PDA

View Full Version : Phase V renovations for 2005


joeynach
03-28-2004, 07:00 PM
So now that the 2004 renovations are almost complete what is the outlook for next years final round. What are we going to see. What has been proposed, is anything definite yet. I would love to see the HR porch was well as new grand entrance building thing in left, especially if that means we get rid of those dumb exterior ramps and move them inside. Anyone have any info on the 5th and final phase.

Huisj
03-28-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
So now that the 2004 renovations are almost complete what is the outlook for next years final round. What are we going to see. What has been proposed, is anything definite yet. I would love to see the HR porch was well as new grand entrance building thing in left, especially if that means we get rid of those dumb exterior ramps and move them inside. Anyone have any info on the 5th and final phase.

I've got no info, but wouldn't it be a huge job to move those ramps inside? They'd have to gut half the structure and then rebuild it. that would be enourmously expensive it seems.

jortafan
03-28-2004, 08:41 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
I've got no info, but wouldn't it be a huge job to move those ramps inside? They'd have to gut half the structure and then rebuild it. that would be enourmously expensive it seems.

Not only that, but I would doubt they could finish the work during a single off-season. And no, I wouldn't want to see the Sox having to rent Wrigley Field (or any other building) for a few games while construction continues.

Huisj
03-28-2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by jortafan
Not only that, but I would doubt they could finish the work during a single off-season. And no, I wouldn't want to see the Sox having to rent Wrigley Field (or any other building) for a few games while construction continues.

They could just play on old comiskey's field in the parking lot for a while. they wouldn't even have to paint the foul lines each day.

Hangar18
03-28-2004, 10:03 PM
I propose that they REMOVE THOSE HORRIBLE Kennedy Expressway-sized, Characterless Billboards From the outfield.
THey are WAY TOO BIG and Terribly Out-of-Scale with the Rest
of the Field/Park. In its stead, bulldoze all of that nonsense
thats Currently in the outfield, Fake Truss and all, and put a number of Real Buildings/Storefronts, that can be Used YEAR-ROUND. On the Tops of these "buildings", put decks so that people can watch the game from up there, and then Put Some Classy Looking 1940's, 1950's era billboards up there.

Frank the Tank
03-28-2004, 10:53 PM
I am realistically expecting phase v to include three things:
1. home run landing
2. green seats
3. "concrete cover-up job"

I don't understand why they did the upper deck renovation during phase IV. Why not build the home run landing first? In by so doing, it would have increased the capacity of the cell to well over 50,000. Instead, the capacity will be reducted to just over 40,000. I know it would only make a difference in maybe four games (cubs/sox, opening day), but the extra money could have funded some more minor upgrades.

Hangar18
03-28-2004, 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank

I don't understand why they did the upper deck renovation during phase IV. Why not build the home run landing first? In by so doing, it would have increased the capacity of the cell to well over 50,000. Instead, the capacity will be reducted to just over 40,000. I know it would only make a difference in maybe four games (cubs/sox, opening day), but the extra money could have funded some more minor upgrades.

Than we could have a JackAss writer like Mike Kiley write an article Praising Reinsdorf for having the wherewithal of building the New RF UpperDeck and crediting him for Funding some minor upgrades

Shoeless Joe
03-28-2004, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
I don't understand why they did the upper deck renovation during phase IV. Why not build the home run landing first? In by so doing, it would have increased the capacity of the cell to well over 50,000. Instead, the capacity will be reducted to just over 40,000. I know it would only make a difference in maybe four games (cubs/sox, opening day), but the extra money could have funded some more minor upgrades.

I think the main reason they did this was because the media and countless amount of fans bashed the upper deck so much that a change had to be made. No doubt that it would actually make more sense to do it the as you stated but in the end it should work out.

rcescato
03-28-2004, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
I am realistically expecting phase v to include three things:
1. home run landing
2. green seats
3. "concrete cover-up job"

I don't understand why they did the upper deck renovation during phase IV. Why not build the home run landing first? In by so doing, it would have increased the capacity of the cell to well over 50,000. Instead, the capacity will be reducted to just over 40,000. I know it would only make a difference in maybe four games (cubs/sox, opening day), but the extra money could have funded some more minor upgrades.


