PDA

View Full Version : Green Seats are almost Done


chicagojoe
03-03-2006, 06:03 PM
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3392/whitesoxrenovations0025af.th.jpg (http://img513.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whitesoxrenovations0025af.jpg)
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/4386/whitesoxrenovations0142ya.th.jpg (http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whitesoxrenovations0142ya.jpg)
http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/1166/whitesoxrenovations0132qm.th.jpg (http://img131.imageshack.us/my.php?image=whitesoxrenovations0132qm.jpg)

LongLiveFisk
03-03-2006, 06:05 PM
Great pics! It's gonna look really nice when it's complete. :D:

Scottiehaswheels
03-03-2006, 06:07 PM
Tempted to report it as offensive content.... My seat is STILL BLUE! LOL

paciorek1983
03-03-2006, 06:07 PM
What a much beter looking ballpark! Thanks for sharing the pics:D:

thomas35forever
03-03-2006, 06:10 PM
Wow. It actually looks good. I still miss the blue seats though.

paciorek1983
03-03-2006, 06:14 PM
Wow. It actually looks good. I still miss the blue seats though.

:?:

I guess everyone has an opinion.

Yorke97
03-03-2006, 06:41 PM
Seeing those pics really makes you think "Why did they ever go with blue in the first place?" Seriously, it'll look great when completed, but the contrast betwix the blue and green hurts my eyes.

Hoffdaddydmb
03-03-2006, 06:42 PM
That looks awesome! Thanks for the pic update.

CubsfansareDRUNK
03-03-2006, 06:47 PM
Wow. The green seats are so much better. I can't stand the blue seats, personally, and will not miss them at all. The green seats give the stadium that "classic look", especially the way they're designed.

itsnotrequired
03-03-2006, 06:54 PM
HOT FREAKIN' DAMN!!!

:bandance::bandance::bandance:

Cellview22
03-03-2006, 07:49 PM
Nice pics!

I hope they don't forget to put the "6" in the 6th seat...in the middle pic. :o:

Edward
03-03-2006, 07:55 PM
I agree with yorke97, the seats look GREAT, but they should have found some way to get them all in, weather it be adding them gradually throughout the 2005 season, or spending some of that world series money on more workers... I think it will look outstanding when completed, but now the contrast is an eye sore. Anyone know if they will be adding more during the road trips, or will the rest of the work start after the sox 2006 season ends??

JohnBasedowYoda
03-03-2006, 08:07 PM
Do they let people just wander around the cell in the offseason?

HotelWhiteSox
03-03-2006, 08:41 PM
Do they let people just wander around the cell in the offseason?

He's one of the workers

Deebs14
03-03-2006, 08:50 PM
The park is really looking good..thanks for the updates!:thumbsup:

oeo
03-03-2006, 08:56 PM
That looks awesome.

The Sod Father better get to work...:D:

chisox77
03-03-2006, 09:56 PM
Thanks, ChicagoJoe for the great visuals, and for being a great addition to WSI. The pics are outstanding, and the green seats really make The Cell look like terrific. Remember when the place opened, all of the major colors of the park then? Remember all of that blue, not just the seats, but that upward pointing canopy roof, the original batter's eye, and so much white with the enclosed steel work in the outfield, and the unstained concrete? The original pictures of the New Comiskey, especially the aerial shots, almost made the place look like a snap-together model stadium, because it looked so plastic-like.

Now, the white has been changed to black, the concrete has been stained to gray (not the best solution since brick would be better, but an improvement over the bland, plain concrete look), the new black flat roof has been installed, the wall padding is green, the batter's eye is a three-teired party deck, and now the green seats. A whole new color scheme has been phased in (blacks, grays, and greens, as opposed to blues, whites, and whatever else was bland). The new bullpens also were a great improvement, and more seats in the outfield and down the lines, plus the fundamentals deck, scout seating and additional restaurant. As I type this, so much has been done over the last six years, and even with the additional monies spent from U. S. Cellular, the park's total cost would now be (just a guess) about $210 million ($140 original, plus $80 million in total renovations), which still makes the place a pretty good bargain, considerding what a new ballpark or stadium would cost now.

I was very skeptical about the renovations when I heard of them over seven years ago, because I didn't think they would help that much. But as the process really began to unfold from year to year, starting in 2001, I became convinced - the renovations have, IMHO, been a great success. And the green seats really put a nice finishing touch on the whole project, unless there is one or two more things the Sox may try and do.

