PDA

View Full Version : UD's at new Philadelphia and San Diego ballparks


hsnterprize
03-24-2004, 07:25 AM
Hey...

If any of you check out the virtual tours of Citizens Bank Park in Philly and Petco Park in San Diego, check out the steepness and number of rows in the uppermost decks. Now...I'm just as happy as anyone about the Sox cutting down the UD at the Cell. That deck was a lot higher and steeper than what we were used to at Old Comiskey Park. However, since there's no Wrigley Field in Philadelphia and San Diego to compare the new ballparks to, I don't think there will be a lot of downtalking about the places. Not to mention, both the Phillies and Padres are coming from 60's cookie-cutter stadiums, so I think the initial honeymoon for both places will be pretty good.

If the Phillies and Padres play well this year as many "experts" predict, their ballparks will be the "hot" places to be like so many other places before. But we all know that if the teams don't produce, the ballpark will have a lot of empty seats. Maybe not right away, but eventually, it will. You notice how Jacobs Field isn't sold out every night like it used to be? There's a reason for that, and it has NOTHING to do with the color of the seats. I like green chairs, but I like FULL chairs rather than empty chairs too.

Railsplitter
03-24-2004, 07:29 AM
Makes you long for the days when ball parks were strictly untilitarian structures.

soxnut
03-24-2004, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by Railsplitter
Makes you long for the days when ball parks were strictly untilitarian structures.

Are you really serious? Could you give me some examples? Hopefully you're not talking about the cookie-cutters....... :(:

soxnut
03-24-2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
[COLOR=red]Hey...

If any of you check out the virtual tours of Citizens Bank Park in Philly and Petco Park in San Diego, check out the steepness and number of rows in the uppermost decks. Now...I'm just as happy as anyone about the Sox cutting down the UD at the Cell. That deck was a lot higher and steeper than what we were used to at Old Comiskey Park. However, since there's no Wrigley Field in Philadelphia and San Diego to compare the new ballparks to, I don't think there will be a lot of downtalking about the places. COLOR]


I think the whole Wrigley comparison is the only reason that Comiskey has gotten a bad rap. I have talked to a few guys who have websites that review ballparks. Of course they have mentioned the steepness factor and not really giving it a good review otherwise. I mentioned to these guys that I think Comiskey gets a bad rap because of it's comparison to Wrigley, and it seems to be graded harder because of that. For the most part, they agreed with me.

As for the two new parks this year, and whatever comes next, I don't think you'll ever hear that much negative critique about a ballpark's upper deck again.

doublem23
03-24-2004, 10:09 AM
U.S. Cellular's Upper Deck doesn't phase me, and back in the day when it was regularly selling well, I used to love to run up the steps of the U.D. to my 20th row seat. However, you can really feel your head spin at Camden and Jacobs Field. That's some steep ****.

soxnut
03-24-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by doublem23
U.S. Cellular's Upper Deck doesn't phase me, and back in the day when it was regularly selling well, I used to love to run up the steps of the U.D. to my 20th row seat. However, you can really feel your head spin at Camden and Jacobs Field. That's some steep ****.


You must be out of your mind. There's no way those cherished new retro-stlye ballparks have a steep incline!!!!!!!!! :angry: :smile:

IronFisk
03-24-2004, 03:01 PM
Funny, if you take a look at Philly and SD's new parks, they have a steep upper deck, and the seat are BLUE. Hmmm, sound familiar?

:D:

hsnterprize
03-24-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by IronFisk
Funny, if you take a look at Philly and SD's new parks, they have a steep upper deck, and the seat are BLUE. Hmmm, sound familiar?

:D: The blue seats in the new places coincide with the teams' colors. So I don't think there will be much recourse about them like there was here. Like another poster said, new Comiskey's constant comparisons to Wrigley led to the changes the Sox are making to the place right now.

And like I said, Philadelphia and San Diego are moving into baseball-only parks from the mega-stadiums that were such the rage back in the 60's. The Sox went from one baseball-only park to another, so comparisons from old to new were going to be tough...let alone new Comiskey vs. Wrigley.

