PDA

View Full Version : Terry Savarise on the Score Today


Frank the Tank
04-08-2004, 10:39 PM
Terry Savarise, the Vice President of Stadium Operations, was on the score today talking about Phase IV of the renovations. Although he was careful to point out that nothing is certain for Phase V, he did give some insight on what to expect. He basically said that Phase V will be nowhere near as big of an undertaking as Phase IV. If they are building a home-run landing and demolishing the ugly ramps in Phase V, it sure didn't sound like it from the interview. The one thing he did repeatedly emphasize is that we can expect the park to be more "interactive" for kids. Apparently Phase V is going to include internet, video games, etc.... to lure kids to the ballpark. Does anybody know what sense this makes? I really hope the sox don't pass on legitimate renovations such as: green seats, home-run landing, etc....to install internet portals on the concourse. IMHO, investing a single penny towards "an interactive" park would be a bigger mistake than the original New Comiskey could ever have been.

batmanZoSo
04-08-2004, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
Terry Savarise, the Vice President of Stadium Operations, was on the score today talking about Phase IV of the renovations. Although he was careful to point out that nothing is certain for Phase V, he did give some insight on what to expect. He basically said that Phase V will be nowhere near as big of an undertaking as Phase IV. If they are building a home-run landing and demolishing the ugly ramps in Phase V, it sure didn't sound like it from the interview. The one thing he did repeatedly emphasize is that we can expect the park to be more "interactive" for kids. Apparently Phase V is going to include internet, video games, etc.... to lure kids to the ballpark. Does anybody know what sense this makes? I really hope the sox don't pass on legitimate renovations such as: green seats, home-run landing, etc....to install internet portals on the concourse. IMHO, investing a single penny towards "an interactive" park would be a bigger mistake than the original New Comiskey could ever have been.

I agree...those huge ramps have to come down and they gotta do something about the symmetrical billboard-laden outfield.

voodoochile
04-08-2004, 10:47 PM
I agree. The place is family friendly enough. They need to do more to bring the young folks out M-TH. Weekends are fine normally...

Shoeless Joe
04-08-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
and they gotta do something about the symmetrical billboard-laden outfield.

:reinsy

"And lose some precious advertising money! No chance!"

mantis1212
04-08-2004, 10:53 PM
The internet? Are you kidding me? Why in the world do we need that at the ballpark??
I still think they are building the HR porch, they need those extra seats for revenue, plain and simple. If I remember correctly from previous reports on this subject, they still have about $15MM to play with for Phase V- there should be plenty of money for the HR porch, and hopefully more of the grand entrance idea...

voodoochile
04-08-2004, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by mantis1212
The internet? Are you kidding me? Why in the world do we need that at the ballpark??
I still think they are building the HR porch, they need those extra seats for revenue, plain and simple. If I remember correctly from previous reports on this subject, they still have about $15MM to play with for Phase V- there should be plenty of money for the HR porch, and hopefully more of the grand entrance idea...

:KW
"I can't spend $1 if all I have is $15,000,000."

MRKARNO
04-08-2004, 10:57 PM
Well if they're gonna do internet, might as well go WiFi like they did at SBC Park.

mweflen
04-08-2004, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
I agree...those huge ramps have to come down and they gotta do something about the symmetrical billboard-laden outfield.

Personally, i don't see a problem with symmetry in the outfield.

Asymmetrical home run porches are kind of overrated - every "new cookie cutter" stadium in the past 10 years has one. it's getting tired.

While the Sox were in Kansas City, I was noticing all over again what a gorgeous park they have. It is modern and symmetrical, no home run porches, but it doesn't have the somewhat sterile feeling of New Comiskey.

I think what creates the feel of any given park is how close the seats are to the field. The closer any given "loge" or "upper deck" is to the playing surface, the more "intimate" the feeling.