:cool:

esbrechtel
03-04-2006, 12:09 AM
ha, after all that what is left to say...

The Critic
03-04-2006, 07:45 AM
ha, after all that what is left to say...

Well, I'll add this:
US Cellular Field is a BEAUTIFUL ballpark, and I didn't think that was possible when I first saw it in 1991. It looked like a spaceship or something from the outside, and as mentioned before, the color scheme inside was an eyesore.

Selling the naming rights was a brilliant decision!

Wsoxmike59
03-04-2006, 08:52 AM
The green seats look spectacular and the Upper Deck looks surprisingly intimate and close to the action. The U.S. Cellular renovations have been a rousing success IMO.

Now what can we do about this monstrosity on the Lakefront? Any chance of shoring off this lopsided tincan of an upperdeck any?? Yeeeeecccchhh!!!!:tongue:

http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/soldier%20field%202.jpg

Whitesox029
03-04-2006, 09:41 AM
I agree with yorke97, the seats look GREAT, but they should have found some way to get them all in, weather it be adding them gradually throughout the 2005 season, or spending some of that world series money on more workers... I think it will look outstanding when completed, but now the contrast is an eye sore. Anyone know if they will be adding more during the road trips, or will the rest of the work start after the sox 2006 season ends??
I'll take Paul Konerko and the mixed-color seats for a season over no Paul Konerko and all green.

itsnotrequired
03-04-2006, 12:10 PM
I'll take Paul Konerko and the mixed-color seats for a season over no Paul Konerko and all green.

Just to clarify, the seat replacement has NOTHING to do with player salaries. Capital improvement dollars come out of an entirely different pot.

oeo
03-04-2006, 12:14 PM
The green seats look spectacular and the Upper Deck looks surprisingly intimate and close to the action. The U.S. Cellular renovations have been a rousing success IMO.

Now what can we do about this monstrosity on the Lakefront? Any chance of shoring off this lopsided tincan of an upperdeck any?? Yeeeeecccchhh!!!!:tongue:

http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/soldier%20field%202.jpg
Who cares what it looks like from the outside? I've never been there, but from what I've heard and seen on TV, it looks great on the inside.

The Cell was totally different, it didn't look good from the outside or the inside.

TheOldRoman
03-04-2006, 01:27 PM
Who cares what it looks like from the outside? I've never been there, but from what I've heard and seen on TV, it looks great on the inside.

The Cell was totally different, it didn't look good from the outside or the inside.
Exactly. While some archetectural critics have complained about Solider Field, it was widely excaped public criticism. Maybe because the Bears don't have an in town competitor who is owned by a media comglomerate?

Imagine for a second if the Sox would have built something that looked as horrible from the outside as Soldier Field. Do you think the Cubune would have looked the other way?

Back to the purpose of the thread, the park looks incredible with the green seats in. Can't wait until they put them all in. I hope the Sox took extensive photos of New Comiskey from many different angles. It would be great if they take photos from the same spots in the new park when it is complete, just to show how much of a difference the renovations have made.

hsnterprize
03-05-2006, 04:02 PM
Exactly. While some archetectural critics have complained about Solider Field, it was widely excaped public criticism. Maybe because the Bears don't have an in town competitor who is owned by a media comglomerate?

Imagine for a second if the Sox would have built something that looked as horrible from the outside as Soldier Field. Do you think the Cubune would have looked the other way?

Or how about this...what if after the new Solider Field was up, a slew of other NFL teams opened new stadiums that reflected more of a "traditional" look and feel to them? Let's say everyone in the NFL wanted their stadium to look like Lambeau Field, or M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore (which I think is a pretty nice looking place), or someplace that looks and feels like "football" from the word "go". Imagine the public scrutiny the Bears, Bears' fans, and everyone associated with the Monsters of the Midway would have to deal with. Thankfully, the new Soldier Field is built in a "trendy-friendly" location instead of a blue-collar neighborhood.

And no...I really don't think the Tribune wouldn't have looked away if the Sox built anything like Soldier Field. Neither would a lot of the other ballpark-related websites, periodicals, and anything associated with ranking one stadium over another. Heck...even national broadcasters would probably have a field day ripping the place.

Bobbo35
03-05-2006, 04:25 PM
Wow. The green seats are so much better. I can't stand the blue seats, personally, and will not miss them at all. The green seats give the stadium that "classic look", especially the way they're designed.

