PDA

View Full Version : An Idea: Next Construction Job at UsCell: Face Seats down the lines, Towards Infield


Hangar18
03-29-2004, 12:18 PM
The Lower DEck seats, from the 3b area towards the Outfield,
and the 1b area towards the Outfield...........Need to be
Reconfigured TOWARDS THE INFIELD, where 90% of the game
is Taking Place, NOT TOWARDS CENTERFIELD. A bit annoying
having to Turn My head all the way to the RIGHT or LEFT just
to watch the game

soxnut
03-29-2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Lower DEck seats, from the 3b area towards the Outfield,
and the 1b area towards the Outfield...........Need to be
Reconfigured TOWARDS THE INFIELD, where 90% of the game
is Taking Place, NOT TOWARDS CENTERFIELD. A bit annoying
having to Turn My head all the way to the RIGHT or LEFT just
to watch the game


Hangar, I thought you worked hard, how much more nit-picking can you do?(jk)

Anyway, I kind of agree with you on that. A friend of mine said that's how they do it at BOB. I think it's a great idea. Maybe, when they change the seats, they can have the seats that angle towards the infield.

steff
03-29-2004, 12:26 PM
Hey PHG.. Maybe you can set up a complaint forum just for Henry... :D:

Eddie Gaedel
03-29-2004, 12:27 PM
yes, i don't like sitting in those areas. you get whiplash after about the 3rd inning. i'd rather sit in the UD infield.

joeynach
03-29-2004, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The Lower DEck seats, from the 3b area towards the Outfield,
and the 1b area towards the Outfield...........Need to be
Reconfigured TOWARDS THE INFIELD, where 90% of the game
is Taking Place, NOT TOWARDS CENTERFIELD. A bit annoying
having to Turn My head all the way to the RIGHT or LEFT just
to watch the game

I suggest you think about what you are saying before you say it. I mean understand what your saying, and yes the seats dont face the infeild. But thats becuase our stadium is bowl shaped design with circular shape stands instead of sharp angles and corners that change direction. If we were to do what you say, which would be awsome, the entire lower bowl would have to be cut and rebuilt. That would be a huge job and painstakeing as well. I know you are refering to camden, pacbell, pnc, minute maid, and such where the seats change direction and elevation in the lower bowl to prived better viewing angles, but hangar are stadium was built cheap, quick, and easy. This is what we got. I might not be perfect but really your proposal is unrealistic.

Brian26
03-29-2004, 01:13 PM
This is one topic that I disagree with Hangar on 100%. If you want to talk about whiplash, think about the seating configuration at Old Comiskey. Those seats were facing into the middle of centerfield with no angle whatsoever. The seats at the Cell were designed with comfort in mind, and they are angled gradually towards the infield. It would be impossible to change the angle of the seats without a total redesign of the park.

batmanZoSo
03-29-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
This is one topic that I disagree with Hangar on 100%. If you want to talk about whiplash, think about the seating configuration at Old Comiskey. Those seats were facing into the middle of centerfield with no angle whatsoever. The seats at the Cell were designed with comfort in mind, and they are angled gradually towards the infield. It would be impossible to change the angle of the seats without a total redesign of the park.

I thought Old Comiskey had average sightlines down there, not that bad. The grandstand was perfectly straight down the lines, but it was a pretty sharp angle...enough to make the backstop really far back.

What they could do with the Cell is remove the last ten sections of seats along the lines and install ones that are slightly turned towards the plate. I'm sure such a thing is not invented, but it could be.

batmanZoSo
03-29-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by joeynach
I suggest you think about what you are saying before you say it. I mean understand what your saying, and yes the seats dont face the infeild. But thats becuase our stadium is bowl shaped design with circular shape stands instead of sharp angles and corners that change direction. If we were to do what you say, which would be awsome, the entire lower bowl would have to be cut and rebuilt. That would be a huge job and painstakeing as well. I know you are refering to camden, pacbell, pnc, minute maid, and such where the seats change direction and elevation in the lower bowl to prived better viewing angles, but hangar are stadium was built cheap, quick, and easy. This is what we got. I might not be perfect but really your proposal is unrealistic.