I am almost sure the seats are turning gree. I do know for sure that new seats are being put right behind home plate ala jacobs field. Also the new homer landing is suppose to be put there.
Rich

JohnBasedowYoda
03-28-2004, 11:49 PM
i heard from a buddy of mine that that truswork around those outfield signs was gonna be redone with brickwork. Something like that. I think they're gonna completely redo all that especially if that deck is added

Brian26
03-29-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by JohnBasedowYoda
i heard from a buddy of mine that that truswork around those outfield signs was gonna be redone with brickwork. Something like that. I think they're gonna completely redo all that especially if that deck is added

That could look very nice. Wish there were some renderings on that though.

JohnBasedowYoda
03-29-2004, 02:39 AM
I really don't know if that's for sure though. My friend works for the city or something and heard it through the grapevine

BeerHandle
03-29-2004, 09:43 AM
My friend talked to his ticket rep and the home run landing will be built in right field between the the last row of seats and the billboards. Also, the sox plan to build a little league ball park where old comiskey was located and will use the home plate. The park will be for little league (like T-ball) and whiffle ball.

Lastly the Sox are tyring sell the naming rights for the fan deck. Rumor is that it will be the Jack Daniels Fan Deck.

munchman33
03-29-2004, 10:18 AM
I'd like to see them get rid of some of the offices on the outside of the building and add some restaurants/bars/gift shops accessible from the outside of the building, like most ballparks have nowadays.

soxnut
03-29-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by BeerHandle
My friend talked to his ticket rep and the home run landing will be built in right field between the the last row of seats and the billboards. Also, the sox plan to build a little league ball park where old comiskey was located and will use the home plate. The park will be for little league (like T-ball) and whiffle ball.

Lastly the Sox are tyring sell the naming rights for the fan deck. Rumor is that it will be the Jack Daniels Fan Deck.


Does you're rep think that's all that will be done? I am still hoping for some type of building in the lf corner that would house a Front Row Fridays type restaurant, a new White Sox Hall of Fame and new gift shop.

soxnut
03-29-2004, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by munchman33
I'd like to see them get rid of some of the offices on the outside of the building and add some restaurants/bars/gift shops accessible from the outside of the building, like most ballparks have nowadays.

Sound like WE'RE on the same page. :D:

soxnut
03-29-2004, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by rcescato
I am almost sure the seats are turning gree. I do know for sure that new seats are being put right behind home plate ala jacobs field. Also the new homer landing is suppose to be put there.
Rich

According to JR, who was on the radio last week, when asked that question, he said that the blue seats are good for at least another 4-5 years, and then they would consider changing after that. :(:

IronFisk
03-29-2004, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
According to JR, who was on the radio last week, when asked that question, he said that the blue seats are good for at least another 4-5 years, and then they would consider changing after that. :(:

4-5 years? Those seats are only 13 or so years old. What is the life expectancy of plastic stadium seats anyway? I know many older parks have changed, but either the existing seats were ugly or wood.

Anybody got any ideas here?

soxnut
03-29-2004, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by IronFisk
4-5 years? Those seats are only 13 or so years old. What is the life expectancy of plastic stadium seats anyway? I know many older parks have changed, but either the existing seats were ugly or wood.

Anybody got any ideas here?

Maybe somehow it has to do with insurance liability. With they way people are always trying to sue, it probably is suggested to replace before any seats break. :?:

Irishsox1
03-29-2004, 11:00 AM
The blue seats work fine and should last a long, long time, but the Blue is ugly. I would love to see the exterior covered in brick. The nasty painted concrete is something I've hated since day 1. On the whole, its nice to see the Sox finally address the stadium. The feel of the park has been a nightmare since the beginning, but that can be changed and the park can come around.

BeerHandle
03-29-2004, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
Does you're rep think that's all that will be done? I am still hoping for some type of building in the lf corner that would house a Front Row Fridays type restaurant, a new White Sox Hall of Fame and new gift shop.

He didn't mention it.

DrummerGeorgefan
03-29-2004, 11:49 AM
It would be nice to see the footprint of the old stadium made into a park where you could actually play baseball. I never understood why they would allow parking on top of the diamond.

They should do it a la Field of dreams. It would serve the neighborhood and be a great place for kids to play a game before going into the stadium.

sas1974
03-29-2004, 12:14 PM
While I agree that green seats would look nicer, I couldn't care less what color they are.