Corlose 15
03-25-2004, 12:29 AM
I always felt that the UD issue at Comiskey was overblown. Towards the top it starts to get bad but about half way up the seats are fine. Now that they're cutting off the top 8 rows it should be even less of a problem. The UD at Sox Park is no steeper than at several other parks.

Also, did anyone else notice the common outfield stands theme among the Philadelphia and San Diego parks?

hsnterprize
03-25-2004, 05:28 AM
I noticed the similarities. Single-decked outfield seats seems to be the trend right now. Not to mention, there is a "competition" between the new Philly ballpark and Jacobs Field for the "largest scoreboard" in the majors. Citizens Bank Park will have the largest scoreboard in the National League.

wdelaney72
03-25-2004, 07:42 AM
My family made a road trip last summer out east. We spent the night in Cleveland and went to a game at the Jake. As we climbed our way up the upper deck, the first thing my wife said was "Whoa, this is steep!" My wife has interest or allegience in any baseball. It was a completely unbiased reacation.

I think the upper deck thing at the Cell has been long overblown. It's not any steeper than any of these other parks. Phase IV makes it appear much less intimidating.

TornLabrum
03-25-2004, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by wdelaney72
My family made a road trip last summer out east. We spent the night in Cleveland and went to a game at the Jake. As we climbed our way up the upper deck, the first thing my wife said was "Whoa, this is steep!" My wife has interest or allegience in any baseball. It was a completely unbiased reacation.

I think the upper deck thing at the Cell has been long overblown. It's not any steeper than any of these other parks. Phase IV makes it appear much less intimidating.

Remember where the first published criticism of Comiskey II's upper deck came from: the architecture critic for...you guessed it...the Chicago Tribune.

soxnut
03-25-2004, 08:30 AM
I've always felt the subject of the steepness was overblown. And it's strange how most of the other newer parks have just as steep of an UD and yet, there's never anything said about it. Almost every commentary in any article, book or website, Comiskey's UD is always mentioned as steep. I'd like to know where I can get figures about the steepness of all of the ballparks. That would be a fair, factual comparison.

The elimination of the 8 rows should make a huge difference. The park now looks more proportionately correct. It doesn't look top-heavy anymore. So hopefully the ballpark will get better press. :smile:

TornLabrum
03-25-2004, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
I've always felt the subject of the steepness was overblown. And it's strange how most of the other newer parks have just as steep of an UD and yet, there's never anything said about it. Almost every commentary in any article, book or website, Comiskey's UD is always mentioned as steep. I'd like to know where I can get figures about the steepness of all of the ballparks. That would be a fair, factual comparison.

The elimination of the 8 rows should make a huge difference. The park now looks more proportionately correct. It doesn't look top-heavy anymore. So hopefully the ballpark will get better press. :smile:

The only thing I can figure out is that it's less fatiguing to climb to the tops of the UDs of those other ball parks because they didn't put the entrances at the bottom like the Sox did. Now there was planning!

Kittle
03-25-2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
The only thing I can figure out is that it's less fatiguing to climb to the tops of the UDs of those other ball parks because they didn't put the entrances at the bottom like the Sox did. Now there was planning!

IIRC, the UD had something like 31 rows before the rennovation and now it's in the low-mid 20s. And the entrances are at like the 4th row? I agree that putting the entrance smack in the middle would've been better, but having to walk up 20 rows MAX right now isn't that bad, IMO.

FWIW, I've taken many friends from out of town (Cleveland, St. Louis, Iowa, Connecticut, etc.) to games at The Cell over the last few years and we've always sat in the UD (maybe 10th-15th row). Not one of them made a negative comment about the UD and they all had nice things to say about the ballpark. My fiancee, who went to Yankee Stadium and Fenway in her youth, doesn't understand why the Chicago media constantly rips the place to pieces.

batmanZoSo
03-25-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
I've always felt the subject of the steepness was overblown. And it's strange how most of the other newer parks have just as steep of an UD and yet, there's never anything said about it. Almost every commentary in any article, book or website, Comiskey's UD is always mentioned as steep. I'd like to know where I can get figures about the steepness of all of the ballparks. That would be a fair, factual comparison.