Chairman Satan was adamant about having TWO rows of luxury suites, not just one. Hence, the UD's stratospheric height/distance. Had they simply built the UD one level lower, with an overhang, no one would be discussing "much needed renovations" to New Comiskey at all.

soxnut
04-08-2004, 11:29 PM
Originally posted by Frank the Tank
The one thing he did repeatedly emphasize is that we can expect the park to be more "interactive" for kids. Apparently Phase V is going to include internet, video games, etc.... to lure kids to the ballpark. .

Does "interactive nesessarily mean "electronic" or is it going to have a revamped FUNdamentals section, maybe add on a small ballfield and a slide like SBC Park, or "electronic" like Scouts Alley at Turner Field. Either way, I hope all 17 million doesn't get spent on just that. In a way that almost seems impossible. :(:

MRKARNO
04-08-2004, 11:35 PM
:reinsy

"We'll build a 17-million dollar golden slide for the youngens and then let Maggs go. Gold is a much safer bet than Maggs"

soxnut
04-08-2004, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by mweflen


Chairman Satan was adamant about having TWO rows of luxury suites, not just one. Hence, the UD's stratospheric height/distance. Had they simply built the UD one level lower, with an overhang, no one would be discussing "much needed renovations" to New Comiskey at all.


Do you consider The Ballpark in Arlington intimate??

mweflen
04-08-2004, 11:48 PM
Originally posted by soxnut
Do you consider The Ballpark in Arlington intimate??

well, i haven't been to BP at Arlington personally, but from pictures, no, it looks too vertical to be intimate.

Here are some examples:

Intimate parks:

The Urinal (proving intimate is not always good)
Fenway
Kauffman
Tiger Stadium (defunct)

"Distant" parks:

Yankee Stadium
Network Associates (A's)
Olympic Stadium (Expos)
Shea Stadium
Comerica Park
Veterans Stadium (defunct)

I would say Comiskey is somewhere in between. The LD is pretty close to the action, but the UD definitely gives you that "floaty, unattached" feeling.

---

On a somewhat related note - Does anyone think green seats would increase a feeling of 'intimacy'? I tend to think it would - but my perception may be skewed by seeing empty seas of blue for so many years...

batmanZoSo
04-08-2004, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by mweflen
Personally, i don't see a problem with symmetry in the outfield.

Asymmetrical home run porches are kind of overrated - every "new cookie cutter" stadium in the past 10 years has one. it's getting tired.

While the Sox were in Kansas City, I was noticing all over again what a gorgeous park they have. It is modern and symmetrical, no home run porches, but it doesn't have the somewhat sterile feeling of New Comiskey.

I think what creates the feel of any given park is how close the seats are to the field. The closer any given "loge" or "upper deck" is to the playing surface, the more "intimate" the feeling.

Chairman Satan was adamant about having TWO rows of luxury suites, not just one. Hence, the UD's stratospheric height/distance. Had they simply built the UD one level lower, with an overhang, no one would be discussing "much needed renovations" to New Comiskey at all.

Assymetry isn't the one deciding factor of a good park. But we dont' have the option that KC did. They have a beautiful landscape beyond the outfield...we don't. And their park only looks nice between the foul poles. The rest is ugly.

It's okay to have a symmetrical park with fountains and green hills...not with billboards. Our only option is to put up another seating area on one side. It would give the park some character. And the cell will never look like a Camden copy.

soxnut
04-08-2004, 11:55 PM
I don't see Kauffman as being intimate. That UD looks steep and it also looks top-heavy.

You didn't provide an example of modern intimate ballpark, besides Kauffman. How could Comerica not be intimate? That park looks like it has one of the lower UDs and less steep UD in major league baseball.

As for The Ballpark, ok I would agree, even though I haven't been to it either, although ai want to go. But just FYI it has the HIGHEST UD in major league baseball.

batmanZoSo
04-09-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by mweflen
well, i haven't been to BP at Arlington personally, but from pictures, no, it looks too vertical to be intimate.