I also find it funny that many of the people bitching about the lack of green seats are probably the same people that were all pissed off that the blue seats that were removed sold out before they could purchase one.

joeynach
03-29-2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Irishsox1
The blue seats work fine and should last a long, long time, but the Blue is ugly. I would love to see the exterior covered in brick. The nasty painted concrete is something I've hated since day 1. On the whole, its nice to see the Sox finally address the stadium. The feel of the park has been a nightmare since the beginning, but that can be changed and the park can come around.

I would love to see the huge arched windows on the outside changed from a blue tint to a charcoal colered tint. Especially if they change exterior tan concrete facade to a different color or different material. Dont get me wrong i love the windows and the archetitcture of them, but that ligts blue just color just seems so 70's. I mean when we moved into our current home in the 90's it took years for us to get rid of all the nasty light green and light blue carpet and walls and stuff that had been in there from the previous owner in the 70's. Yuck.

Sell Jerry Sell!
03-29-2004, 12:23 PM
painting the outside of the stadium white and make it look like the old place?

Baby Fisk
03-29-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I propose that they REMOVE THOSE HORRIBLE Kennedy Expressway-sized, Characterless Billboards From the outfield.
THey are WAY TOO BIG and Terribly Out-of-Scale with the Rest
of the Field/Park. In its stead, bulldoze all of that nonsense
thats Currently in the outfield, Fake Truss and all, and put a number of Real Buildings/Storefronts, that can be Used YEAR-ROUND. On the Tops of these "buildings", put decks so that people can watch the game from up there, and then Put Some Classy Looking 1940's, 1950's era billboards up there.

:reinsy

*spewing out his coffee*

"Holy cats! You know how much that would cost?! We'd have to unload the entire starting rotation and hire batboys to pitch. Is that what you people want? On the flip side, maybe we could tear down that scoreboard -- which I never liked anyway because it's too Veeckish -- and put up a schoolyard-style wire fence in right like we had at beautiful, glorious Ebbets Field. Mmmmmmm, Ebbets..."

joeynach
03-29-2004, 01:59 PM
Originally posted by Sell Jerry Sell!
painting the outside of the stadium white and make it look like the old place?

I think that would look nasty on such a large structure. I propose wither painting the tan pre fab conrete to more retro style colors of black, grey, charcoal, dark green, and such. Or better just cover it or replace it with brick facade with mixed in with some charcoal colored panels, lights, or steel slabs. Anything make it look a little more modenly classy, that pre fab tan conrete just looks disgusting, like its one of those temporary trailers they use as classrooms when public school get overcrowded.

Rush20
03-29-2004, 02:13 PM
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are rehabbing the place as I was one of the first fans that grew bored with the ballpark after it was built. It was (and still is) a great place for amenities, food, etc. however it was so sterile. The first thing I noticed after they moved across the street was that there was less fan noise due to the lack of a true upper deck/roof. The old placed rocked!

However, after looking at how much $$$ they are putting into this place I wonder whether or not they should have cut their losses and have US Cellular be the key sponsor for a whole new ballpark in the South Loop. I know there are people who don't think it could be done, however we have a mayor who is a SOX fan unlike Washington who showed no interest in the team at the time Comiskey II was negotiated. (If it wouldn't have been for Thompson, the Sox would be playing in the Tropicana dome).

Brian26
03-29-2004, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Sell Jerry Sell!
painting the outside of the stadium white and make it look like the old place?

You're joking, right? Veeck did that because he thought it made the outside of the park look better, although the inside was crumbling due to neglect. In reality, that attitude over the years was one of the reasons the old park had to be torn down. The color of the park right now is fantastic.

soxnut
03-29-2004, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
You're joking, right? Veeck did that because he thought it made the outside of the park look better, although the inside was crumbling due to neglect. In reality, that attitude over the years was one of the reasons the old park had to be torn down. The color of the park right now is fantastic.

I think the color of the park is ok. But, I think that they should accent it with a couple of colors. The walls look very flat, but by adding some color, it would give it more dimension.

joeynach
03-29-2004, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Rush20
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they are rehabbing the place as I was one of the first fans that grew bored with the ballpark after it was built. It was (and still is) a great place for amenities, food, etc. however it was so sterile. The first thing I noticed after they moved across the street was that there was less fan noise due to the lack of a true upper deck/roof. The old placed rocked!

