to have your head turned to see the batter. Who would ever pay all that money to sit there?

Other parks turn toward home plate down the line, like Fenway, but the Cell is almost parallel. Bad sightlines if you ask me. The old park was outstanding. The only bad seats were the ones where a beam obstructed the batter. Everything faced home though, unlike the new park.

The seats at the Cell are turned toward 2nd base. You are way off about Fenway. Those seats are almost turned toward the outfield. If you are sitting down the line at Fenway, you better make sure to get all the kinks out of your neck, or you won't see the game.

thepaulbowski
10-22-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by dllrbll7
Does anyone know why they would spend all the money last year to paint the roof and concrete in the UD if they are just goin to replace it this year. Good to see are US Cellular money is being spent wisely

For the All-Star game.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2003, 08:00 AM
Originally posted by dickallen15
The seats at the Cell are turned toward 2nd base. You are way off about Fenway. Those seats are almost turned toward the outfield. If you are sitting down the line at Fenway, you better make sure to get all the kinks out of your neck, or you won't see the game.

Thank you for responding. Of course the even bigger question to answer is this: If the view from those unfinished Diamond Suites are as lousy as some are claiming, why build TWO decks worth of them at all? Even the worst seat in the furthest corner of the upper deck gets filled a few times every year. Why are some here trying to defend the waste of space that has never generated any revenue for the team is beyond me.

That space has never been sold, not even for the annual Cubs/Sox series. Furthermore, the 3 sandwich decks have marginalized the value of 10,000 upper deck seats by pushing them too high above the field, thus costing the Sox even more potential revenue.

Someone needs to explain to me why the Diamond Suites storage rooms aren't a hugely expensive waste of space.

:reinsy
"Look, I already told you. I charge every dust-covered box $50 per game to sit in my Diamond Suites storage area. I pad their catering bill, too. Trust me on this."

anewman35
10-22-2003, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by ewokpelts
George,

The Terrace Suites were always there. I just so happened to be reading an old brochure on the new park, and it touted the terrace rooms. These things were being sold to groups and corporations since 1991. I dont know where you think that these are recent additions. Again, I was in one in 1999, and can remember thinking" wow...i wonder what it's like to sit in those"
Gene

Also, does anybody remember "The Dominick's Family Sox Pack" thing they had in the early 90s (I think)? It was a discounted rate on 4 tickets, and it included a hot dog and a drink and some other random stuff (a hat, I think). Anyway, the seats they gave you were in one of those Terrace Rooms, the lower one I think. I didn't mention it earlier because it was a LONG time ago, so I don't remember anything about the view or the condition of the rooms.

anewman35
10-22-2003, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Thank you for responding. Of course the even bigger question to answer is this: If the view from those unfinished Diamond Suites are as lousy as some are claiming, why build TWO decks worth of them at all? Even the worst seat in the furthest corner of the upper deck gets filled a few times every year. Why are some here trying to defend the waste of space that has never generated any revenue for the team is beyond me.

That space has never been sold, not even for the annual Cubs/Sox series. Furthermore, the 3 sandwich decks have marginalized the value of 10,000 upper deck seats by pushing them too high above the field, thus costing the Sox even more potential revenue.

Someone needs to explain to me why the Diamond Suites storage rooms aren't a hugely expensive waste of space.


Ok, so let's agree that there are some boxes that have never been used. Fine. But most of the boxes are being used, right? I'd bet that there are more boxes being used than would for just on one level, and each of those additional boxes provides additional revenue. I'm also of the opinion that it's not the height of the upper deck that makes it so empty so often of the time, it's done just fine in the early 90s or when they are cheap. I find it very unlikely that people (at least not many people) who otherwise would be happy going to Sox games in the upper deck are not going solely because they're an extra 10 or 20 feet higher than they would be.

Think of it this way - if there are 10 extra full boxes (just a random guess) that earn the Sox, say, $1000, it at the very least helps make up for those seats solely empty because of the height, and many times probably far exceeds it.

soxnut
10-22-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
. the Everything faced home though, unlike the new park. [/B]



Um......no they didin't. If you sat down the lines, the seats faced directly into the outfield. Are you sure you were ever at the old park?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2003, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Ok, so let's agree that there are some boxes that have never been used. Fine. But most of the boxes are being used, right? I'd bet that there are more boxes being used than would for just on one level, and each of those additional boxes provides additional revenue. I'm also of the opinion that it's not the height of the upper deck that makes it so empty so often of the time, it's done just fine in the early 90s or when they are cheap. I find it very unlikely that people (at least not many people) who otherwise would be happy going to Sox games in the upper deck are not going solely because they're an extra 10 or 20 feet higher than they would be.

