PDA

View Full Version : phillies new park is steep as hell


kittle545feet
04-02-2004, 12:03 AM
i just went to the phillies website at www.phillies.com and took a tour of the new stadium. the video starts out with a view from the highest seat in the park and let me tell you, it looks like your 3 miles from the field and its one of the steepest that i've seen. i think this is proof that most if not all of the new parks are like comiskey II. but to hear chicago media tell it, we have the only crappy stadium in the league. then again, a lot of sox fans give credence to some of the media's arguments by agreeing with the notion that comiskey II is crap. i think its a fine stadium, its no old comiskey, but its a great place to see a game and with the changes this year and the ones planned for next year, i think we are going to have one of the best in baseball. i know we already have the best one in chicago! :thankgod

ChiWhiteSox1337
04-02-2004, 12:18 AM
I watched that earlier as well. I was going to post about the steepness since it look as bad as Comiskey's, if not worse. The Phillie's new ballpark looks like an exact clone of Jacobs Field. In 10 years or so, IMO comiskey will be one of the top parks in the league because most of the new stadiums are just copies of each other, comiskey will be one of the few that stands out.

JohnBasedowYoda
04-02-2004, 12:29 AM
It's true, i've been checking out the new parks on the respective sites (phillies, cards, padres) and they all do look similar. They all have that "multi-tiered" think going on with like a kajillion seating levels, and fancy brickwork all over the place. These different levels do nothing but seemingly take the fans further away from the game. Like in the new cards stadium below and the phillies park as mentioned. I love our park and never had any beef with it just like pondering the possible changes. I've been to wrigley, old comiskey (don't remember that much, i was really young) and miller park. and the cell takes the cake by far. nuff said

doublem23
04-02-2004, 01:36 AM
I was going to say, that multi-tiered level has to put the farthest rows in the stadium at least 200 feet away from home.

scottyl
04-02-2004, 01:59 AM
The Phillies' seats are blue in the photos (not the computer renderings). Interesting given the blue vs. green seat debate that has been going on here.

soxnut
04-02-2004, 02:56 AM
Originally posted by scottyl
The Phillies' seats are blue in the photos (not the computer renderings). Interesting given the blue vs. green seat debate that has been going on here.


The blue seats in all of the other new parks is a darker, richer blue. It is easier on the eyes, and looks alot better on tv.

pinwheels3530
04-02-2004, 04:48 AM
I think sox fans can be thier own worst enemy, if I am a casual baseball fan going to comiskey and all i hear is how bad the place is by sox fans then I am going to think the place stinks too an won't want to go back. Cub fans talk good and market their park while sox fans don't help thier own cause to bring more fans to the park. We need to stop whining and enjoy comiskey.

ihatethecubs
04-02-2004, 06:03 AM
yea that phillies upper deck is steep and high too. its kinda funny, with all the new parks being built, were gonna have one of the oldest stadiums in baseball soon.

hsnterprize
04-02-2004, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by JohnBasedowYoda
It's true, i've been checking out the new parks on the respective sites (phillies, cards, padres) and they all do look similar. They all have that "multi-tiered" think going on with like a kajillion seating levels, and fancy brickwork all over the place. These different levels do nothing but seemingly take the fans further away from the game. Like in the new cards stadium below and the phillies park as mentioned. I love our park and never had any beef with it just like pondering the possible changes. I've been to wrigley, old comiskey (don't remember that much, i was really young) and miller park. and the cell takes the cake by far. nuff said I agree with you about the steepness of the upper decks in new stadiums and such, but you have to understand some things. First, in cities like San Diego, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and other places with new ballparks, there's no Wrigley Field 8 miles away from the place for the local media to compare the new place to. Also, many of these new places are using Wrigley Field as a source of inspiration...did you notice the "rooftop" seating outside of Citizens Bank Park? Plus...a lot of these new places are being built within new development to create a kind of "baseball village", so even if the stadium itself isn't a big draw, the stuff outside the stadium will make up for it. Also...these places are replacing cookie-cutter mega stadiums that obviously didn't have the "baseball-only" charm like old Comiskey Park.