However, after looking at how much $$$ they are putting into this place I wonder whether or not they should have cut their losses and have US Cellular be the key sponsor for a whole new ballpark in the South Loop. I know there are people who don't think it could be done, however we have a mayor who is a SOX fan unlike Washington who showed no interest in the team at the time Comiskey II was negotiated. (If it wouldn't have been for Thompson, the Sox would be playing in the Tropicana dome).

Were talking about $68 mil that US Cellular contributed for the naming rights. Lets say they pay that same amount to name a completely new stadium, fine. Comiskey Park Cost about $150 million to build, very cheap. Coors field, PacBell Park, PNC, etc cost an average of about $250 mil. So we get $68 from US Cel, $0 from the owner (just like last time) and that leaves $182 mil by the txpayers. Forget it. No way mayor daley can convince an enitre city legislature to raise taxes again just like he did 15 years ago for Comiskey and 2 years ago for Soldier Field. ANd even if he did the taxpayers would vote him right out of office. The mistake was the 1st time when Good old JR declined HOK's proposol of a retro style stadium, the exact same one as now Camden yards. ANd it even cost $50 mil less than the bowl shaped model he choose.

Rush20
03-29-2004, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
Were talking about $68 mil that US Cellular contributed for the naming rights. Lets say they pay that same amount to name a completely new stadium, fine. Comiskey Park Cost about $150 million to build, very cheap. Coors field, PacBell Park, PNC, etc cost an average of about $250 mil. So we get $68 from US Cel, $0 from the owner (just like last time) and that leaves $182 mil by the txpayers. Forget it. No way mayor daley can convince an enitre city legislature to raise taxes again just like he did 15 years ago for Comiskey and 2 years ago for Soldier Field. ANd even if he did the taxpayers would vote him right out of office. The mistake was the 1st time when Good old JR declined HOK's proposol of a retro style stadium, the exact same one as now Camden yards. ANd it even cost $50 mil less than the bowl shaped model he choose.


I thought the whole Camden Yards proposal was nothing more than an urban legend. I think Camden is a lot nicer than Comiskey II, however the right field warehouse is a big part of that architecture. I can't imagine the same design would have worked on the southside. Instead of the warehouse, we'd have the Stately Gardens.

I also thought Comiskey II was to be paid off in 2005. I know JR just re-signed a lease with the Illinois Sports Authority.

Perhaps if US Cellular was offered naming rights to a brand new park, they would have been willing to fork over the full price. I think if the SOX could have worked some financial magic with a private sponsor, Daley would have helped work out a land deal. I think Soldier Field was an entirely different animal due to the Park District operating the stadium. Although I haven't been to a game yet, I'm not as upset over that design as I was with Comiskey II. At least on the inside, the new Bears stadium is very nice. The design is a little wacky, however it works for the fans. Too bad they couldn't have simply bricked up past the collanades instead of building the steel bowl.

I know - us picky Chicagoans.

mweflen
03-29-2004, 08:03 PM
green seats were already confirmed for phase 5. i think it will be an improvement - closer to the look of the old park, and easier to ignore when they're empty.

as far as the blue seats' durability - many cupholders are coming off, leaving exposed screws. some seats are wearing around to bolts. i think it may be the corpulent 'fan base' ;)

either way though, they're still tons more comfortable than wrigley - the cubs should hire out some chiropractor booths that could be placed next to the stone aged bathrooms...

Frank the Tank
03-29-2004, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
green seats were already confirmed for phase 5. ...

Where???

Brian26
03-29-2004, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
The mistake was the 1st time when Good old JR declined HOK's proposol of a retro style stadium, the exact same one as now Camden yards. ANd it even cost $50 mil less than the bowl shaped model he choose.

The EXACT same version as Camden? Would love to know where you got this information.

Soxaholic
03-29-2004, 08:26 PM
I know someone has mentioned this before but when I went for my vendor orientation at USCF, there were 6 or so dark green seats like the ones at Jacob's Field in the rear of the main entrance. They were in a few different styles so maybe they're looking for the right type of seat for the ballpark.

joeynach
03-29-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Rush20
I thought the whole Camden Yards proposal was nothing more than an urban legend. I think Camden is a lot nicer than Comiskey II, however the right field warehouse is a big part of that architecture. I can't imagine the same design would have worked on the southside. Instead of the warehouse, we'd have the Stately Gardens.

