PDA

View Full Version : The Cell getting a bad rap in MN


paciorek1983
09-05-2006, 06:45 PM
http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/sports/15440022.htm

I guess it'll never end.:(:

DaveIsHere
09-05-2006, 06:49 PM
**** them!!!! That Dome is pretty sweet you *******s!! Only took you how long to realize that????


Hope their Hotdogs still taste like an ashtray!

Dan Mega
09-05-2006, 06:49 PM
Major League Baseball's attempt at a glowing description of the new park, from a recent story in the Tribune: "The second Comiskey Park is quite possibly the last example of the long-evolving 'modernist' baseball stadium curve-sided, symmetrical, suburban in character and detached from its surroundings.''

Unfortunately for the White Sox and their fans, that's exactly what it was. And, despite six years of renovations, what it largely remains today.

Yeah, and the Rollerdome that the Twinkies play in is such a nice ballpark.:rolleyes:

batmanZoSo
09-05-2006, 06:51 PM
Yawn. Last I checked, Yankee stadium is roughly symmetrical too and looks a lot like ours. The reason it's a classic ballpark is because of history. Over time, no one gives a rat's ass about "retro."

:whocares

nofluke69
09-05-2006, 06:53 PM
They can go F themselves!!! I love our park!!!

HotelWhiteSox
09-05-2006, 06:54 PM
I knew the lack of a giant dairy product would hurt our stadium's atmosphere

nofluke69
09-05-2006, 06:59 PM
They have had garbage bags on the walls of their park for decades....And now they are talking crap?

maurice
09-05-2006, 07:01 PM
When was this article written, 1994? This is 2006. The "retro ballpark" craze jumped the shark years ago. "Retro" is the new "cookie cutter" with far too many Camden imitators. I don't want a park with "a more cozy feel like Wrigley Field on Chicago's North Side" (cozy being a euphemism for crowded, phony, and crappy), and the Twins don't seem to be interested in one either.

Some fuzzy history in that article too, particularly the bit about a proposal for building Comiskey II in Armour Park, instead of "the neighborhood directly to the south of the old stadium." The author apparently is unaware of the fact that he's talking about a difference of one city block and that both sites are in the same neighborhood. He also is unaware of the fact that the proposed "tennis courts, other venues, and trees and shrubs" would have simply replaced the tennis courts, etc. that already exist in historic Armour Park and would have been wiped out by the proposed stadium.

One more error: JR made a lot of mistakes in the planing process, but "greater expense" was not one of them. If anything, he cheaped out to make sure the stadium deal passed the IL legislature. JR has acknowledged that many of the recent renovations made up for the park's relatively small construction cost.

paciorek1983
09-05-2006, 07:10 PM
When was this article written, 1994? This is 2006. The "retro ballpark" craze jumped the shark years ago. "Retro" is the new "cookie cutter" with far too many Camden imitators. I don't want a park with "a more cozy feel like Wrigley Field on Chicago's North Side" (cozy being a euphemism for crowded, phony, and crappy), and the Twins don't seem to be interested in one either.

Some fuzzy history in that article too, particularly the bit about a proposal for building Comiskey II in Armour Park, instead of "the neighborhood directly to the south of the old stadium." The author apparently is unaware of the fact that he's talking about a difference of one city block and that both sites are in the same neighborhood. He also is unaware of the fact that the proposed "tennis courts, other venues, and trees and shrubs" would have simply replaced the tennis courts, etc. that already exist in historic Armour Park and would have been wiped out by the proposed stadium.

One more error: JR made a lot of mistakes in the planing process, but "greater expense" was not one of them. If anything, he cheaped out to make sure the stadium deal passed the IL legislature. JR has acknowledged that many of the recent renovations made up for the park's relatively small construction cost.

You seem pretty knowlaedgeable about the situation. Would you mind shooting an email to that person?

jackbrohamer
09-05-2006, 07:19 PM
*** is the deal with these jokers in Minnesota? Is there no reason for them to get out of bed in the morning except to vent their spleens against the White Sox?

Hitmen77
09-05-2006, 07:23 PM
Hey dude, what's the score?