The park has the "homey" feel to it. The blue seats were an eye sore as you can see compared to the green seats in the picture

Wsoxmike59
03-05-2006, 04:51 PM
Who cares what it looks like from the outside? I've never been there, but from what I've heard and seen on TV, it looks great on the inside.

The Cell was totally different, it didn't look good from the outside or the inside.

I agree with you to a point, it does look good on the inside and it's not a bad place to watch a game if you're not stuck in the nosebleeds.

But the new Soldier Field is in incredible pain in the ass to navigate around as far as concourses, concessions and bathrooms. Exiting Soldier Field is another nightmare altogether...

But architectually speaking, Soldier Field is a freaking eysore and monstrosity on an otherwise spectacular Lakefront setting.

The new Comiskey was torched by the Tribune Co., Jay Mariotti, and Cub fans alike after it was built, and the new Soldier Field has recieved 1/100th of the criticism that U.S. Cellular Field or New Comiskey Park has gotten over the years.

SweetnesSox
03-05-2006, 05:33 PM
Exactly. While some archetectural critics have complained about Solider Field, it was widely excaped public criticism.

Didn't soldier field make numerous "top architectural achievement" lists and awards the year it went up? I dunno who criticized it but all the architects I read about loved it.

soxfanatlanta
03-05-2006, 06:31 PM
Very nice, but I bet the photos don't do it justice. Looking forward to seeing it with my own eyes!

DSpivack
03-05-2006, 06:45 PM
Didn't soldier field make numerous "top architectural achievement" lists and awards the year it went up? I dunno who criticized it but all the architects I read about loved it.

Resident Trib architecture critic Blair Kamin had a mixed review of it, IIRC.

Max Power
03-05-2006, 06:55 PM
Who cares what it looks like from the outside? I've never been there, but from what I've heard and seen on TV, it looks great on the inside.

The Cell was totally different, it didn't look good from the outside or the inside.

It's pretty nice on the inside. The upper deck (stop me if you've heard this before) is really steep and the entrances are near the bottom. Plus, it has a lot more rows than Comiskey's does.
Other than that, it was pretty dumb to renovate a stadium and reduce capacity to the 2nd lowest in the NFL (will be the lowest when the Colts get their new stadium). But at least the Bears got their suites, 7 club levels, etc.

mccoydp
03-05-2006, 08:21 PM
New Comiskey (sorry, I still call it that) looks great...I can't wait to see it when all the seats are in!

Brian26
03-05-2006, 08:41 PM
Or how about this...what if after the new Solider Field was up, a slew of other NFL teams opened new stadiums that reflected more of a "traditional" look and feel to them?

Comparing baseball parks and football stadiums is like comparing apples and oranges, though.

mweflen
03-05-2006, 09:54 PM
Comparing baseball parks and football stadiums is like comparing apples and oranges, though.

true. what 'traditional' football stadiums actually exist?

the seats look great. i wonder if they'll be as comfy as the blues, though... :cool:

Sox'R'Champs
03-05-2006, 10:11 PM
Rogers got some work to do cause that field looks like ****.

mweflen
03-05-2006, 10:20 PM
Rogers got some work to do cause that field looks like ****.

dude, it's like 33 degrees out. bet your lawn doesn't look that nice. :rolleyes:

lths06
03-05-2006, 10:50 PM
Rogers got some work to do cause that field looks like ****.

Something tells me the Sodfather will have it looking great just in time to raise the pennant :smile:

WCCMIKE
03-06-2006, 12:04 AM
Those seats look awesome

CPditka
03-06-2006, 12:15 AM
The new bullpens also were a great improvement, and more seats in the outfield and down the lines, plus the fundamentals deck, scout seating and additional restaurant. As I type this, so much has been done over the last six years, and even with the additional monies spent from U. S. Cellular, the park's total cost would now be (just a guess) about $210 million ($140 original, plus $80 million in total renovations), which still makes the place a pretty good bargain, considerding what a new ballpark or stadium would cost now.
:cool:

The ballpark originally cost about $150 million in 1990 dollars, adjusted for 2005 that is about $223 mil in todays dollars. I got that from here http://www.westegg.com/inflation/. So in terms of todays dollars the stadium cost about $223 + $68 Mil = $291 Mil. The naming rights deal in 2003 paid $68 Mil to the sox. Sp basically we have a very nice stadium for under $300 mil which is a steal. Most stadiums today with land rights purchases and all cost at least $400 mil some closer to $500 and $600 Mil.