I and others written in other threads that the upper decks in newer stadiums are just as steep...if not steeper...than new Comiskey. But, since the places either face a "downtown" or have some kind of "tourist attraction" quality to them, you won't hear any bad reviews from a "national media" perspective. Fans will complain once they see just how high the seats actually are, but there won't be the large blitz of complaints that happened for new Comiskey. We'll see what happens once the novelty of the new places wears off.

Railsplitter
04-02-2004, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
I think sox fans can be thier own worst enemy, if I am a casual baseball fan going to comiskey and all i hear is how bad the place is by sox fans then I am going to think the place stinks too an won't want to go back. Cub fans talk good and market their park while sox fans don't help thier own cause to bring more fans to the park. We need to stop whining and enjoy comiskey.

THANK YOU! I though I was the only person in all creation who thought the upper deck at Comiskey II/ The Cell wasn't all that bad. Hey, on the first base side you can see Lake Michigan.

I never had problems with the upper deck incline. I do a lot of walking and Streamwood has a few hills in it. I sat in the back row my first time at the new park and, yes, it was hard to find the fly balls, but by the second inning of my first game there, I started watching the outfielders and how they reacted to fly balls to get an idea of what was going on.

hsnterprize
04-02-2004, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
I think sox fans can be thier own worst enemy, if I am a casual baseball fan going to comiskey and all i hear is how bad the place is by sox fans then I am going to think the place stinks too an won't want to go back. Cub fans talk good and market their park while sox fans don't help thier own cause to bring more fans to the park. We need to stop whining and enjoy comiskey. I can agree with you on that one. You also have to understand that there were a LOT of factors going against us and the Sox at that time. Of course, the Sox were winning at the time new Comiskey opened, and there wasn't much negative talk about the place. Just remember when the Tribune started banging the drum about how bad the place was, and you add on top of that the NATIONAL love for Oriole Park at Camden Yards and subsequent stadiums. The New Comiskey went from a modern baseball wonder similar to SkyDome and Kauffman Stadium to an obsolete monstrosity in less than a year. No stadium has ever been through that short of a "honeymoon" period before. Even now with poor teams like the Tigers, Reds, and Pirates playing in new digs, those teams stadiums still get praise from local and national press.

With the new "retro" ballpark trend in full swing, the Cubs took FULL advantage of the marketability of Wrigley Field by not only stressing their place was old instead of a new one trying to look old, but also saying that if you (the fan) don't like Sox park, come up here and "see what a REAL ballpark is supposed to look like." Well...we can see how that campaign turned out.

When we Sox fans were being pelted over and over again with negative press about our ballpark, the area around it, and the much better APPEARANCE of new stadiums, then many of us will continue that talk. Remember, if you tell a lie enough, you believe it's the truth. Despite countless posts, statistics, and other tangibles proving our ballpark is better to "watch a game in", pop culture has defined going to a baseball game as more than just buying a ticket and watching 9 innings of on-field action. Going to a baseball game is now defined as an all-day experience, with just as much...if not more emphasis on off-the-field entertainment and amenities as well as how the field is laid out and designed. Just listen to the Cub fans who tout Wrigley Field, the bars outside the stadium, and the atmosphere surrounding the Cubs instead of how their team is playing well. That's why we actually respect knowledgeable Cubs fan who admit most of the people who go to Cubs games aren't there to watch the team...but to drink in experience of "beautiful Wrigley Field."

Sorry for the long rant, but I think you and other readers get my point.

CubKilla
04-02-2004, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
In 10 years or so, IMO comiskey will be one of the top parks in the league because most of the new stadiums are just copies of each other, comiskey will be one of the few that stands out.

Unless more significant changes are made to USCF, it is still a cookie-cutter, sterile, Yankee Stadium knock-off that only stands out because it is an example of what NOT to do when MLB teams build new stadiums.