Seriously, I'm getting tired of WSI being a forum for how other teams trash talking us. This clown is 5 years too late in his bashing, every review I have read of the Cell in the renovations have been very complimentary to the place. .

maurice
09-05-2006, 07:29 PM
Not surprisingly, everything you need to know about the true history of Comiskey II v. Armour Field is on WSI: here (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/FixComiskey/Bess/Conversation1.htm/), here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=25748&highlight=Armour+Field), and here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=24064&highlight=Armour+Field).

PHG was on this like white on rice.

Kub_Killer_15
09-05-2006, 08:21 PM
When I was up in Minnesota I went to walk around before the game looking for something to do and there was NOTHING! In the Cell you can spend hours with all the fun activites there so why are they trying to make fun of our park?

Babe The Blue Ox
09-05-2006, 08:25 PM
Holy crap, Sox fans need to worry less about what MN fishwrapper writers write and start worrying more about the team.

Grzegorz
09-05-2006, 08:39 PM
*** is the deal with these jokers in Minnesota? Is there no reason for them to get out of bed in the morning except to vent their spleens against the White Sox?

The Minnesota Twins and their hefty bag park are making fun of the Cell?

Screw them; how much crap do we fans and the players have to take from these jokers?

chisoxfanatic
09-05-2006, 08:40 PM
Holy crap, Sox fans need to worry less about what MN fishwrapper writers write and start worrying more about the team.

It starts to wear on you when you constantly see bad things said about your team, your ballpark and neighborhood, and your fans.

Babe The Blue Ox
09-05-2006, 08:45 PM
Yeah, so how do you think the Yankees feel? Don't read them - some fans on this board seem to get that.

3Pete
09-05-2006, 08:50 PM
I think some of you guys are reading the article wrong. The guy is not saying the Metrodome is better than the Cell, or even anything about the Metrodome. Anybody in Minnesota would tell you that they would rather have the Cell any day of the week than the Metrodome. The article only applies to what the Twins should and should not do when they build their ballpark in 2010.

chisoxfanatic
09-05-2006, 08:52 PM
Yeah, so how do you think the Yankees feel? Don't read them - some fans on this board seem to get that.

They don't know the first thing about what pain is! And, they're constantly glorified because of it. Boo hoo to them!

Babe The Blue Ox
09-05-2006, 08:55 PM
Yes, Sox fans have honorary degrees in pain, that's for sure.

SOXSINCE'70
09-05-2006, 08:55 PM
:hawk
"Screw 'em!!"

Babe The Blue Ox
09-05-2006, 08:57 PM
Is that your pain smiley?

SOXSINCE'70
09-05-2006, 09:03 PM
Yeah, so how do you think the Yankees feel?

A baseball team that is 26 for 39 in WS play had better have
some pretty thick skin,IMO.White Sox fans can only dream
of such luck in the WS.

MUsoxfan
09-05-2006, 09:13 PM
Ummm....I see nothing wrong with the article. They're right. JR made a colossal ****-up with his choice of design and location. This is amplified by the fact that most cities after Comiskey II were done perfectly. The Sox did it so wrong that they had to cell, I mean sell:tongue: the naming rights to do their best to make it less of a catasrophic eyesore. They did a hell of a job doing what they shouldn't have had to do if everything was done correctly less than 20 years ago.

To paraphrase the Twins president he said "We have one chance to do this right. We don't want to have to renovate 15 times." He couldn't be more right. Comiskey II has been an example to all the teams of the last 15 years on exactly what NOT to do. This isn't a giant revelation. How many of us would kill to have a south loop stadium or at the least a stadium that points towards the skyline? I'd be willing to bet 9 out of 10 of us would.

jenn2080
09-05-2006, 10:11 PM
When I was up in Minnesota I went to walk around before the game looking for something to do and there was NOTHING! In the Cell you can spend hours with all the fun activites there so why are they trying to make fun of our park?


i am not agreeing with them but isnt watching the game something to do? isnt that what you go to the game for?

Lip Man 1
09-05-2006, 10:13 PM
Until the Sox starting beating them on a consistent basis.

