PDA

View Full Version : My Letter to the Editor of the Economist


logansquaresox
03-22-2006, 07:32 PM
In case you haven't heard, the London-based magazine The Economist had a special series of articles about Chicago in this week's issue. It's a great and mostly accurate read and I highly recommend going out and buying one or at least taking a peek online. Linky (http://economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601463). (You can get access to the premium articles by looking at an advertisement.)

However, in a bit talking about local sports teams, they have this to say about the Sox, "...the White Sox, winners of last year's World Series, in their revamped (but sterile) Comiskey Park, now unromantically named US Cellular Field." Which really chapped my hide. So I'm writing my first letter to the editor, which I though I would share with you.

Dear Sir,

As a lifelong Chicagoan, I thoroughly enjoyed your series of articles about our fair city. However, as a fourth-generation White Sox fan, I must dispute your correspondent's characterization of Sox Park as sterile. Had he actually visited, he would have seen the "revamping" of the park has made a huge difference, rendering it more intimate, aesthetically pleasing and, most importantly, a great place to watch a ballgame. Not only have the vertiginous top eight rows of the upper deck been removed and a partial roof added, but there are now historical murals along the upper deck concourses, a kid-centric baseball skills area called "Fundamentals" and the old bright blue seats have been replaced by handsome dark green ones. Furthermore, and unlike the National League ballpark eight miles to the north, there isn't a bad seat in the house. Sox Park has excellent sightlines, which I will use to watch my team raise the 2005 World Series Champion flag on April 2nd. I'd invite your correspondent to come along and see for himself, but every seat has been snapped up by proud Sox fans eager to return to our beautiful park and watch that rarest of Chicago commodities--winning baseball.

manders_01
03-22-2006, 07:38 PM
Excellently written - kudos!

samram
03-22-2006, 08:03 PM
Nicely done. Good use of the word "vertiginous." :thumbsup:

MUsoxfan
03-22-2006, 08:11 PM
Nicely done. Good use of the word "vertiginous." :thumbsup:

http://www.bradfordbrokers.com/peter1.gif

"Well I can make up words too. You sir are a vestgio.":D:

TDog
03-22-2006, 10:25 PM
Maybe by sterile they mean "not swarming with infectious disease."

When I left the Chicago to go west at 21, I was amazed at how clean the baseball stadiums were in California. When I visited Chicago later, I thought it would be great if someone could sterilize the old ballparks. Wrigley Field may have character, but so did Ratzo Rizzo.

Nellie_Fox
03-22-2006, 11:43 PM
...When I visited Chicago later, I thought it would be great if someone could sterilize the old ballparks. Wrigley Field may have character, but so did Ratzo Rizzo.What, you didn't like the slime molds growing on the concrete in the parts of the lower deck of old Comiskey that hadn't been touched by the sun since the Hoover administration?

kevin57
03-22-2006, 11:43 PM
good letter

Hangar18
03-23-2006, 08:16 AM
.................. Wrigley Field may have character, but so did Ratzo Rizzo.


hey, Leave Kittle42 out of this

thechico
03-23-2006, 10:48 AM
Nice letter. Let's see if the Economist actually prints it.
It's a shame that a reputed periodical can't conduct its own personal investigation. It would be nice if they actually visited, or took up the offer of an escorted tour, but I doubt it.

"When I left the Chicago to go west at 21, I was amazed at how clean the baseball stadiums were in California. When I visited Chicago later, I thought it would be great if someone could sterilize the old ballparks. Wrigley Field may have character, but so did Ratzo Rizzo."

Great quote.

Chip Z'nuff
03-23-2006, 10:53 AM
"now unromantically named US Cellular Field." Which really chapped my hide"

Good thing the other side of the town doesn't use a corporate name on their stadium

CLR01
03-23-2006, 11:00 AM
In case you haven't heard, the London-based magazine The Economist had a special series of articles about Chicago in this week's issue. It's a great and mostly accurate read and I highly recommend going out and buying one or at least taking a peek online. Linky (http://economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601463). (You can get access to the premium articles by looking at an advertisement.)