The elimination of the 8 rows should make a huge difference. The park now looks more proportionately correct. It doesn't look top-heavy anymore. So hopefully the ballpark will get better press. :smile:

I don't think those other parks really are quite as steep. We must edge them out by a degree. And I'm not saying it bothers ME, but once I took my mom up there and she was pretty freaked at first.

If any ballpark is as steep it's gotta be the Jake. That place is setup exactly like ours with the same size lower deck with 30 odd rows and three mezzanines...so the first row of the UD there must be the same height above and distance from the edge of the field. And as such, the UD pitch would have to be just as great in order for the field of fair play to be visible.

I think ours looks so steep because it's curved all around...even along the baselines it's not perfectly straight. You can see the steepness from many angles by looking at the aisles going up. All the other parks are only curved behind home plate and straight everywhere else. That seems to take away a degree for other parks and add one for us (so it would appear anyway).

People have said they should remove our UD and build one less steep but that's impossible because even one degree and your view would probably start 5 feet into fair play. As it is, you can't see the entire span of foul territory.

TornLabrum
03-25-2004, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by Kittle
IIRC, the UD had something like 31 rows before the rennovation and now it's in the low-mid 20s. And the entrances are at like the 4th row? I agree that putting the entrance smack in the middle would've been better, but having to walk up 20 rows MAX right now isn't that bad, IMO.

FWIW, I've taken many friends from out of town (Cleveland, St. Louis, Iowa, Connecticut, etc.) to games at The Cell over the last few years and we've always sat in the UD (maybe 10th-15th row). Not one of them made a negative comment about the UD and they all had nice things to say about the ballpark. My fiancee, who went to Yankee Stadium and Fenway in her youth, doesn't understand why the Chicago media constantly rips the place to pieces.

There were 29 rows before the renovation, so it's down to 21. We had seats in something like row 26 or 27 for the futures game last summer and I petered out hauling my 300-plus lb. up the steps at about row 21 (one big reason for my current diet).

As far as the view from up there, you can see everything, and I like that.

KingXerxes
03-25-2004, 11:18 AM
If you take a look at those other parks you see that their upper decks are pretty much the same as ours, but they won't get nearly as criticized as Comiskey Park due to one very big element, and that is the parks that they have replaced.

Let me explain. Memorial Stadium in Baltimore was a rather unsightly "plain Jane" of a ballpark, and Municipal in Cleveland (which I thought was kind of cool due to it's overwhelming proportions) was generally deemed to be a dump. When Camdem Yards and Jacobs Field opened they were widely regarded to be major upgrades to cities that previously had lousy ballparks. The same went for San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, and will definitely go for Philadelphia and quite possibly San Diego.

Then you look at the White Sox and Detroit. While their old parks were certainly in disrepair, they were deemed to be great ballparks which were simply run down. They have been widely regarded as lousy parks even though they're pretty much the same as the others being put up.

Irishsox1
03-25-2004, 11:28 AM
Reputations are impossible to shake. New Comiskey has a bad reputation and it will take a long time (40 to 50 years) to lose it and as long as the flubbies are owned by the Evil Empire, the Tribune will always bring up how bad the new stadium is and how is doesn't compare to Wrigley Field.

uribe151
03-25-2004, 12:03 PM
because they compare it to the upper deck at old comiskey, which was close to the action.
the upper deck behind home plate was, to many fans, the best place to watch the game

nobody but nobody says that now


ps jack murphy in san diego was not really a cookie cutter, it was a real nice ballpark

soxnut
03-25-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by uribe151
because they compare it to the upper deck at old comiskey, which was close to the action.
the upper deck behind home plate was, to many fans, the best place to watch the game

nobody but nobody says that now


ps jack murphy in san diego was not really a cookie cutter, it was a real nice ballpark