Lip

0o0o0
09-05-2006, 10:14 PM
Uhhhh, thanks Gordon Wittenmyer. :unsure:

DaleJRFan
09-05-2006, 10:15 PM
**** the Twins. Who gives a flying **** what some assclown in MN thinks of OUR stadium?? Seriously?? Where were all of these anti-sox anti-comiskey articles last year when the Sox were busy kicking the everloving **** out of the Twins on their way to a world series title??

Again, I restate myself... who the **** cares??

BiggestFan14
09-05-2006, 10:16 PM
Why should we even care what they think. We know the stadium is great, and that should be enough. They can have their blue balloon.

thomas35forever
09-05-2006, 10:36 PM
I agree with this article. There's no stadium in the bigs better than the Metrodome.

DaleJRFan
09-05-2006, 10:39 PM
There's no stadium in the bigs better than the Metrodome.

:roflmao:

Frontman
09-05-2006, 10:42 PM
How many of us would kill to have a south loop stadium or at the least a stadium that points towards the skyline? I'd be willing to bet 9 out of 10 of us would.

Anyone who really is a Sox fan didn't want to say goodbye to the old ballpark, much less have a "Wrigley South" stadium. So folks in the north suburbs can get to the park easier? That's way we'd "kill" for a South loop stadium?!!?!

I usually don't pull the "I'm from the old neighborhood," out all that often, but dammit, I'm from Bridgeport. The Sox have been on the Southside in that neighborhood my entire life. I walked to games as a 7 year old with my Grandad. My Grandad as a kid age 9 would hop onto the back of trolley cars and come over from "the back of the yards" neighborhood. Even after moving out of the neighborhood, for a long time we'd park in our neighbors garage and walk over to games. So please, take that South Loop stadium garbage out of here! Are you there to watch the game or to look at the pretty buildings behind the park?

Who gives a crap if a flyball can hit an office building, bounce into a river, or into a bay? Means nothing, because A: That does nothing to actually effect the game of baseball, and B: We are a far better team and stadium than those that require gimmick stadiums and juiced-riddled science experiments to be a draw.

I might agree it took a bit of work to "fix" the Cell into a great stadium, but its a great stadium now. The Rollerdome is a freakin' nightmare!!! I hate it for football, and I certainly hate it for baseball. Between the dome and the lights, much less having very little fan interaction/appearance, the Twins stadium is a dump. You can't even see their fans during a game. Very little to none behind home plate, certainly none in the outfield. They don't even have freakin' bullpens in their park! To paraphrase Ozzie, is "A Minnesotan EDITED garbage."

Maybe someone should point out to the columnist that the misdesigned New Comiskey/The Cell is a thousand percent better than that nightmare of a stadium called "Minute Maid Park" is down in Houston. Talk about a piss-poor design. If an umpire can't figure out if a home run has been hit, then it isn't a good design. If the outfielder needs to be able to mountain climb to grab a ball in deep centerfield, it isn't a good design. And if along the left field wall, the distance to the wall changes back and forth a 10 feet intervals, ITS A CRAPPY DESIGN!!! Let's not even bring up the amusement park in Milwaukee or the laser light/Coca-Cola/whatever the hell else the Giants put up around their park to celebrate a cheat stadium out in San Franciso.

The Twins, as well as their fans and their columnists, much like we do, need to freakin' focus on the final run. They can't compare, even if they make this post season and we don't, as they will take a HUGE amount of time to equal what the White Sox are. Those guys in Minnesota are just plain pissed that they still will never compare to the history that the White Sox have, that we, even in a ballpark that is "wrong" still draw, and that they can never equal the greatnesss that is the White Sox.

Twins in the Hall of Fame= 5
White Sox in the Hall= 32 (And in a few years, that number will increase when Frank goes in.)

They can't even claim to have more WS championships that us, since that stat we are tied.

You know, the thought just crossed my mind. This guy is probably pissed that the new stadium was delayed, not by us winning the WS last year, but their own beloved VIKINGS FOOTBALL TEAM SEX BOAT SCANDAL!!! Hey buddy, who you crapping!?!?!?!