If our stadium bowl was circular like Oakland, the seats down the line would hook around and face the plate. They have much better sightlines down there than we do. And sharp angles like you said (left field in Boston for instance) are good too. Over there the grandstand rises high right against the foul line ... you get a fantastic view of the plate but you can't see much of left field unless you're right on the wall. It's a trade off I'd take. Your best view should be of home plate. Even if it sacrifices other views.

Ours only curves gently toward the plate. It is rounded and has no vertices, but not "circular."

A.T. Money
03-29-2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by steff
Hey PHG.. Maybe you can set up a complaint forum just for Henry... :D:

That Sounds like a SPLENDID idea. I was THINKING More
along The Lines of a TYPE like Henry FORUM!

IronFisk
03-29-2004, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
I thought Old Comiskey had average sightlines down there, not that bad. The grandstand was perfectly straight down the lines, but it was a pretty sharp angle...enough to make the backstop really far back.

What they could do with the Cell is remove the last ten sections of seats along the lines and install ones that are slightly turned towards the plate. I'm sure such a thing is not invented, but it could be.

WHOA PILGRIMS! Thanks Hangar for vindicating me! Several months ago, I started a little post entitled..."Problems with the LOWER deck", where I took a s--tload of abuse about this EXACT issue.

One of my solutions involved this VERY remedy...angled seats. This product is ALREADY being used at PNC in Pittsburgh...I know...I sat in them. It's a simple idea, ESPECIALLY if they might put in new green seats. Even so, this does not mean the lower bowl needs to be reconstructed at all - same alignment, with the seats already turned within the row. Believe it or not, it works great.

Between 3B and the foul pole would be ideal.

Foulke You
03-29-2004, 02:57 PM
Personally, I love the Lower Deck at Comiskey. I wouldn't change it. It is a relatively minor inconvenience to just look over towards homeplate and the amount of money it would cost to reconfigure it wouldn't be worth it in my opinion. You'd have to spend millions just to get the seats turned an extra 15 degrees toward the field? Not a lot of bang for the buck. I've never found the lower deck distracting at all and the sightlines at our ballpark are some of the best around. Everyone is entitled to their opinion though.

sas1974
03-29-2004, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
If our stadium bowl was circular like Oakland, the seats down the line would hook around and face the plate. They have much better sightlines down there than we do. And sharp angles like you said (left field in Boston for instance) are good too. Over there the grandstand rises high right against the foul line ... you get a fantastic view of the plate but you can't see much of left field unless you're right on the wall. It's a trade off I'd take. Your best view should be of home plate. Even if it sacrifices other views.

Ours only curves gently toward the plate. It is rounded and has no vertices, but not "circular."

Isn't there a TON of foul territory at Net Assoc. Field? A perfectly round lower bowl would pull seats too far from the field of play.

batmanZoSo
03-29-2004, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by sas1974
Isn't there a TON of foul territory at Net Assoc. Field? A perfectly round lower bowl would pull seats too far from the field of play.

Yeah there is, I typed that but erased it and forgot to retype it in there. They have a ton of foul territory along the baselines, and almost none behind the plate...they even have to retract a few rows behind there. I'm not saying that's a good stadium, but that circular design means good down-the-line seats. But a perfect circle isn't really good for football or baseball. The Raiders have like 30 yard sidelline gaps. Well, that was until they built Mt. Davis. They got half a good stadium now. And they took away the only good part of the Coliseum away for the A's--the view.

batmanZoSo
03-29-2004, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by IronFisk
WHOA PILGRIMS! Thanks Hangar for vindicating me! Several months ago, I started a little post entitled..."Problems with the LOWER deck", where I took a s--tload of abuse about this EXACT issue.

One of my solutions involved this VERY remedy...angled seats. This product is ALREADY being used at PNC in Pittsburgh...I know...I sat in them. It's a simple idea, ESPECIALLY if they might put in new green seats. Even so, this does not mean the lower bowl needs to be reconstructed at all - same alignment, with the seats already turned within the row. Believe it or not, it works great.