However, in a bit talking about local sports teams, they have this to say about the Sox, "...the White Sox, winners of last year's World Series, in their revamped (but sterile) Comiskey Park, now unromantically named US Cellular Field." Which really chapped my hide. So I'm writing my first letter to the editor, which I though I would share with you.

Dear Sir,

As a lifelong Chicagoan, I thoroughly enjoyed your series of articles about our fair city. However, as a fourth-generation White Sox fan, I must dispute your correspondent's characterization of Sox Park as sterile. Had he actually visited, he would have seen the "revamping" of the park has made a huge difference, rendering it more intimate, aesthetically pleasing and, most importantly, a great place to watch a ballgame. Not only have the vertiginous top eight rows of the upper deck been removed and a partial roof added, but there are now historical murals along the upper deck concourses, a kid-centric baseball skills area called "Fundamentals" and the old bright blue seats have been replaced by handsome dark green ones. Furthermore, and unlike the National League ballpark eight miles to the north, there isn't a bad seat in the house. Sox Park has excellent sightlines, which I will use to watch my team raise the 2005 World Series Champion flag on April 2nd. I'd invite your correspondent to come along and see for himself, but every seat has been snapped up by proud Sox fans eager to return to our beautiful park and watch that rarest of Chicago commodities--winning baseball.


Excellent job bringing up the Cubs. :rolleyes:

ondafarm
03-23-2006, 11:23 AM
Good letter.

I'm surprised that other people read the Economist, I always get accussed of being highbrow when I read it.

MarySwiss
03-23-2006, 11:24 AM
Nicely done. Good use of the word "vertiginous." :thumbsup:

Hey, that's what I was gonna say!

I think that alone should get the letter pubbed. And using "aesthetically pleasing" probably won't hurt, either.

SBSoxFan
03-23-2006, 11:33 AM
Good letter.

I'm surprised that other people read the Economist, I always get accussed of being highbrow when I read it.
Only snobs read the Economist ....... or use the word "vertiginous." :D:

logansquaresox
03-23-2006, 12:07 PM
Thanks for commenting, everyone!

I sent it off and will follow up if I make it into print!

Best,

Sarah

Tom~Attitude
03-23-2006, 12:10 PM
Lets save everyone the trouble of looking it up:
ver·tig·i·nous

Turning about an axis; revolving or whirling.
Affected by vertigo; dizzy.
Tending to produce vertigo: “my small mind contained in earthly human limits, not lost in vertiginous space and elements unknown” (Diana Cooper).
Inclined to change quickly; unstable.

logansquaresox
03-23-2006, 12:11 PM
Good letter.

I'm surprised that other people read the Economist, I always get accussed of being highbrow when I read it.
It was the text for my senior seminar in economics--I've been hooked ever since. Best international news coverage, period. Plus, you've got to love that British snark.

miker
03-23-2006, 02:11 PM
I'm surprised that other people read the Economist, I always get accussed of being highbrow when I read it.
William Ligue would never read The Economist...but, contrary to media reporting, he's not a Sox fan either.

Besides, doesn't all that urine sterilize Wrigley?

ode to veeck
03-23-2006, 02:22 PM
Good letter.

I'm surprised that other people read the Economist, I always get accussed of being highbrow when I read it.

Been a regular subscriber for decades ...

palehozenychicty
03-23-2006, 02:24 PM
Good letter.

I'm surprised that other people read the Economist, I always get accussed of being highbrow when I read it.

Let 'em hate. Economist is a solid read. :D:

maurice
03-23-2006, 03:21 PM
I've had a subscription on and off for the past several years. I let it lapse when work heats up, and I can't find the time to get through it all.

SluggersAway
03-23-2006, 03:32 PM
I think you doth protest too much. The comments are really not that big of a deal. It does not sound like the use of the word "sterile" is meant to be truly demeaning. Lack of creativity at a ballpark is actually a good thing as it means the focus is on the field where it should be. No one wants a replica of the monstrosity that is the park in Houston.

As for "unromantic," yes corporate names are quite unromantic.

ondafarm
03-23-2006, 03:41 PM
As for "unromantic," yes corporate names are quite unromantic.