God, talk about getting your nose rubbed in it. I hope the hell we sweep them in the final 3 games, just to shut those jerks up!

MUsoxfan, sorry if I'm sounding like its personal, it certainly isn't meant to be. But man, I certainly would take a WS championship in my lifetime over having a stadium with "atmosphere" like the Cubs have with Wrigley. I hope you don't take my rant as an attack.

Go Go White Sox!

Front

Kub_Killer_15
09-05-2006, 10:58 PM
jenn2080Quote:
Originally Posted by Kub_Killer_15
When I was up in Minnesota I went to walk around before the game looking for something to do and there was NOTHING! In the Cell you can spend hours with all the fun activites there so why are they trying to make fun of our park?



Originally Posted by Jenn2080
i am not agreeing with them but isnt watching the game something to do? isnt that what you go to the game for?

Yes but when you get an hour and a half before the game starts you do not want to sit around doing nothing inside. Mainly because Im a teenager I like to go around and check out the stadium and what they have for kids like me, I couldn't find one thing to do... I don't know if I headed the wrong or everything was downstairs because I couldn't check out downstairs because I was in the upper deck so they kept me around my section I guess so I wouldn't find a better seat that was empty. But I just don't feel sitting an extra hour before a ball game espcailly my first and last time going to that park.

Patrick134
09-05-2006, 11:21 PM
The Metrodome is an absolute joke, a laughing stock of a "stadium".

Nellie_Fox
09-05-2006, 11:55 PM
Again, HE WASN'T COMPARING IT TO THE DOME! Believe me, everyone in Minnesota knows what a horror the Metrodome is.

As has already been stated above, but ignored by those who wished to add their two-cents worth without reading all the posts (or, apparently, the actual article) this is not a comparison of US Cellular to the Metrodome, or a hit piece on the Sox; they are doing a series on all the ballparks that a commission from Minnesota is visiting to get ideas of what to do and what not to do when building the new Twins ballpark. They just happened to write about US Cellular first.

I read the article earlier today in the paper. I don't think they got everything right about the ballpark (no mention of the open concourse design, underplayed the quality of the renovations) but I think they're right that no effort was made to make the park fit into its surroundings or to consider the view of the outside from inside as part of the ambience. Let's wait and see what they have to say about the other parks they visit; I'd imaging they'll see the same flaws in Minute Maid (forced quirkiness adversely affecting play) and so forth.

MUsoxfan
09-06-2006, 12:05 AM
The Metrodome is an absolute joke, a laughing stock of a "stadium".

I keep reading this over and over again and it's true. The Metrodome is a joke, but they're not comparing the Metrodome to the Cell. They're comparing the Cell to their future stadium. The blasts against the Metrodome are unwarranted in this thread.


Front:

The old stadium had to go. It was time. They just missed the boat on building something great. I know about the history in the Bridgeport/Canaryville neighborhoods where the Sox are a tradition for the people in that area, but things change. I can almost guarantee that JR's last concern was the feelings of the people of Bridgeport.

I never advocated a "Wrigley South". I think it would have been great for the Sox and the City of Chicago to build closer to the South Loop where there's more going on. I also didn't advocate any "gimmicks". I just feel that Chicago has the most beautiful skyline in the world and since they were putting up a new park they could have made it to where people could see that beauty with relative ease and made it a really picturesque ballpark. Instead people have to go to the top of Gate 5 to get a glimpse.

Look, I LOVE the Cell. It's my absolute favorite place in the world. The Sox have redeemed themselves to an extent with the great renovations. They just shouldn't have had to do them in the first place.

Steelrod
09-06-2006, 12:24 AM
Ummm....I see nothing wrong with the article. They're right. JR made a colossal ****-up with his choice of design and location. This is amplified by the fact that most cities after Comiskey II were done perfectly. The Sox did it so wrong that they had to cell, I mean sell:tongue: the naming rights to do their best to make it less of a catasrophic eyesore. They did a hell of a job doing what they shouldn't have had to do if everything was done correctly less than 20 years ago.