Between 3B and the foul pole would be ideal.

That's great that they have those kind of seats. I had no idea. Strange, because PNC has a sharp inward angle down the line. I wouldn't think they'd need those seats...

Maybe they could give them to us?

joeynach
03-29-2004, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
If our stadium bowl was circular like Oakland, the seats down the line would hook around and face the plate. They have much better sightlines down there than we do. And sharp angles like you said (left field in Boston for instance) are good too. Over there the grandstand rises high right against the foul line ... you get a fantastic view of the plate but you can't see much of left field unless you're right on the wall. It's a trade off I'd take. Your best view should be of home plate. Even if it sacrifices other views.

Ours only curves gently toward the plate. It is rounded and has no vertices, but not "circular."

I didn't mean circular like a cookie cutte like oakland or the vet. I meant as the opposite of linear. The cell does not use sharp angled lines to change the viewing angle as you get further down the line. It uses a circular design, almost like an exponential graph, a curve. I never said it was a CIRCLE. Merely curved as in a circle instead of linear.

joeynach
03-29-2004, 04:57 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
That's great that they have those kind of seats. I had no idea. Strange, because PNC has a sharp inward angle down the line. I wouldn't think they'd need those seats...

Maybe they could give them to us?

Does anyone realize that if you angle the seats between 3b and foul pole you are essentially moving the seats back further from the feild. Its a trade off, you can fit more seats closer down to the field with the existing config or if you angle them you reverse it, more seats back toward the concourse, less seats closer down to the field. Its simple geometry given the space.

Rush20
03-29-2004, 05:05 PM
Isn't it amazing (and depressing) how the architencts of the new ballparks learned what not to do from Comiskey II?!

joeynach
03-29-2004, 08:09 PM
Originally posted by Rush20
Isn't it amazing (and depressing) how the architencts of the new ballparks learned what not to do from Comiskey II?!

Well from and engineering standpoint its great. They get to see exactly what not to do and why. And the blunder still exists so everyday stadium designers can see why not to do. Unfortunatly for us, that our stadium which is the blunder and it was our tax money which built it. Too bad we didn't get a say in which design was choosen. Hmm wait that reminds me of something i learned in school. Well its not a democracy, so much for this being america (cough) (cough). Oh wait i know a dictatorship and we are the paying peasants who pay taxes and get absoultly no say in where the $$ goes or what its used for.

batmanZoSo
03-29-2004, 10:00 PM
"But thats becuase our stadium is bowl shaped design with circular shape stands instead of sharp angles and corners that change direction."

Hey, you said circular. I know you don't think comiskey is a perfect circle, but you did say the word. And I understand what you mean about it being rounded or the opposite of linear.

As for the angle thing...it is a trade off and a great one I think. I wish they had set it up like PNC or Safeco.

The closer you are to the field down the lines, the sharper the angle you have to turn your head. That's why if I can only get seats in that region, I go for the 25th row or so. Those are much better seats than first row. I don't care about distance to the plate or to Carlos Lee, my only concern is a good comfortable sightline.

batmanZoSo
03-29-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by Rush20
Isn't it amazing (and depressing) how the architencts of the new ballparks learned what not to do from Comiskey II?!

We're the benchmark for what not to do. And it ain't limited to architecture..not by a long shot. :D:

Veeky
03-30-2004, 12:33 AM
A bit annoying
having to Turn My head all the way to the RIGHT or LEFT just
to watch the game

So you have to turn your head once in a while, big deal. That's what neck muscles are for.

If court-side spectators in tennis aren't bitching about it, why are you?

Others mentioned various architectural/spacial reasons why it's contructed the way it is. You can't have it all ways; there's always going to be a mini-inconvenience to be needlessly peeved about.'

Damn, as Sox fans, we have to rise above all this
park design/seat angle nonsense.

ahuxley
03-30-2004, 09:09 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by batmanZoSo

As for the angle thing...it is a trade off and a great one I think. I wish they had set it up like PNC or Safeco.