Baby Fisk
04-02-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by ChiWhiteSox1337
I watched that earlier as well. I was going to post about the steepness since it look as bad as Comiskey's, if not worse. The Phillie's new ballpark looks like an exact clone of Jacobs Field. In 10 years or so, IMO comiskey will be one of the top parks in the league because most of the new stadiums are just copies of each other, comiskey will be one of the few that stands out.

I totally agree. The cities that have opened parks in the past couple of years have been cranking out Jacob's Field clones. It's the cookie-cutter approach all over again! Cincinnati, Philly, and San Diego have nothing original about them (other than the pseudo-Camden warehouse in San Diego's LF). Granted, Philly and Cincy and Pittsburgh fans are rolling in clover after spending decades in sterile bowls, but I agree that their stadiums have little originality. It's the unique quirks that give a stadium character, and I don't see many in the new batch of parks.

As for USCF, it gets an undeserved bad rap. Folks, it's a nice stadium! How'd you like the Sox to play in a tomb like Skydome???!!!

pearso66
04-02-2004, 11:36 AM
I always loved New Comisky. I've sat in the lower deck 2-3 times, and every other time is in the UD. I've even sat at the very end about 3/4 of the way up, and that wasnt even bad. But if you can get UD behind home plate, around the 1st 3rd base area, the seats are amazing. I think I like it better than the lower deck because you can see more of what's going on.

I remember sitting in the seats in RF, 3 rows from the field, and anything hit to left feild, i thought was gone. From the UD you can really judge where it's goin.

munchman33
04-02-2004, 12:07 PM
Listen people. I've been to almost every stadium in the league. Our stadium is upper echelon. The upper deck is not steep. It's just steeper than we were used to. Most stadiums are way steeper and way taller than ours.

Hangar18
04-02-2004, 04:42 PM
You know whats FUNNY ??? Click on the Link to the Lower RIGHT......Its a Section Comparison, comparing the previous Veterans Stadium with newer CitBank Park. Funny how over there, the New Stadium is CLOSER and LOWER to the field, while at New Comiskey, everything was Farther and Higher away.
Good Thinking Jerry Reinsdorf

Corlose 15
04-02-2004, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
You know whats FUNNY ??? Click on the Link to the Lower RIGHT......Its a Section Comparison, comparing the previous Veterans Stadium with newer CitBank Park. Funny how over there, the New Stadium is CLOSER and LOWER to the field, while at New Comiskey, everything was Farther and Higher away.
Good Thinking Jerry Reinsdorf

I believe they did something like that about Tiger Stadium and Comerica Park, Comerica was a lot further away IIRC.

If you talk about new clone stadiums you have to add Comerica to the mix.

Hangar18
04-02-2004, 05:11 PM
The other thing I like about all these NL Stadiums being built, is in the late 60's early 70's, these Cookie Cutter stadiums went up, all Looking exactly like each other. Fast forward to now, and all I see are PNC, Gr AM Ballpark and PacBell all looking like each other now............

Baby Fisk
04-02-2004, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The other thing I like about all these NL Stadiums being built, is in the late 60's early 70's, these Cookie Cutter stadiums went up, all Looking exactly like each other. Fast forward to now, and all I see are PNC, Gr AM Ballpark and PacBell all looking like each other now............

Exactly -- a template has been created for what a "new" ballpark should look like and it has become the Cookie Cutter of the 00's. I'm not saying the stadiums are identical, but they lack character, they have few quirks and really come off as boring. Minute Maid Park is a good example of how to build something unique. Once glance at a photo of it and it's immediately recognizable.

kittle545feet
04-02-2004, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by pinwheels3530
I think sox fans can be thier own worst enemy, if I am a casual baseball fan going to comiskey and all i hear is how bad the place is by sox fans then I am going to think the place stinks too an won't want to go back. Cub fans talk good and market their park while sox fans don't help thier own cause to bring more fans to the park. We need to stop whining and enjoy comiskey. that is exactly what i am trying to say also. we have a awesome park and with all the changes its only gonna get better. wrigley is a museum and a dump! i do not see the attraction to that park. now i know i am biased because i'm a sox fan but when i really stop and think about wrigley as a great place to see a game, i gotta say its all hype! be proud of your park sox fans. win or lose, its a great place to see a game. but i'd rather win. :dinger

dickallen15
04-02-2004, 05:27 PM
OMG, blue seats.

kittle545feet
04-02-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by munchman33
Listen people. I've been to almost every stadium in the league. Our stadium is upper echelon. The upper deck is not steep. It's just steeper than we were used to. Most stadiums are way steeper and way taller than ours. WELL SAID! :gulp:

PaleHoseGeorge
04-02-2004, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by dickallen15
OMG, blue seats.