To paraphrase the Twins president he said "We have one chance to do this right. We don't want to have to renovate 15 times." He couldn't be more right. Comiskey II has been an example to all the teams of the last 15 years on exactly what NOT to do. This isn't a giant revelation. How many of us would kill to have a south loop stadium or at the least a stadium that points towards the skyline? I'd be willing to bet 9 out of 10 of us would.
The cell cost 1/5 of what the retro parks cost. JR's only alternative was Tampa, not south loop. Check your history.

MUsoxfan
09-06-2006, 02:17 AM
The cell cost 1/5 of what the retro parks cost. JR's only alternative was Tampa, not south loop. Check your history.

Okay. I just checked my history.

Comiskey II (1991): $167m (100% public money) + $68m in renovation money from U.S. Cellular (2003)
Camden (1992): $100m
Ballpark at Arlington (1994): $191m (71% public money)
Jacobs Field (1994): $175m (48% public money)
Coors Field (1995): $215m (78% public money)
Turner Field (1997): $235m (0% public money)
Bank One Ballpark (1998): $349m - retractable (68% public money)
Safeco Field (1999): $517.6m - retractable (65% public money)
Great American Ballpark (2000): $325m (86% public Money)
Pac Bell Park (2000): $357m (0% public money)
Comerica Park (2000): $300m (38% public money)
Minute Maid Park (2000): $250m - retractable (68% public money)
PNC Park (2001): $262m
Miller Park (2001): $400m - retractable plus extra money due to crane accident (77.5% public money)
Petco Park (2004): $456.8m (66.5% public money)
Citizens Bank Park (2004): $346m (50% public money)
Busch II (2005): $365m (12% public money)

Source: www.ballparks.com (http://www.ballparks.com)



Just as I suspected none of these parks cost over $835m to construct as you suggest, even those with retractable roofs built a decade later. Also the Sox paid for none of the park themselves where every other team paid a good chunk of money for the new ballpark themselves. Camden, which I consider to be a fine retro style downtown park cost significantly less than the original cost of construction of Comiskey II. Even though I know JR held the city ransom on the issue, the money could have been spent far better at the time.

TheKittle
09-06-2006, 02:38 AM
Again, HE WASN'T COMPARING IT TO THE DOME! Believe me, everyone in Minnesota knows what a horror the Metrodome is.

As has already been stated above, but ignored by those who wished to add their two-cents worth without reading all the posts (or, apparently, the actual article) this is not a comparison of US Cellular to the Metrodome, or a hit piece on the Sox; they are doing a series on all the ballparks that a commission from Minnesota is visiting to get ideas of what to do and what not to do when building the new Twins ballpark. They just happened to write about US Cellular first.

I read the article earlier today in the paper. I don't think they got everything right about the ballpark (no mention of the open concourse design, underplayed the quality of the renovations) but I think they're right that no effort was made to make the park fit into its surroundings or to consider the view of the outside from inside as part of the ambience. Let's wait and see what they have to say about the other parks they visit; I'd imaging they'll see the same flaws in Minute Maid (forced quirkiness adversely affecting play) and so forth.

The hate for the Twins has clouded the responses. I never once saw where the article COMPARED Comiskey Park to the Metrodome. But then again never let your hate for the Twins get in the way, people.

Every ballpark has their flaws. The best thing the Twins have is tons of other ballparks to pick and choose from to build the best ballpark from them.

Frontman
09-06-2006, 06:50 AM
I keep reading this over and over again and it's true. The Metrodome is a joke, but they're not comparing the Metrodome to the Cell. They're comparing the Cell to their future stadium. The blasts against the Metrodome are unwarranted in this thread.


Front:

The old stadium had to go. It was time. They just missed the boat on building something great. I know about the history in the Bridgeport/Canaryville neighborhoods where the Sox are a tradition for the people in that area, but things change. I can almost guarantee that JR's last concern was the feelings of the people of Bridgeport.

I never advocated a "Wrigley South". I think it would have been great for the Sox and the City of Chicago to build closer to the South Loop where there's more going on. I also didn't advocate any "gimmicks". I just feel that Chicago has the most beautiful skyline in the world and since they were putting up a new park they could have made it to where people could see that beauty with relative ease and made it a really picturesque ballpark. Instead people have to go to the top of Gate 5 to get a glimpse.