With all due respect...have you been to PNC? Two years ago I was at a game in the first row of their seats halfway between third and the foul pole and I spent the entire game staring at Barry Bonds and centerfield. To see homeplate, I had to both turn my head significantly and lean forward to see. I wouldn't consider that better than down the lines at USCF. Just a thought...

Frater Perdurabo
03-30-2004, 09:14 AM
I think this would be incredibly expensive to accomplish. They might as well build a whole new stadium. Then again, I'm no civil engineer so what do I know?

IronFisk
03-30-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by ahuxley
[QUOTE]Originally posted by batmanZoSo

As for the angle thing...it is a trade off and a great one I think. I wish they had set it up like PNC or Safeco.

With all due respect...have you been to PNC? Two years ago I was at a game in the first row of their seats halfway between third and the foul pole and I spent the entire game staring at Barry Bonds and centerfield. To see homeplate, I had to both turn my head significantly and lean forward to see. I wouldn't consider that better than down the lines at USCF. Just a thought...

Well, I do have the photos...

To be specific, I sat in the upper deck, but the solution would also work in the lower deck at the Cell. No "massive" construction costs necessary - these angled chairs come preset in their rows - just remove the old, and attach the new.

Hangar18
03-30-2004, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Veeky
So you have to turn your head once in a while, big deal. That's what neck muscles are for.

If court-side spectators in tennis aren't bitching about it, why are you?


Yeah? Look HOW SMALL a Tennis Court is....Compared to a Giant Baseball Park. Sounds like a Mike Kiley comment... :smile:

Veeky
03-30-2004, 10:08 AM
Look HOW SMALL a Tennis Court is

I take it you've never sat court-side lower deck, have you?

Sounds like a Mike Kiley comment...

Sounds like a Hangar complaint.... :cool:

Hangar18
03-30-2004, 10:12 AM
OK. If anyone has a Seating Chart, take note.
The only sections that would need UPDATING, would be
on the 3B side, sections 148 thru 153. And on the
1B side, sect 116 thru 121. The Corner sections,
LF 155 & RF 109 would be the TEMPLATES for the NEW ANGLES.
Hope that makes sense. SO in Total, 6 Sections on each
Side would have to be entirely REVAMPED, and ADDING seating/aisle to corner sections 108 & 154. Would Look
Awesome. EDIT NOTE: Heres the Seating Bowl attached

javascript:ballpark_seating_popup('516','516','#53 9A87','','U.S. Cellular Field');//

batmanZoSo
03-30-2004, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by ahuxley
[QUOTE]Originally posted by batmanZoSo

As for the angle thing...it is a trade off and a great one I think. I wish they had set it up like PNC or Safeco.

With all due respect...have you been to PNC? Two years ago I was at a game in the first row of their seats halfway between third and the foul pole and I spent the entire game staring at Barry Bonds and centerfield. To see homeplate, I had to both turn my head significantly and lean forward to see. I wouldn't consider that better than down the lines at USCF. Just a thought...

I haven't, but I can tell you weren't in the good sections where they face the plate. If you're in the first row between third and the foul pole at any park, it's a bad seat. You're gonna get a stiff neck. But it varies in the degree from park to park. Imagine sitting down the lines in Miami or Minnesota where the grandstand is parallel to the foul line. That must really blow.

FightingBillini
01-12-2005, 02:07 PM
The Lower DEck seats, from the 3b area towards the Outfield,
and the 1b area towards the Outfield...........Need to be
Reconfigured TOWARDS THE INFIELD, where 90% of the game
is Taking Place, NOT TOWARDS CENTERFIELD. A bit annoying
having to Turn My head all the way to the RIGHT or LEFT just
to watch the game
I agree with Hangar 100% on this. I dont think this would be a massive renovation. They could keep the same points of entrance to the aisles, and just angle the aisles. The first section past third is 144 and past first is 120. They could angle those sections so they are narrower at the field. The next sections would be angled and narrowed also. The rest of the sections to the foul lines would just be angled, they wouldn't need to be narrowed. The current seating is particularly bad in the corners. The four corner sections are very big and winding, also cramped. I swear the seats are smaller in the corners than around the baseline.