Here are some examples:

Intimate parks:

The Urinal (proving intimate is not always good)
Fenway
Kauffman
Tiger Stadium (defunct)

"Distant" parks:

Yankee Stadium
Network Associates (A's)
Olympic Stadium (Expos)
Shea Stadium
Comerica Park
Veterans Stadium (defunct)

I would say Comiskey is somewhere in between. The LD is pretty close to the action, but the UD definitely gives you that "floaty, unattached" feeling.

---

On a somewhat related note - Does anyone think green seats would increase a feeling of 'intimacy'? I tend to think it would - but my perception may be skewed by seeing empty seas of blue for so many years...

Our upper deck is not too far from the field. It seems pretty close to me. It's only like 28 rows away..that's gotta be in the upper ranks for new parks with three tiers. If I had a choice I would have moved it back to allow a gentler pitch. Around the foul poles it gets a little distant because the bowl is concentric in design...there isn't much overlap...but those are gonna be crappy seats in any park.

mweflen
04-09-2004, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
Our upper deck is not too far from the field. It seems pretty close to me. It's only like 28 rows away..that's gotta be in the upper ranks for new parks with three tiers. If I had a choice I would have moved it back to allow a gentler pitch. Around the foul poles it gets a little distant because the bowl is concentric in design...there isn't much overlap...but those are gonna be crappy seats in any park.

batman,

it's not *terribly* far horizontally. you're right, it's about 28 rows back horizontally.

But the 2nd row of suites pushes it up about 20 feet higher than it would be vertically.

I actually like the view from the UD, at least in sections 527 to 536 or so, first 10 rows.

But because of the altitude and the angle, the further up and away from home plate you go, the more perception of 'distance' is increased.

Upper decks which start lower and hang in more 'feel' more intimate. They may not offer better sight lines (which i think the UD at Comiskey excels at), but they "feel" closer to the action, good view or bad.

Think of it this way - if the UD at Comiskey started where the 300 level seats start, and didn't terminate as high up, (though that has changed this year) wouldn't the park feel more 'intimate'?

That's what effect the 400 level (the Satan's Special Seats) has on the UD.

mweflen
04-09-2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
I don't see Kauffman as being intimate. That UD looks steep and it also looks top-heavy.

You didn't provide an example of modern intimate ballpark, besides Kauffman. How could Comerica not be intimate? That park looks like it has one of the lower UDs and less steep UD in major league baseball.


Miller Park is modern and relatively intimate - it's 2nd level ("Loge") has a very pronounced overhang. Too pronounced in fact, because due to the gentle slope you can't see your own outfield corner from those seats.

The UD at Kauffman definitely looks steep - but "top heavy" is precisely what I'm getting at in terms of the "intimate" feel. The UD at Kauffman hangs over the LD, which makes it appear much closer than our UD (which is flush with the luxury suites).

Agreed, however, on KC having a wide open, pastoral site to build on - definitely helps the aesthetic.

mweflen
04-09-2004, 12:44 AM
http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/al/Kauffman%20Stadium.htm

this page has some pics of Kauffman that illustrate my point. See how the UD hangs over what would be the equivalent of our 300 level? (Kauffman has a seating area similar to 300...)

Our UD would be flush with the rear of that section, because of the extra level of suites above it.

soxnut
04-09-2004, 12:49 AM
Oh believe me I've been to that site more than you know. And I know what you mean, but I still don't like that ballpark all that much. I still see it as being top-heavy, and I don't like that look. I have no problem with our UD, I like sitting up there.

pinwheels3530
04-09-2004, 01:16 AM
Can someone give ballparksofbaseball updated photos of Comiskey they still have those old ones. Hanger hook it up!

mweflen
04-09-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
Oh believe me I've been to that site more than you know. And I know what you mean, but I still don't like that ballpark all that much. I still see it as being top-heavy, and I don't like that look. I have no problem with our UD, I like sitting up there.

Personally, I like sitting there, too.