I wouldn't say nobody says that about the upper deck behind home plate, but it's not as good a place to view as the old park. But, I think it's a good seat there. You can see all the action unfold from those seats.

anewman35
03-25-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by uribe151
the upper deck behind home plate was, to many fans, the best place to watch the game

nobody but nobody says that now


I do. I think the upper deck behind the plate is my favorite place to watch a game there. And it's where my opening day tickets are, woo!

soxnut
03-25-2004, 12:16 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
If you take a look at those other parks you see that their upper decks are pretty much the same as ours, but they won't get nearly as criticized as Comiskey Park due to one very big element, and that is the parks that they have replaced.

Let me explain. Memorial Stadium in Baltimore was a rather unsightly "plain Jane" of a ballpark, and Municipal in Cleveland (which I thought was kind of cool due to it's overwhelming proportions) was generally deemed to be a dump. When Camdem Yards and Jacobs Field opened they were widely regarded to be major upgrades to cities that previously had lousy ballparks. The same went for San Francisco, Pittsburgh and Cincinnati, and will definitely go for Philadelphia and quite possibly San Diego.

Then you look at the White Sox and Detroit. While their old parks were certainly in disrepair, they were deemed to be great ballparks which were simply run down. They have been widely regarded as lousy parks even though they're pretty much the same as the others being put up.


That probably is one of the better explanations I've heard. Even though, I think it's still unfair criticism of our park. I've talked to some Cleveland fans while at Comiskey, and they said it's no worse than their park.

soxnut
03-25-2004, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
Reputations are impossible to shake. New Comiskey has a bad reputation and it will take a long time (40 to 50 years) to lose it and as long as the flubbies are owned by the Evil Empire, the Tribune will always bring up how bad the new stadium is and how is doesn't compare to Wrigley Field.

I know the Trib has to have something to do with it locally. But, nationally, it gets ripped as well. As I've mentioned; other newspapers, books, websites, etc. have also ripped the park.

I have a book that compares the upper deck of New Comiskey to Fenway's upper deck, just to mention one example. :(:

uribe151
03-25-2004, 12:23 PM
do you really mean that if you had your CHOICE of seats for the seventh game of the World Series (cubs/sox fall 2004?), you'd sit in the upper deck?

hhhmmmmmm.....

i'll have to re-check it out

ps enjoy opening day! go go sox!!!!!!!!!!!

anewman35
03-25-2004, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by uribe151
do you really mean that if you had your CHOICE of seats for the seventh game of the World Series (cubs/sox fall 2004?), you'd sit in the upper deck?

hhhmmmmmm.....

i'll have to re-check it out


Well, I wouldn't like being stuck up there, and I have to admit that I've very very rarely sat in good lower deck seats, so I guess I shouldn't say that I'd always pick the upper deck, because if I had some great lower deck seats, I wouldn't mind at all. But I'd rather have upper deck seats in the infield than lower seats in the outfield or in the corners (or possibly even some of the higher lower deck rows).

The upper deck, especially the first couple rows, really isn't bad at all. A little high, sure, but you can see everything that happens on the field great. I've never understood what the problem with it is.

uribe151
03-25-2004, 12:44 PM
old comiskey had a really cool upper deck and the cel does not

TornLabrum
03-25-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
I know the Trib has to have something to do with it locally. But, nationally, it gets ripped as well. As I've mentioned; other newspapers, books, websites, etc. have also ripped the park.

I have a book that compares the upper deck of New Comiskey to Fenway's upper deck, just to mention one example. :(:

And where do you think the national media gets it's cue? From what the local media are saying.

robertks61
03-25-2004, 01:45 PM
While in Cleveland last year to watch the White Sox I was asked by a few fans about the Cell's upper deck. My reply to them is that it isn't any worse than theirs. Same steepness and maybe farther away than the Cell's