Unless, you had the right corporate sponsor.

What if . . .

Sybaris Field
or
FTD Stadium
or
Hallmark Fieldhouse
or
eHarmony Arena
or
Love Field.

Well, that last one would never fly.

SBSoxFan
03-23-2006, 05:21 PM
Unless, you had the right corporate sponsor.


Love Field.

Well, that last one would never fly.

Sure. It could be nicknamed "the Shack". :D:

TDog
03-23-2006, 06:09 PM
...
or
Love Field.

Well, that last one would never fly.

Well said. At least I caught the reference. I don't know if Love Field still exists, even as a general aviation airport. I know it was too small and unable to expand, but I always thought something was lost when flights to Dallas stopped going into Love Field.

Parrothead
03-23-2006, 06:25 PM
In case you haven't heard, the London-based magazine The Economist had a special series of articles about Chicago in this week's issue. It's a great and mostly accurate read and I highly recommend going out and buying one or at least taking a peek online. Linky (http://economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5601463). (You can get access to the premium articles by looking at an advertisement.)

However, in a bit talking about local sports teams, they have this to say about the Sox, "...the White Sox, winners of last year's World Series, in their revamped (but sterile) Comiskey Park, now unromantically named US Cellular Field." Which really chapped my hide. So I'm writing my first letter to the editor, which I though I would share with you.



Hangar is that you? You found another magazine to keep tract of.:cool:

SouthSideHitman
03-23-2006, 06:27 PM
Good letter. I read the articles and thought that they were generally very good, albeit with their usual righty, pro business slant. I took slight exception to their description upon first reading, but didn't think it was a huge deal. Not a bad idea to challenge such nerfarious stereotypes. I do think that you shoulda given them props for showing a picuture of Daley in full Sox cap in jacket in their Daley article (perhaps it doesn't show up in the online version of the magazine).

logansquaresox
03-24-2006, 09:04 AM
I think you doth protest too much. The comments are really not that big of a deal.
This is probably true; I just get so tired of hearing it, especially from people who are relying on pure hearsay.

I do think that you shoulda given them props for showing a picuture of Daley in full Sox cap in jacket in their Daley article
The caption to that picture reads, "It's not the stockyards that smell." :redneck

ondafarm
03-24-2006, 10:01 AM
Well said. At least I caught the reference. I don't know if Love Field still exists, even as a general aviation airport. I know it was too small and unable to expand, but I always thought something was lost when flights to Dallas stopped going into Love Field.


Love Field is the home field for Southwest Airlines and about as active as Midway Airport.

ondafarm
03-24-2006, 10:02 AM
Been a regular subscriber for decades ...

Yes, but you're a fellow Maroon, we automaticly count as highbrows.

schmitty9800
03-24-2006, 12:56 PM
This is the nation that likes to pretend that Liverpool, Manchester United and Chelsea are still neighorborhood football clubs. When in actuality they're multi million dollar international corporate marketing machines that make a lot of money for their owners.

Railsplitter
03-24-2006, 01:13 PM
Maybe by sterile they mean "not swarming with infectious disease."

When I left the Chicago to go west at 21, I was amazed at how clean the baseball stadiums were in California. When I visited Chicago later, I thought it would be great if someone could sterilize the old ballparks. Wrigley Field may have character, but so did Ratzo Rizzo.

"Antiseptic" is another term I've heard to denigrate ball parks. Seriuosly, do people realy believe there is something wrong with avoiding infections?

SouthSideHitman
03-24-2006, 01:51 PM
"Antiseptic" is another term I've heard to denigrate ball parks. Seriuosly, do people realy believe there is something wrong with avoiding infections?

I'm guessing that most people's qualm with ballparks of a "sterile" or "antiseptic" nature has more to due with lifelessness therein rather than hygene. Although the urinal does present a strong counter-argument for a focus on public health.

SoxandtheCityTee
03-27-2006, 10:53 PM
[quote=TDog]Maybe by sterile they mean "not swarming with infectious disease."

I drafted, but did not send, a letter to the Economist saying that I assumed "sterile" was British English for "not urine-soaked."