I also thought Comiskey II was to be paid off in 2005. I know JR just re-signed a lease with the Illinois Sports Authority.

Perhaps if US Cellular was offered naming rights to a brand new park, they would have been willing to fork over the full price. I think if the SOX could have worked some financial magic with a private sponsor, Daley would have helped work out a land deal. I think Soldier Field was an entirely different animal due to the Park District operating the stadium. Although I haven't been to a game yet, I'm not as upset over that design as I was with Comiskey II. At least on the inside, the new Bears stadium is very nice. The design is a little wacky, however it works for the fans. Too bad they couldn't have simply bricked up past the collanades instead of building the steel bowl.

I know - us picky Chicagoans.

It is not an urban legend. The a very similiar design of Camden Yards, if not exact was proposed by HOK to the Chairman. It was the first time the retro style had been proposed. I can understand JR not wanting to risk a new design to the public, since it was all their money anyway. But from what i have heard he shot down the proposal becuase it didn't offer as many skyboxes as the bowl shaped and becuase construction time was longer than he wanted. JR wanted the old stadium demolished ASAP, otherwise he would have to pay the rising costs to keep it open and safe, since it was basically falling apart and costing a fortune to maintain. Comiskey was built in 1 year and 2 months. Camden in about 2 years. For some reason JR wanted the old bowl shaped design built out of pre-fab concrete so it would be cheap and quick. Totally not taken into account were the looks and feel of the park, the astetics and such. Everything i know comes from a friend of my family's who is a minority shareholder. He explained the whole thing to me oneday while we were playing mens softball together.

Daver
03-29-2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by Soxaholic
I know someone has mentioned this before but when I went for my vendor orientation at USCF, there were 6 or so dark green seats like the ones at Jacob's Field in the rear of the main entrance. They were in a few different styles so maybe they're looking for the right type of seat for the ballpark.

Hey welcome aboard! :redneck

Hangar18
03-29-2004, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
It is not an urban legend. The a very similiar design of Camden Yards, if not exact was proposed by HOK to the Chairman. It was the first time the retro style had been proposed. I can understand JR not wanting to risk a new design to the public, since it was all their money anyway. But from what i have heard he shot down the proposal becuase it didn't offer as many skyboxes as the bowl shaped and becuase construction time was longer than he wanted. JR wanted the old stadium demolished ASAP, otherwise he would have to pay the rising costs to keep it open and safe, since it was basically falling apart and costing a fortune to maintain. Comiskey was built in 1 year and 2 months. Camden in about 2 years. For some reason JR wanted the old bowl shaped design built out of pre-fab concrete so it would be cheap and quick. Totally not taken into account were the looks and feel of the park, the astetics and such. Everything i know comes from a friend of my family's who is a minority shareholder. He explained the whole thing to me oneday while we were playing mens softball together.

Ive heard this also. The PreFab Concrete story is definitely TRUE because they DIDNT want to use Brick, wouldve made it more Expensive. How Close to Camden was the design?
Who knows, but I know at some point, one of the Architects
will Spill the "Beans" and tell what Really went down when
Uncle Jerry tried his hand at Architecture and Urban Planning.
Now see, If Mike Kiley were a SOX beat reporter, he could get that story out of the woodwork.......nahhh, hes Lazy

Frank the Tank
03-29-2004, 09:17 PM
I honestly don't blame JR for the New Comiskey Park. I don't know how you could blame anyone. It definetly wasn't about the money, new comiskey park cost considerably more to build than Camden Yards. Building a retro park was bold and unproven at the time. Point being, if Sox management would have known retro parks would be popular, I'm sure they wouldn't have opted for a cookie-cutter. I remember people describing New Comiskey as being "state of the art". In 1991, I don't remember anyone complaining that JR built "a cheap and quick ballpark".

soxnut
03-29-2004, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
I honestly don't blame JR for the New Comiskey Park. I don't know how you could blame anyone. It definetly wasn't about the money, new comiskey park cost considerably more to build than Camden Yards. Building a retro park was bold and unproven at the time. Point being, if Sox management would have known retro parks would be popular, I'm sure they wouldn't have opted for a cookie-cutter. I remember people describing New Comiskey as being "state of the art". In 1991, I don't remember anyone complaining that JR built "a cheap and quick ballpark".