Blueprint1
01-12-2005, 02:14 PM
I am so sick of this what we need to do to improve the ballpark crap. The ballpark is fine now in my opinion. I have sat everywhere in the park and I couldn't complain about any of the seats that are still in use. This is nitpicking I am sure there are some way worse seats at Fenway and Yankee stadium right now. Sometimes i think Hanger really doesnt care about the team only the stadium.

batmanZoSo
01-12-2005, 02:21 PM
The Lower DEck seats, from the 3b area towards the Outfield,
and the 1b area towards the Outfield...........Need to be
Reconfigured TOWARDS THE INFIELD, where 90% of the game
is Taking Place, NOT TOWARDS CENTERFIELD. A bit annoying
having to Turn My head all the way to the RIGHT or LEFT just
to watch the game Wow, this is an old thread.

But it is a good idea. When the new seats are installed, fix them in on a slight angle toward the plate. Even 1 degree would be a huge sightline improvement. Of course, this would require different seats than what we'd have in the rest of the park because standard seats are designed to be bolted flush with the concrete backing. So, I don't know how realistic it is...if at all

:reinsy
Sorry...we've already placed the order for standard seats. Now if you'll excuse me, I've got some midgets to beat up.

ChiWhiteSox1337
01-12-2005, 02:24 PM
Perhaps JR and co. read your post and it'll be one of the renovations in 2006. They're going to show renovations for 2006 at SoxFest. :smile:

U.S. Cellular Field Goes Green: Sample green seats, which will be re-introduced to the ballpark in 2005, will be available for fans to view, along with renderings of next year's renovation plans.

anewman35
01-12-2005, 02:36 PM
Perhaps JR and co. read your post and it'll be one of the renovations in 2006. They're going to show renovations for 2006 at SoxFest. :smile:
Err, I'd be almost willing to bet that "next year" in the context of the quote means 2005.

Over By There
01-12-2005, 02:41 PM
Seems like we've had a lot of "throwback" threads lately.

ChiWhiteSox1337
01-12-2005, 02:43 PM
Err, I'd be almost willing to bet that "next year" in the context of the quote means 2005. The article is an official press release that was released about 2 hours ago on whitesox.com. That's what I thought too until I saw the date of the article.

anewman35
01-12-2005, 02:45 PM
The article is an official press release that was released about 2 hours ago on whitesox.com. That's what I thought too until I saw the date of the article.
I know it's a new article, but by "next year" I'm sure they mean "next baseball season". It wouldn't make any sense to announce stuff a year before it happens, it would just overshadow the things they are doing for 2005.

DrCrawdad
01-12-2005, 02:50 PM
This is one topic that I disagree with Hangar on 100%. If you want to talk about whiplash, think about the seating configuration at Old Comiskey. Those seats were facing into the middle of centerfield with no angle whatsoever. The seats at the Cell were designed with comfort in mind, and they are angled gradually towards the infield. It would be impossible to change the angle of the seats without a total redesign of the park.

The seats in the corners of old Comiskey were beyond bad. Your seat looked straight across, right into the aisles of the outfield seats.

The book, Park Life, has a few pictures of those seating sections. I sat in those seats a couple of times. Lousy, lousy seats.

jabrch
01-12-2005, 02:54 PM
I wonder if we will ever find a day when Sox Fans aren't complaining about something.

FightingBillini
01-12-2005, 02:59 PM
Perhaps JR and co. read your post and it'll be one of the renovations in 2006. They're going to show renovations for 2006 at SoxFest. :smile:
Well, we will see on friday. I was thinking, among other things, this may be a reason why only the upperdeck will get new seats during the season. They wouldn't need to change the upperdeck, but if they did redo the seating layout in the lower deck, it would take a lot of time and effort.

zach074
01-12-2005, 03:06 PM
Hey PHG.. Maybe you can set up a complaint forum just for Henry... :D::roflmao: We could have the official Hanger complaint of the week.