It's just that most people don't, and it has a rep for being 'distant' and 'sterile.' (plus I'm not prone to vertigo - but my current GF is, and is dreading our UD Opening Day tix!)

An overhang would have gone a long way towards preventing this reaction.

batmanZoSo
04-09-2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by mweflen
batman,

it's not *terribly* far horizontally. you're right, it's about 28 rows back horizontally.

But the 2nd row of suites pushes it up about 20 feet higher than it would be vertically.

I actually like the view from the UD, at least in sections 527 to 536 or so, first 10 rows.

But because of the altitude and the angle, the further up and away from home plate you go, the more perception of 'distance' is increased.

Upper decks which start lower and hang in more 'feel' more intimate. They may not offer better sight lines (which i think the UD at Comiskey excels at), but they "feel" closer to the action, good view or bad.

Think of it this way - if the UD at Comiskey started where the 300 level seats start, and didn't terminate as high up, (though that has changed this year) wouldn't the park feel more 'intimate'?

That's what effect the 400 level (the Satan's Special Seats) has on the UD.


When they built it they should've had the second tier be the upper deck, just take away the top skybox level and extend the club tier to about 30 rows. That would be a pretty intimate park right there. We could never do it now, it would probably cost 150 million or more. And would Jerry spend that much money to remove half his skyboxes? No.

But at the time of construction it would've worked, even when taking into account that you'd have a lot fewer skyboxes. We could've wrapped the upper deck into the outfield, which would give you extra skyboxes right there. And we could've built a skybox building deal out in the outfield somewhere.

batmanZoSo
04-09-2004, 01:35 AM
Originally posted by soxnut
Oh believe me I've been to that site more than you know. And I know what you mean, but I still don't like that ballpark all that much. I still see it as being top-heavy, and I don't like that look. I have no problem with our UD, I like sitting up there.

That upper deck is gigantic. They must have 50 rows behind the plate. I agree that it looks top heavy and the way it comes to a point down the lines...plus the canope isn't very appealing.

mweflen
04-09-2004, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by batmanZoSo
When they built it they should've had the second tier be the upper deck, just take away the top skybox level and extend the club tier to about 30 rows. That would be a pretty intimate park right there. We could never do it now, it would probably cost 150 million or more. And would Jerry spend that much money to remove half his skyboxes? No.

But at the time of construction it would've worked, even when taking into account that you'd have a lot fewer skyboxes. We could've wrapped the upper deck into the outfield, which would give you extra skyboxes right there. And we could've built a skybox building deal out in the outfield somewhere.

or, in the alternative, the UD could have hung over the 300 level, with no 400 level inbetween.

Why not make the 300 level the "2nd tier" of skyboxes? (it's basically what they're attempting to do now, with the plush 300 concourse and the way high prices...)

batmanZoSo
04-09-2004, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by mweflen
or, in the alternative, the UD could have hung over the 300 level, with no 400 level inbetween.

Why not make the 300 level the "2nd tier" of skyboxes? (it's basically what they're attempting to do now, with the plush 300 concourse and the way high prices...)

If the upper deck hung over that much you wouldn't be able to see home plate. Or we could always go steeper...

mweflen
04-09-2004, 02:05 AM
yeah, steeper! :smile:

soxnut
04-09-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by mweflen
Personally, I like sitting there, too.

It's just that most people don't, and it has a rep for being 'distant' and 'sterile.' (plus I'm not prone to vertigo - but my current GF is, and is dreading our UD Opening Day tix!)

An overhang would have gone a long way towards preventing this reaction.

I should reprase my like of the UD. I liked sitting in the first few rows, and the last few rows. I did not like sitting in the middle. So I can unserstand your GF's plight. But, before they presented the idea of a new roof, I thought that would be something that would help me enjoy the middle rows more. So hopefully your GF will feel the same way.

wdelaney72
04-09-2004, 11:33 AM
The Cell does not need to be any more interactive or kid-friendly. They would a completely waste of money. Then again, they also voluntarily gave Valentin $5 million this year.