You're right. I don't remember anyone saying that either. I could see the Sox not wanting to risk it with a retro-style ballpark. I remember seeing the drawings and model of Camden Yards on ESPN when it was announced. I was not impressed. Of course now, I think Camden looks great, as well as Pac Bell and PNC Park.

At the time Comiskey II was built, the so called "state of the art" type of ballparks were Royals Stadium, Dodger Stadium and Skydome. I think Royals and Dodger are the ballparks that influenced Comiskey II's design. With the renovations that are being done, and hopefully what is planned, Comiskey will be a great park.

Brian26
03-29-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
It is not an urban legend. The a very similiar design of Camden Yards, if not exact was proposed by HOK to the Chairman. .... Comiskey was built in 1 year and 2 months. Camden in about 2 years. For some reason JR wanted the old bowl shaped design built out of pre-fab concrete so it would be cheap and quick.

You seem to be mixing facts with legend here. I'm trying to weed through the bull**** and come up with the true story. Everyone here has heard the story that the Chairman was presented with a retro-style design that he ultimately nixed in favor of what became New Comiskey Park, a more modern, sleek design. And, everyone knows the story that New Comiskey was the actual plan developed a few years earlier for the Addison site.

What I'm questioning is the statement that the retro design was an exact copy of Camden Yards. Where did you get this? And if the Sox would have secured the Camden design, what would have gone up in Baltimore? Since Camden's design is predominately centered around the old warehouse building in rightfield, it doesn't make sense to say that the design was actually intended for Chicago first (which doesnt have an existing building anywhere near the Old Comiskey site).

Just another small point, and I'm going by memory here. Wasn't ground broken on the site of New Comiskey around May 1, 1989? You're saying the construction was finished by July 1, 1990? 1 year and 2 months? That's not possible at all. Photos taken during the last game at Old Comiksey show that the new park still wasn't completed.

kittle545feet
03-29-2004, 10:15 PM
i also can't remember anyone complaining about the stadium and the blue seats and everything else us fickle sox fans complain about back when the park opened in '91. i can remember being at that first game in the new park and being blown away by the sox new home. while i missed the old park (and still do- i sometimes have dreams where i'm at old comiskey watching a game- i don't want to wake up) i was excited and impressed at the new one but knew that no matter how incredible or how crappy the place was going to be recieved, the sox needed to win in order to fill any park. i think the majority of the complaining began after the strike year of '94 when we were robbed of possibly the best chance of winning a world series title since 1917. (thanks uncle jerry ) when winning was taken away, we disgruntled sox fans took frustrations out on many things, but mainly the park. truth is, they could have pink seats and oxygen tanks half way up the upper deck for altitude sickness, but if we were winning, all of this wouldn't even be talked about.
but since we're not winning, i would love to see all concrete work covered in the fake brick that jerry was to cheap to buy in the beginning and i am really looking forward to the homerun porch in right and the green seats. but i'm really looking forward to the sox winning.........someday. :kermit

joeynach
03-30-2004, 01:54 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
You seem to be mixing facts with legend here. I'm trying to weed through the bull**** and come up with the true story. Everyone here has heard the story that the Chairman was presented with a retro-style design that he ultimately nixed in favor of what became New Comiskey Park, a more modern, sleek design. And, everyone knows the story that New Comiskey was the actual plan developed a few years earlier for the Addison site.

What I'm questioning is the statement that the retro design was an exact copy of Camden Yards. Where did you get this? And if the Sox would have secured the Camden design, what would have gone up in Baltimore? Since Camden's design is predominately centered around the old warehouse building in rightfield, it doesn't make sense to say that the design was actually intended for Chicago first (which doesnt have an existing building anywhere near the Old Comiskey site).

Just another small point, and I'm going by memory here. Wasn't ground broken on the site of New Comiskey around May 1, 1989? You're saying the construction was finished by July 1, 1990? 1 year and 2 months? That's not possible at all. Photos taken during the last game at Old Comiksey show that the new park still wasn't completed.