FightingBillini
01-12-2005, 03:14 PM
:roflmao: We could have the official Hanger complaint of the week.
When it comes to complaints about the stadium, me and Hangar generally see eye to eye (accept for the giant Swiller Lite bottle on the concourse). When it comes to the team, he is a little too "woah is me, everyone on our team sucks, we are boung to fail" for my liking:cool:

batmanZoSo
01-12-2005, 04:03 PM
When it comes to complaints about the stadium, me and Hangar generally see eye to eye (accept for the giant Swiller Lite bottle on the concourse). When it comes to the team, he is a little too "woah is me, everyone on our team sucks, we are boung to fail" for my liking:cool:
Hey, without complainers, nothing would change. Of course doers are always good too. But complainers at least get the ball rolling...:cool:

Hangar18
01-12-2005, 04:17 PM
I wonder if we will ever find a day when Sox Fans aren't complaining about something.
When we Win the World Series .....

maurice
01-12-2005, 04:40 PM
I am so sick of this what we need to do to improve the ballpark crap. The ballpark is fine now in my opinion.
I agree. The park is very nice the way it is. If there is any US Cellular money left over, I'd prefer that it be used on the outside of the park, particularly on the 35th St. side.

zach074
01-12-2005, 07:05 PM
When we Win the World Series .....
You would probably start complaining about the holes we have to fill for that next year already.:redneck

GoSox2K3
01-12-2005, 11:10 PM
WHOA PILGRIMS! Thanks Hangar for vindicating me! Several months ago, I started a little post entitled..."Problems with the LOWER deck", where I took a s--tload of abuse about this EXACT issue.
Same thing happened to me. I dared even suggest that Safeco and B.O.B. (both of which I have visited) had better lower deck seats that were angled towards the field and I got the same tired old head-in-the-sand "would you rather go to the Urinal?" responses.

However, I don't think this flaw is worth what it would cost to fix and fortunately, this is not an image-killer like the upper deck and the blue seats are (were?).

RKMeibalane
01-12-2005, 11:12 PM
:threadsucks

What more do people want here? The Sox have done an excellent job improving the park. Are people so lazy now that they can't bring themselves to turn their head to the side? Sheesh!

Hitmen77
01-12-2005, 11:15 PM
I agree with Hangar 100% on this. I dont think this would be a massive renovation. They could keep the same points of entrance to the aisles, and just angle the aisles. The first section past third is 144 and past first is 120. They could angle those sections so they are narrower at the field. The next sections would be angled and narrowed also. The rest of the sections to the foul lines would just be angled, they wouldn't need to be narrowed. The current seating is particularly bad in the corners. The four corner sections are very big and winding, also cramped. I swear the seats are smaller in the corners than around the baseline.
FightingBillini,
I think you should get an award for fishing out a thread that last had a post on March 30 and bringing it back to life. :D:

Sad
01-13-2005, 08:50 AM
I totally agree with you on this one Hangar although they'd have to tear up concrete etc. & it's never gonna happen...

this is exactly why I prefer to sit upstairs in the infield area vs. way down the line in the lower deck (or outfield seats, which I've never liked in the first place)

148 & 116 are about as far down as I like to sit before opting for the UD.

rmusacch
01-13-2005, 09:29 AM
Hey PHG.. Maybe you can set up a complaint forum just for Henry... :D:
I don't know Henry and he may be totally different in person, but it seems like if Henry isn't complaining, he isn't happy.

Brian26
01-13-2005, 09:39 AM
The seats already face a common point just behind second base.

Rotating the seats to face homeplate isn't possible without major reconstruction in the park. Even angling the seats just a few degrees towards homeplate would kick the seats farther out into the open spaces in each row, effectively cutting down the width of each row for people to walk or place their feet while sitting.

In a situation like Oakland, the Coliseum is essentially circular. This is a terrible design. The dugouts are a mile from the infield, and the foul territory in that park is obscene.

Old Comiskey's site lines were terrible compared to the new park. There was no curvature at all at Old Comiskey. If you were sitting down the right field line towards the foul pole, your seat was facing the centerfield bullpens and scoreboard. It was atrocious.