Think of it this way - if there are 10 extra full boxes (just a random guess) that earn the Sox, say, $1000, it at the very least helps make up for those seats solely empty because of the height, and many times probably far exceeds it.

This whole excercise is academic. The upper deck isn't changing in any way that effects the 3 decks beneath it, or the Diamond Suites storage area those decks contain. However, given how the Sox constantly whine about limited budgets and too little attendance, it is just wrong to draw the conclusions you've reached.

First, consider what Reifert said to the Southtown last week:
"Our big goal has always been to change the upper deck. It's the No. 1 issue for fans in all the polling we've done. Even people who don't sit in the upper deck say it's their No. 1 complaint," team spokesman Scott Reifert said.

Whether you or I think the upper deck is just fine really doesn't matter. Sox Fans have spoken and (13 years later) the Sox are responding. The upper deck is getting fixed within whatever budget the Sox can afford. It's really pointless to fight city hall on this point.

Second, consider the math and rethink your conclusion. Let's say all the empty unused space on the Diamond Suites deck could bring in an extra $2 million in additional revenue to the Sox. (That's $100,000 per suite, assuming 20 empty suites.) How much revenue could the 10,000 seat upper deck generate if the seats weren't the #1 issue for fans in all the Sox polling? The answer is frightening.

If the Sox had simply gotten the same price increases on 10,000 upper deck seats (a mere 181 percent increase since 1991) that they actually did get on bleacher seats (366 percent increase since 1991), it works to an extra $20.26 in revenue per seat for every seat sold up there.* Extended across 81 home dates that's a potential windfall of $16 million to the Sox. LOL! No wonder Reifert thinks it's important to fix the upper deck!

* ($11 UD seat in 1991 x 3.66 cumulative bleacher price increases) minus ($20 actual UD seat price in 2003) = $20.26 additional revenue per UD seat. I deliberately used the most conservative numbers possible so you wouldn't accuse me of overstating my case. The $16 million is a small estimate of the potential windfall because I used the UD box seat price increase rates rather than the lower rates of the UD nosebleed seats.

We're stuck with an upper deck that hurts the ballclub financially. The price increases the Sox have managed to take on seats around the ballpark prove the point. The Diamond Suites storage area is just one more manifestation that proves the point, too. I don't understand how much more evidence you could possibly want.

It's not going to change, and the Sox have already cried "Uncle!" So why are we still debating it?

anewman35
10-22-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge

Second, consider the math and rethink your conclusion. Let's say all the empty unused space on the Diamond Suites deck could bring in an extra $2 million in additional revenue to the Sox. (That's $100,000 per suite, assuming 20 empty suites.) How much revenue could the 10,000 seat upper deck generate if the seats weren't the #1 issue for fans in all the Sox polling? The answer is frightening.

If the Sox had simply gotten the same price increases on 10,000 upper deck seats (a mere 181 percent increase since 1991) that they actually did get on bleacher seats (366 percent increase since 1991), it works to an extra $27.58 in revenue per seat for every seat sold up there.* Extended across 81 home dates that's a potential windfall of $22 million to the Sox. LOL! No wonder Reifert thinks it's important to fix the upper deck!

We're stuck with an upper deck that hurts the ballclub financially. The price increases the Sox have managed to take on seats around the ballpark prove the point. The Diamond Suites storage area is just one more manifestation that proves the point, too. I don't understand how much more evidence you could possibly want.


I fully agree that it's pointless to argue about it, but that hasn't stopped you from repeatedly mentioning how bad it is, so I feel I must defend it. I don't see how you could possibly think it's guaranteed that if the upper deck was more expensive (even if it was lower), it would bring in more revenue for the team.

Let's say 2,000 people a game would attend more games if all the prices were the same but the upper deck was lower. I think we can agree that increase would be counteracted by less box revenue. So let's say they do the same thing, but raise the prices the same as the rest of the park - isn't it quite possible that they'd get less attendance, despite the better seats, because they'd be more expensive? I might not be typical, I realize, but when I think about going to a game, it's not the height that stops me, it's the cost. If I had a choice of being 20 feet lower for $10 more bucks, I wouldn't do it.