First of all i said HOK came to JR and proposed the retro style park. When he hired HOK to be the company who would design and build his stadium they are the ones who propsed to JR the Camden style retro stadium. To the extent of which it reflects camden i was told by my minority shareholder friend "very similiar" to the camden design. Obvisouly it wouldn't have incorporated any of that warehouse stuff, but HOK proposed building our own icon like that in the outfield backdrop. JR then probably confident that he knew what was best, since he is a bigtime real estate and planner and all, requested the stadium you see before you today. He wanted high capacity, quick construction, cheap cost, and two levels of suites pole to pole. Those were his demands and the product you see before you. He shot down the proposal by HOK to build a retro style park, the first of which was Camden. The reason construction didn't finish in the middle of July is becase i was just giving a round # from what i remember. Construction started May 7, 1989 and was supposed to take no longer than 1.5 years. Something happened though and it took longer, i think it was a harsh winter or something i cant really remember. It was completed, except for the final touches, tweaks, and tests by around New Years 1991.

Brian26
03-30-2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by joeynach
First of all i said HOK came to JR and proposed the retro style park. When he hired HOK to be the company who would design and build his stadium they are the ones who propsed to JR the Camden style retro stadium. To the extent of which it reflects camden i was told by my minority shareholder friend "very similiar" to the camden design. ..... Construction started May 7, 1989 and was supposed to take no longer than 1.5 years. Something happened though and it took longer, i think it was a harsh winter or something i cant really remember. It was completed, except for the final touches, tweaks, and tests by around New Years 1991.

Ok, so your first post said New Comiskey was originally going to be "EXACTLY" the same as Camden. Then you changed it to "almost exactly" the same. And now it has been changed to "very similar". I assume eventually we'll get to the truth, which was that HOK designed a retro-style park for JR which had some of the same elements as Camden.

Originally you said the construction of CP2 took a year and a month. Now you agree it took more like a year and nine months, which is closer to the 2 yrs Camden took than you originally quoted.

Hangar18
03-30-2004, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Brian26
Ok, so your first post said New Comiskey was originally going to be "EXACTLY" the same as Camden. Then you changed it to "almost exactly" the same. And now it has been changed to "very similar". I assume eventually we'll get to the truth, which was that HOK designed a retro-style park for JR which had some of the same elements as Camden.

Originally you said the construction of CP2 took a year and a month. Now you agree it took more like a year and nine months, which is closer to the 2 yrs Camden took than you originally quoted.

I think I get what he was Getting at when he said "exactly", no park could be "exact" because there was no Warehouse near newcomiskey. I know HOK came to Uncle Jerry with a "radical" design, but told them to Stick-it-where-the-sun-doesnt-shine. This is what happens when you Stop Thinking Forward, and Start to Let MONEY influence your decisions.
Uncle Jerry AND SOX FANS ALIKE are PAYING for his mistake Big Time and in more ways than we think
than we can all Imagine

Brian26
03-30-2004, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I know HOK came to Uncle Jerry with a "radical" design, but told them to Stick-it-where-the-sun-doesnt-shine

Somewhere out there, buried deep in somebody's file cabinet, is a set of preliminary plans for this design...and I would love to see them!

anewman35
03-30-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
He wanted high capacity, quick construction, cheap cost, and two levels of suites pole to pole. .

Are you implying Camden Yards doesn't have high capacity and cost a lot of money?

From the O's site:

The ballpark seats 48,876 (including standing room) and the project cost was approximately $110 million.

joecrede
03-30-2004, 12:43 PM
While it doesn't measure up to Camden Yards or PNC Park, through personal experience and talking to people who have been to these parks, I'm of the opinion that the Cell is as good or better a park than Jacobs Field, The Ballpark in Arlington, Safeco Field, Comerica Park, Miller Park or the Great American Ballpark.

Irishsox1
03-30-2004, 12:46 PM
What is the name of the company that is doing the remodeling again?

joeynach
03-30-2004, 01:50 PM
Originally posted by anewman35
Are you implying Camden Yards doesn't have high capacity and cost a lot of money?