Imagine how many threads this will generate at Phillies Interactive.

:)

batmanZoSo
04-02-2004, 07:45 PM
You guys are all nuts. There's no way that upper deck in philly is as steep as ours.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-02-2004, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
You guys are all nuts. There's no way that upper deck in philly is as steep as ours.

Are you sure? The blue seats may be tricking you.

:cool:

batmanZoSo
04-02-2004, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Are you sure? The blue seats may be tricking you.

:cool:

That's a great color blue. Almost as good as ours.

I really like that park. The light towers are like brick color and with the seats, it really matches the Phillies team. I like the angular shape behind home plate and the lightness of the right field upper decks, how you can see through them...they're not sandwiched with luxury suites. The only thing I don't like is the left field bleachers. That stupid little upper level is in every new park nowadays.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-02-2004, 09:12 PM
Don't look now, but ever since Camden Yards opened in 1992, the new generation of "adult theme park" ballyards are beginning to look and feel about the same. Aside from a faux volcano, and a grassy knoll or two, what real difference is there anymore?

Quirky for quirky's sake... and all the quirks roughly equally quirky. There ain't nothing "quirky" about the formula everybody is following for their new "urban renaissance" ballpark. 21st century donuts, I'm tellin' ya...

Railsplitter
04-02-2004, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
The other thing I like about all these NL Stadiums being built, is in the late 60's early 70's, these Cookie Cutter stadiums went up, all Looking exactly like each other. Fast forward to now, and all I see are PNC, Gr AM Ballpark and PacBell all looking like each other now............

I've always though Jacobs Field and The Ballpark at Arlington look more like they are movie studio back lot version of a ball park. Anybody else think that way?

mweflen
04-02-2004, 10:33 PM
Based on the video tour on phillies.com, their upper deck is NOT as steep as ours, it's just a lot higher.

Personally, in terms of viewing the game, steeper is actually better - much less chance of being obstructed by other people's heads, umbrellas, whatever.

I agree wholeheartedly on the "New Cookie Cutter" comment. Absolutely. When Camden was built, it was like 'ahh, nice, a retro stadium.' But now, they all have the right field porch, the all have the metal pillars, they all have the angled outfield walls... it's as though this HOK company has one guy who they keep asking to churn out another design, just with different color seats here and there.

The last truly distinctive stadium built was probably Miller in Milwaukee. And I'm not wild about the sightlines there, either.

Of the "New Cookie Cutter" school, Camden and Pittsburgh are probably the best, but basically because of their surroundings, not because of the uniqueness of the park.

The Cell is underrated. It's a fine place to actually watch a baseball game. It doesn't have Ferris wheels like Comerica, it doesn't have a retractable roof (which WOULD be nice... BRRRR), it doesn't have a quirky playing field (a la Enron, Pro Player, etc.), and it doesn't have old world charm (Fenway, Camden).

The Cell offers above average sightlines and strictly average everything else. It's not a homerun, but it's not a pop-fly, either.

---
btw - Enron/Minute Maid is a JOKE. I hate that park with a passion. No new park should EVER be constructed with a distance of 315 down either line. ESPECIALLY when that 315 ends with a huge wall. Too many easy dingers - it makes the game a farce. A guy who ropes it down the left field line like Herbert Perry could be a 300/40/115 player there.

Give me symmetrical distances OVER 330 feet and a perfectly curved outfield wall - like "old" New Comiskey or like Kauffman.