TheOldRoman
03-06-2006, 12:39 AM
Didn't soldier field make numerous "top architectural achievement" lists and awards the year it went up? I dunno who criticized it but all the architects I read about loved it.
Yes, a lot of architectural critics loved it. However, there was a movement to get it stripped of its landmark status because it is a monstrosity (in their eyes) and it is nothing like it used to be.

ihatethecubs
03-06-2006, 03:34 AM
we spent all that time complaing about the blue seats, and we finally get them the year youll never see them because there will be people sitting in them.

batmanZoSo
03-06-2006, 08:20 AM
Do they let people just wander around the cell in the offseason?

You wanna go? Let's go.

Hangar18
03-06-2006, 08:36 AM
The GREEN seats are almost done .................
except for everything in the lower deck past the dugouts, and the entire outfield. Other than that, theyre almost done

Hangar18
03-06-2006, 08:39 AM
The ballpark originally cost about $150 million in 1990 dollars, adjusted for 2005 that is about $223 mil in todays dollars. I got that from here http://www.westegg.com/inflation/. So in terms of todays dollars the stadium cost about $223 + $68 Mil = $291 Mil. The naming rights deal in 2003 paid $68 Mil to the sox. Sp basically we have a very nice stadium for under $300 mil which is a steal. Most stadiums today with land rights purchases and all cost at least $400 mil some closer to $500 and $600 Mil.


You get what you pay for. The SOX cut a bunch of corners and ended up paying way extra to fix what shouldve been right the first time.

wdelaney72
03-06-2006, 08:52 AM
I agree with you to a point, it does look good on the inside and it's not a bad place to watch a game if you're not stuck in the nosebleeds.

But the new Soldier Field is in incredible pain in the ass to navigate around as far as concourses, concessions and bathrooms. Exiting Soldier Field is another nightmare altogether...

But architectually speaking, Soldier Field is a freaking eysore and monstrosity on an otherwise spectacular Lakefront setting.

The new Comiskey was torched by the Tribune Co., Jay Mariotti, and Cub fans alike after it was built, and the new Soldier Field has recieved 1/100th of the criticism that U.S. Cellular Field or New Comiskey Park has gotten over the years.

I consider the renovated Soldier Field a failure. Seating and field view is improved, but they spent over $650 million dollars and
1) It's awful looking from the exterior
2) Bathroom usage is STILL a problem
3) Concourses are still overcrowded.

What bothers me about it is that there is plenty of room around the perimeter to solve the congestion problem, but they sectioned off the walkway areas resulting in unused space. It's certainly improved, but it could have been done much better.

champagne030
03-06-2006, 09:36 AM
The GREEN seats are almost done .................
except for everything in the lower deck past the dugouts, and the entire outfield. Other than that, theyre almost done

Not everything....My bleacher seats (bench) are green. :tongue:

Stoky44
03-06-2006, 10:52 AM
It's pretty nice on the inside. The upper deck (stop me if you've heard this before) is really steep and the entrances are near the bottom. Plus, it has a lot more rows than Comiskey's does.
Other than that, it was pretty dumb to renovate a stadium and reduce capacity to the 2nd lowest in the NFL (will be the lowest when the Colts get their new stadium). But at least the Bears got their suites, 7 club levels, etc.

This is my major problem as well, and was going to be my post: The main problem is that its too damn SMALL! Plus to go through all the trouble to keep the old outside walls b/c of landmark status was dumb. I heard they are trying to revoke the landmark status. Should have torn it down and started over again. I know sight lines are improved, but that comes at the cost of something like ~65% of seats are further from the field than they were before.

paciorek1983
03-06-2006, 03:08 PM
comment about green seats at ballparks......

http://http://www.digitalballparks.com/American/Oriole_640_5.html


Did they ever go to New Comiskey?:?:

skobabe8
03-06-2006, 06:03 PM
comment about green seats at ballparks......

http://http://www.digitalballparks.com/American/Oriole_640_5.html


Did they ever go to New Comiskey?:?:

Its true that the vast majority of ballparks have green seats now. But its irresponsible to make it sound like Camden copied all of the other HOK parks when it was the first of its kind back in 1992. Unles you're at Dodger Stadium, Busch Stadium, Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, and a couple of others you're gonna see green seats because it looks good.

gbergman
03-06-2006, 07:59 PM
looks like seats at angel stadium

Parrothead
03-06-2006, 08:05 PM
I consider the renovated Soldier Field a failure. Seating and field view is improved, but they spent over $650 million dollars and
1) It's awful looking from the exterior
2) Bathroom usage is STILL a problem
3) Concourses are still overcrowded.