From the O's site:

no not at all. my point is Jr acted too conservative, too old. not thinking that trends change and unwilling to be the guinne pig on retro style stadiums. i also have a feeling his ego got in the way. im Jr a bigtime real estate and planning guy, i know what the people want. well obviously not

nitetrain8601
04-01-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by kittle545feet
i also can't remember anyone complaining about the stadium and the blue seats and everything else us fickle sox fans complain about back when the park opened in '91. i can remember being at that first game in the new park and being blown away by the sox new home. while i missed the old park (and still do- i sometimes have dreams where i'm at old comiskey watching a game- i don't want to wake up) i was excited and impressed at the new one but knew that no matter how incredible or how crappy the place was going to be recieved, the sox needed to win in order to fill any park. i think the majority of the complaining began after the strike year of '94 when we were robbed of possibly the best chance of winning a world series title since 1917. (thanks uncle jerry ) when winning was taken away, we disgruntled sox fans took frustrations out on many things, but mainly the park. truth is, they could have pink seats and oxygen tanks half way up the upper deck for altitude sickness, but if we were winning, all of this wouldn't even be talked about.
but since we're not winning, i would love to see all concrete work covered in the fake brick that jerry was to cheap to buy in the beginning and i am really looking forward to the homerun porch in right and the green seats. but i'm really looking forward to the sox winning.........someday. :kermit

Greatest post ever. This is the reason for Sox fans b*tching about the cell. Even all my family members, with the exception of the lone Cub fan told me that when the park opened, everyone loved it, but when the strike happened, no one wanted a part of Jerry and basically complain about everything that he has been involved with to get him to sell the team or let someone else run it completely.

Hangar18
04-01-2004, 07:44 PM
NOt ME. my first time there, during the Opening Homestand, I liked that you COUld SEE EVERYTHING, and that the Bathrooms were really close by. But I remember being confused by the Highness of the UD, and the Blandness of the Concrete and Industrial Parking Lot Bricks used on the Concourse.
Later that first season, we got UD tickets just to see what it was Like, AND I HATED IT. I couldnt SEE anything, except Hammond IN and the SteelMills in South Chicago. To this day, Ive only been in the Upper Deck probably 10 to 12 times. Including 2wice for AllStar and HRDErby.

My excitement was tempered shall we say, and it was Only Months later, when CAMDEN opened, did i realize we may have Missed Out on something. Every subsequent Park just Deepened that Feeling. The Day I Officially Hated the way OUr Park turned out, was when I went to Jacobs Field. Their UD is pretty steep too, but EVERYTHING else they did was excellent.

IM sure everyone wasnt going to slam the park on the first day, there was Nothing to Compare it to. We Went from Playing PONG on our TV's to Playing ATARI with New COmiskey. Unfortuneately, With a little more Hindsight and some more $$$$$$$$, We couldve Gotten the SONYPLAYSTATIONS that were seeing in Pittsburgh, Baltimore, SanFrancisco, SanDiego .......................ALAS, we are fixing our park up, and were on the right path

Yorke97
04-01-2004, 08:05 PM
An intersting comparison, Atari to New Comiskey....

The Sox were a victim of circumstance, the old park needed to be replaced quickly and prefab concrete was the quickest way about it. Remember, at the time the newest ballpark out there was Skydome, and everybody LOVED it, and still do I think. But I have never seen the appeal of Skydome minus the retractable roof (which are now commonplace). If we had the $$$ and time to build a Camden Yards type building, we might have had to play at Milwaukee or even (gulp) Wrigley. Money was being sunk into Old Comiskey every year to keep it up to code, and it was just money down the drain, and they knew it.

Frank the Tank
04-01-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Yorke97
An intersting comparison, Atari to New Comiskey....

If we had the $$$ and time to build a Camden Yards type building, we might have had to play at Milwaukee or even (gulp) Wrigley. Money was being sunk into Old Comiskey every year to keep it up to code, and it was just money down the drain, and they knew it.

Was time really that big of an issue? The New Soldier Field project probably had more work than New Comiskey and Camden Yards put together and it was built very quick. With regard to money, New Comiskey was at least 25% more expensive to build than Camden Yards.

Yorke97
04-01-2004, 08:41 PM
New Soldier Field was quickly done, yes, but it wasn't cheap.

If the Sox decieded to build a Camden style park instead, it would've opened at least a year later than Oriole Park. By that time Jerry would've been forced to sink more needless cash in order to Comiskey running another year.

Frank the Tank
04-01-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by Yorke97
New Soldier Field was quickly done, yes, but it wasn't cheap.

If the Sox decieded to build a Camden style park instead, it would've opened at least a year later than Oriole Park. By that time Jerry would've been forced to sink more needless cash in order to Comiskey running another year.

Why???? If the Empire State Building was able to be build in just 16 months, I'm pretty sure mankind could have managed to build a ballpark in under 2 years.