Look, I LOVE the Cell. It's my absolute favorite place in the world. The Sox have redeemed themselves to an extent with the great renovations. They just shouldn't have had to do them in the first place.

With that, I agree with you. I personally can't stand the stadiums "right in the city" as it is horrible for traffic. I used to work downtowns on Sundays, and getting out of work during/after a Bears games took literal hours to get clear of the city. Adding the Sox to the mix would just make it even worse.

Thanks for not taking my rant personally. I feel that the Cell is gets a bad rap, when stadiums that came quite later (Minute Maid park for example) are by far worse in design than the Cell.

Front

Frontman
09-06-2006, 06:53 AM
The hate for the Twins has clouded the responses. I never once saw where the article COMPARED Comiskey Park to the Metrodome. But then again never let your hate for the Twins get in the way, people.

Every ballpark has their flaws. The best thing the Twins have is tons of other ballparks to pick and choose from to build the best ballpark from them.

Well, that's true. And I do give them credit for the approach their taking, but I'd bet you that if it wasn't a division team that currently plays in such a piss-poor excuse of a facility; the response wouldn't be anywhere near the level it is. Also, if the writer hadn't singled out New Comiskey, and went with comments that I'm sure were said, like, "We wanted to take this from Petco, this from New Comiskey, that at New Comiskey we wouldn't want," etc instead of just being a dump-rest on the Cell, we would of been more inclined to laugh it off.

Front

dickallen15
09-06-2006, 07:51 AM
I keep reading this over and over again and it's true. The Metrodome is a joke, but they're not comparing the Metrodome to the Cell. They're comparing the Cell to their future stadium. The blasts against the Metrodome are unwarranted in this thread.


Front:

The old stadium had to go. It was time. They just missed the boat on building something great. I know about the history in the Bridgeport/Canaryville neighborhoods where the Sox are a tradition for the people in that area, but things change. I can almost guarantee that JR's last concern was the feelings of the people of Bridgeport.

I never advocated a "Wrigley South". I think it would have been great for the Sox and the City of Chicago to build closer to the South Loop where there's more going on. I also didn't advocate any "gimmicks". I just feel that Chicago has the most beautiful skyline in the world and since they were putting up a new park they could have made it to where people could see that beauty with relative ease and made it a really picturesque ballpark. Instead people have to go to the top of Gate 5 to get a glimpse.

Look, I LOVE the Cell. It's my absolute favorite place in the world. The Sox have redeemed themselves to an extent with the great renovations. They just shouldn't have had to do them in the first place.

Harold Washington was the person responsible for the location of what is now called USCF. It probably was the least desired location choice for the White Sox. The south loop ,on the river,with a river walk, open to the skyline would have been a majestic park. People could have walked from their downtown offices to the park for night games.

Hitmen77
09-06-2006, 08:44 AM
:threadsucks

I'm tired of Sox fans whining about not having a ballpark in the south loop or a ballpark facing a certain direction. Who cares? The decision was made almost 20 years ago, get over it already!!

The Sox are WORLD CHAMPIONS and play at a great ballpark at their historic location in a booming neighborhood. Oh, and did I mention that the Cell is very accessible by el and for fans in the Sox strongholds like the SW and W suburbs who can get to the Cell and park and tailgate? So, why are we still moaning about some S. Loop location?

As far as the Cell facing the wrong direction, who cares? You couldn't see downtown from Old Comiskey, you can't see downtown from Wrigley - and yet people have gotten it in their heads that the atmosphere at Sox games is ruined by not facing downtown.

HerzogVon
09-06-2006, 08:52 AM
I remember Reinsdorf saying something to the effect that since they couldn't afford a Cadillac, they settled for an Oldsmobile.

You have to keep in mind just how close that vote in Springfield was. My wife and I lobbied our rep., Adeline Geo-Karis ( R. Zion ), and she thanked us for backing her up when most of her constituency was overwhelmingly against the idea. Still, it took last minute arm-twisting by then Gov. James R. Thompson to pull the thing off.