BeerHandle
04-02-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by hsnterprize
I agree with you about the steepness of the upper decks in new stadiums and such, but you have to understand some things. First, in cities like San Diego, St. Louis, Philadelphia, and other places with new ballparks, there's no Wrigley Field 8 miles away from the place for the local media to compare the new place to. Also, many of these new places are using Wrigley Field as a source of inspiration...did you notice the "rooftop" seating outside of Citizens Bank Park? Plus...a lot of these new places are being built within new development to create a kind of "baseball village", so even if the stadium itself isn't a big draw, the stuff outside the stadium will make up for it. Also...these places are replacing cookie-cutter mega stadiums that obviously didn't have the "baseball-only" charm like old Comiskey Park.

I and others written in other threads that the upper decks in newer stadiums are just as steep...if not steeper...than new Comiskey. But, since the places either face a "downtown" or have some kind of "tourist attraction" quality to them, you won't hear any bad reviews from a "national media" perspective. Fans will complain once they see just how high the seats actually are, but there won't be the large blitz of complaints that happened for new Comiskey. We'll see what happens once the novelty of the new places wears off.

You have it exactly right about the "ballpark village" atmosphere! One of my friends talked to his season ticket rep and was told that Mayor Daley doesn't want to create a "ballpark village" neighborhood because he fears that the Bridgeport neighborhood will be destroyed and lose its character.

mweflen
04-02-2004, 11:21 PM
if only they could have built new comiskey on all that vacant land in the South Loop in 1989-1990... actually FACING the greatest skyline in the world...

funny that all that land is now the hottest condo development land in the area...

Instead, Uncle Jerry had the foresight to be a cheapskate and build a park facing the projects and the expressway. Woo hoo! That way he can spend the money on the players... right?


Right?

:?:

Brian26
04-02-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
if only they could have built new comiskey on all that vacant land in the South Loop in 1989-1990... actually FACING the greatest skyline in the world...

funny that all that land is now the hottest condo development land in the area...

Instead, Uncle Jerry had the foresight to be a cheapskate and build a park facing the projects and the expressway. Woo hoo! That way he can spend the money on the players... right?


Right?

:?:

Wrong.

City of Chicago wouldn't approve a plan involving a Sox ballpark in that area. Read "Stealing First in a Two Team Town". Interesting political stuff happening back in the late 80's. They didn't want to improve the infrastructure involved with supporting the additional traffic in the area due to the baseball crowds. In hindsight, I think we would all agree how ridiculous that sounds. Yet, back in 1988, there were some shady political overtones. The Bears were involved in every decision also.

row18
04-03-2004, 12:51 AM
Sox Park is the greatest stadium, becuase of our ambience, Our crowds are the best, and that's what make a game. Who cares how the building look, I come to watch my boys play ball!

By the way, doesn't Petco Park look like an Iraqi Hotel

guillen4life13
04-03-2004, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by row18
Sox Park is the greatest stadium, becuase of our ambience, Our crowds are the best, and that's what make a game. Who cares how the building look, I come to watch my boys play ball!

By the way, doesn't Petco Park look like an Iraqi Hotel

Interesting observation about Petco Park.

springrovesoxfan
04-03-2004, 05:35 PM
To me Sox park is the best park in baseball. It may not have the character of the old, but it is better than all of new ones, and with all the renovation's, it is getting better. I've sat in the ud, ld and outfield and really don't have any complaints over sightlines
or anything else. You can see the game great from them all. There are some parks with just as steep, if not steeper seats, but you don't hear any complaints.

What I don't lie about the newer parks are the obvious rip-off of the supposed Wrigley experience by using the brick and other so called old park features. Why anyone would want to use Wrigley as a model park is beyond me. I see no charm watching a game with a post in the way, the terrible washroom facilities and their woeful concession areas. How anyone can call that poor excuse of a ball park "THE SHRINE" is beyond me. the place is a joke and fans of teams with retro parks will soon realize this.

And complaining about seat color is another joke. What difference does the color of the seat my behind is sitting on change my enjoyment of the game? It doesn't! The only thing that matters to me is what my team is doing on the field