The stadium already has better, more expensive seats. It's called the lower deck. How many games a year is the lower deck not sold out?

That all said, I'm in no way saying the stadium is perfect, or that they made the right decision. Having less boxes would make the game better for a lot more fans, yes. But if there's one thing my econonics degree taught me, it's that what's best for the most people isn't always the best for profits, and this may be one of those cases.

maurice
10-22-2003, 10:14 AM
Speaking of polling, I really hope the Sox didn't ask their ticket holders what was wrong with the park. If they wanted to improve attendance, they should have asked baseball fans who do not attend very many Sox games (a much more difficult and expensive poll to conduct). My own informal polling indicates that the primary draws to Wrigley (v. the Cell) are: (1) Wrigley's fuzzy wuzzy sense of "history," and (2) the Lake View bar scene. Even ardent Sox haters pretty much have to concede that the Cell in superior to Wrigley with respect to the other major aspects of a live baseball experience. While the Sox cannot address issue #1, it would be very inexpensive to address issue #2 by constructing mixed-use buildings on the portions of the state-owned parking lots facing 35th St. The developments likely would pay for themselves (and then some). Instead, the Sox have spent scores of millions of dollars on interior park improvements which, although nice for the average Sox ticket holder, are less likely to attract new fans to Sox games.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
I fully agree that it's pointless to argue about it, but that hasn't stopped you from repeatedly mentioning how bad it is, so I feel I must defend it.....

Well obviously I'm not allowed to respond, so I won't.

Thanks.

anewman35
10-22-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Well obviously I'm not allowed to respond, so I won't.

Thanks.

Hey, you can do and say whatever you want. Just don't assume you're speaking for all Sox fans when you do.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-22-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by anewman35
Hey, you can do and say whatever you want. Just don't assume you're speaking for all Sox fans when you do.

I wasn't aware that I had done anything of the sort.

DannyCaterFan
10-22-2003, 04:06 PM
I too am a rare upper deck 27 game season ticket holder (sec.530) behind home plate. I think the view of the field from that vantage point affords me the opportunity to see all of the action, without having to compete with the crowds from the lower bowl. Eliminating 6 rows from the upper deck will only make it seem cozier up there and hopefully will give it a more enclosed feel to it.
I am one of those rare fans that never minded sitting that far up. hey Bob, any chance you are the guy sitting in row 1 of my section? See you next season.

39thandWallace
10-22-2003, 05:49 PM
They should build an upper deck in the outfield that would not only look good but make up for the lost seats.

Brian26
10-22-2003, 07:24 PM
Anxiously awaiting the Hangar HOK architectural renderings.

HOK=Hangar On Krack.

batmanZoSo
10-22-2003, 08:41 PM
DickAllen,

You've gotta be kidding. Down the left field line at fenway, the grandstand turns toward home plate at about a 45 degree angle. Even on the right side, it's angled somewhat, moreso than the Cell.....though if you're past the foul pole on the right side there, it's bad because it just keeps going, it doesn't turn and just jets straight down the line.

soxguy
10-22-2003, 09:16 PM
Everyone has been complaining about the upper deck since this stadium was built.......now they are addressing it the only way that is feasable! What more do you have to complain about. Maybe the seats they are taking out are the ones that would, in the past, seat all of the bitchy moany types. ........good bye!....nah its just wishful thinking . Just stop complaining and enjoy the park for what it is......a VERY fan friendly venue.

3rdgensoxfan
10-25-2003, 09:29 AM
For those of you interested in the project, the White Sox published an article on whitesox.com today. It says that they are removing eight rows of seating, enclosing the concourse and rebuilding an improved roof. While they haven't shown any renderings, this is a great improvement over the lack of information that has been given thus far. They also posted numerous pictures of the demolition.

soxnut
10-25-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by soxguy
Everyone has been complaining about the upper deck since this stadium was built.......now they are addressing it the only way that is feasable! What more do you have to complain about. Maybe the seats they are taking out are the ones that would, in the past, seat all of the bitchy moany types. ........good bye!....nah its just wishful thinking . Just stop complaining and enjoy the park for what it is......a VERY fan friendly venue.

Ditto soxguy..............

I am so tired of it. People will always find something to complain about. Too bad for them though................ :smile:

munchman33
10-26-2003, 08:50 PM
I heard they're removing the top rows to install an overhanging roof, like at Old Comiskey. Is that true?