I've never been a fan of "Big Jim" - Thompson or Thome - but all Sox fans owe the former a debt of gratitude for calling in every chit he had to get the job done, whatever his motivation.

Thome25
09-06-2006, 10:03 AM
I've been to one of the retro ballparks, Camden Yards and believe me it's got nothing on The Cell.

I think The Cell is a beautiful, ideal place to see a ballgame. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it.

So what if it doesn't face the skyline. Hopefully, we're all die-hard White Sox fans here and we're looking at the product on the field and not daydreaming while looking at some skyline view anyway.

With that said, Minnesota needs to stop firing missiles at Chicago and the White Sox. Between Morneau and Hunter and now this article attacking our ballpark, IT NEEDS TO STOP.

With all apologies to the White Sox fans that live there, I hate Minnesota. It is a dump, Minneapolis has no skyline to speak of. No one cares "aboot"(<<notice the pronunciation of "about" ) The State of Minnesota, the Twins and their fans can all jump off a bridge for all I care about.

ewokpelts
09-06-2006, 10:09 AM
The cell cost 1/5 of what the retro parks cost. JR's only alternative was Tampa, not south loop. Check your history.the city and state governments ordered the sox to build on 35th and Shields.
they wanted the stadium close to the train and expressway(both of which were built to ACCOMODATE comiskey park).
A south loop stadium in 1991 would have beena disaster. there was no orange line roosevelt station, the expressway was 4 blocks away from any viuable stop, and there was NOTHING around the stadium. all this happened inthe 15 years AFTER new comiskey got built. i'm happy where we are.

jenn2080
09-06-2006, 10:21 AM
the city and state governments ordered the sox to build on 35th and Shields.
they wanted the stadium close to the train and expressway(both of which were built to ACCOMODATE comiskey park).
A south loop stadium in 1991 would have beena disaster. there was no orange line roosevelt station, the expressway was 4 blocks away from any viuable stop, and there was NOTHING around the stadium. all this happened inthe 15 years AFTER new comiskey got built. i'm happy where we are.

couldnt be happier either. 2 trains and the express way.

Hitmen77
09-06-2006, 10:27 AM
couldnt be happier either. 2 trains and the express way.

but it's facing the wrong way! :whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

Nellie_Fox
09-06-2006, 11:50 AM
Also, if the writer hadn't singled out New Comiskey, and went with comments that I'm sure were said, like, "We wanted to take this from Petco, this from New Comiskey, that at New Comiskey we wouldn't want," etc instead of just being a dump-rest on the Cell, we would of been more inclined to laugh it off.

FrontSweet jeezuz, do you even read the rest of the posts before chiming in? He was not "singling out" Comiskey. It is the first in a series of articles discussing what the commission is learning by travelling to different ballparks to get ideas for building the new Twins ballpark. And it's "would have been," or "would've been," not "would of been."

When the next one appears, I'll rush right in here to post a link. I didn't have time to read today's Pioneer Press yet, but I doubt if it's in there. I don't think he writes a column every day. If you want to beef, by the way, his email address is gwittenmyer@pioneerpress.com.

Frontman
09-06-2006, 12:26 PM
Sorry Nellie, not taking the bait. I'm not walking into yet another situation to get flamed then get banned for getting angry in response.

Yes, I read the posts, and the article. The article was meant to rag on the Cell. Hell, "Cell" is in the very title of the article. And a whole series of these types of articles could easily have been done in one article. Like I said in my post, Sox fans wouldn't of gotten bugged if it was an article focusing on all different aspects of different parks. Let's see if he jumps all up and down on another organization like he did the Sox in his next one.

If this article was written by a New York columnist with the attitude of "I hope the Yankees do it right and not have the fiasco that New Comiskey was for the Sox," I wouldn't be as mad as: A=The Yankees didn't just take the Wild Card lead from us the night before and B=Their current stadium isn't a freakin' dump that resembles a gladiator pit from ancient Rome. Fans are there, but certainly sitting above the action.

Kind of ironic timing that the Cell article ran the day after they took the Wild Card lead from the Sox, isn't it?

Front

35th&Shields
09-06-2006, 12:41 PM
couldnt be happier either. 2 trains and the express way.