What bothers me about it is that there is plenty of room around the perimeter to solve the congestion problem, but they sectioned off the walkway areas resulting in unused space. It's certainly improved, but it could have been done much better.

You are correct......The way to improve it would have been to tear it down and start new with a retractable dome so Chicago could have gotten the NCAA B-Ball finals, a Super Bowl among other things.

lths06
03-06-2006, 08:19 PM
You are correct......The way to improve it would have been to tear it down and start new with a retractable dome so Chicago could have gotten the NCAA B-Ball finals, a Super Bowl among other things.

When was the last time the NCAA (or anyone else) used a football field for basketball?:?:

Taliesinrk
03-06-2006, 08:25 PM
When was the last time the NCAA (or anyone else) used a football field for basketball?:?:

Where do you think the final 4's have been hosted in indianapolis?? doesn't syracuse use their dome for bball games too? or am i off there? wasn't the georgia dome used for the final 4 too? i'm not too sure.. all i know is that a lot of final 4's have been hosted in football domes (see minneapolis as well)....:?:

dickallen15
03-06-2006, 09:29 PM
When was the last time the NCAA (or anyone else) used a football field for basketball?:?:

That would be last year in St. Louis.

Parrothead
03-06-2006, 09:50 PM
Where do you think the final 4's have been hosted in indianapolis?? doesn't syracuse use their dome for bball games too? or am i off there? wasn't the georgia dome used for the final 4 too? i'm not too sure.. all i know is that a lot of final 4's have been hosted in football domes (see minneapolis as well)....:?:

Thanks. I did not want to look them all up. I believe San Antonio and New Orleans, Minneapolis and Tampa had one too.

ZachAL
03-06-2006, 09:59 PM
When was the last time the NCAA (or anyone else) used a football field for basketball?:?:

Yeah, i think most all of them are in football domes. Indianapolis, Atlanta, Louisiana, Minneapolis, St. Louis, St. Petersburg....the list goes on. Most notably Indianapolis though because they have that deal with the NCAA where they get it something like 9 or 10 times between 2000 and 2030 or something along those lines.

ComiskeyBrewer
03-07-2006, 01:02 AM
doesn't syracuse use their dome for bball games too? or am i off there?

They did it for a game this year. It isn't their permenant home tho.

Bobbo35
03-07-2006, 07:26 AM
Well, I'll add this:
US Cellular Field is a BEAUTIFUL ballpark, and I didn't think that was possible when I first saw it in 1991. It looked like a spaceship or something from the outside, and as mentioned before, the color scheme inside was an eyesore.

Selling the naming rights was a brilliant decision!
Ya, it was a definate spaceship when it opened. I have a panoramic of the first year it opened and now am like what the heck were they thinking.

Bobbo35
03-07-2006, 07:27 AM
The green seats look spectacular and the Upper Deck looks surprisingly intimate and close to the action. The U.S. Cellular renovations have been a rousing success IMO.

Now what can we do about this monstrosity on the Lakefront? Any chance of shoring off this lopsided tincan of an upperdeck any?? Yeeeeecccchhh!!!!:tongue:

http://academics.triton.edu/faculty/fheitzman/soldier%20field%202.jpg

Ya it looks like the spaceship from flight of the navigator. Anyone remember that movie?

Hangar18
03-07-2006, 07:55 AM
Ya it looks like the spaceship from flight of the navigator. Anyone remember that movie?


Soldier Field. What a Colossal waste of Money. That picture says it all.
All so the Bears can play 8 games? 10 at most? The other 355 days of the year, it sits as Physical Graffiti on our beautiful lakefront. Lets just put a steel mill next to the Adler Planetarium next.

TheOldRoman
03-07-2006, 10:41 AM
They did it for a game this year. It isn't their permenant home tho.
Yes it is, they always play basketball in the Carrier Dome. They set up the court in the endzone and put a fold up seating section across the field, closing off the other half od the stadium.