It's still be great to see a Metra stop on 35th street that makes a single stop on game nights on the way back. That way a lot of people "down South" who came in for work would have an easy ride back.

maurice
09-06-2006, 12:42 PM
A south loop stadium in 1991 would have beena disaster.

Thank you. The south loop was a wasteland in 1991. The south loop "along the river" remains a wasteland in 2006, unless you think a trip to Target is a nice pre-game ritual.

Back to the subject of this thread, the article doesn't criticise the Sox for building in Bridgeport. It criticises them for not building one block north of the current location.

WinTwins
09-06-2006, 01:06 PM
A couple of thoughts:

First, the writer illustrated potential pitfalls during the planning stage. We know quite well the perils of poor planning and cutting corners during construction, and in several ways, Comiskey II somewhat fell into that trap. Also, he's taking a critical look at several recently built stadiums and Chicago happened to be first. Maybe because of the inter-divisional rivalry, maybe because it would resonate with readers that have visited. Who knows? Whatever.

Secondly. you will never, never, NEVER find a Twins fan to favorably compare the Metrodome to USCF, or probably any park in MLB. We do not endear the dome, nor do we mock US Cellular. And we would do well to first address the countless mistakes made when building the dome.

Hennepin County builders, planners, and stadium commissioners need more reminders like this during the early months of design and pre-construction. Try not to feel slighted by a St. Paul columnist; as several thoughtful posts suggest, he wasn't slamming Chicago or The Cell. To try to distill your responses down to "Oh yeah? Well... Twins suck!" reflects poorly on your abilities in reason, logic, and civil discourse.

We don't hate your stadium, but we should take a critical look at all of its positives and negatives. What's so wrong with that?

TheKittle
09-06-2006, 01:37 PM
Sorry Nellie, not taking the bait. I'm not walking into yet another situation to get flamed then get banned for getting angry in response.

Yes, I read the posts, and the article. The article was meant to rag on the Cell. Hell, "Cell" is in the very title of the article. And a whole series of these types of articles could easily have been done in one article. Like I said in my post, Sox fans wouldn't of gotten bugged if it was an article focusing on all different aspects of different parks. Let's see if he jumps all up and down on another organization like he did the Sox in his next one.

If this article was written by a New York columnist with the attitude of "I hope the Yankees do it right and not have the fiasco that New Comiskey was for the Sox," I wouldn't be as mad as: A=The Yankees didn't just take the Wild Card lead from us the night before and B=Their current stadium isn't a freakin' dump that resembles a gladiator pit from ancient Rome. Fans are there, but certainly sitting above the action.

Kind of ironic timing that the Cell article ran the day after they took the Wild Card lead from the Sox, isn't it?

Front

Umm, NO, the purpose of the article was to show the flaws of another ballpark so the Twins do not make the same mistake that other teams made, when they built their parks. They are just trying to go by that old saying, which goes something like "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it."

Don't let your hatred of the Twins (and the fact that the White Sox are playing like ****) get in the way of understanding the article.

itsnotrequired
09-06-2006, 03:06 PM
We don't hate your stadium, but we should take a critical look at all of its positives and negatives. What's so wrong with that?

Absolutely nothing.

Nellie_Fox
09-06-2006, 05:10 PM
And a whole series of these types of articles could easily have been done in one article.Obviously, they didn't think so, since they are going to do it in several.

Kind of ironic timing that the Cell article ran the day after they took the Wild Card lead from the Sox, isn't it?Conspiracies abound.

BA: The Hitman
09-06-2006, 05:17 PM
yet another reason to hate the twins and their fans

Mudville
09-06-2006, 05:51 PM
yet another reason to hate the twins and their fans

Hate the Twins=OK. Hate the fans, though? How did they hurt your feelings here?

Frontman
09-06-2006, 07:09 PM
Hate the Twins=OK. Hate the fans, though? How did they hurt your feelings here?

I have to agree on that one. Why hate Twins fans for having an idiot write an article? For that matter, why hate the Twins? They still have to play in the Twin cities, that's punishment enough..........

Front

tonyce
09-06-2006, 08:15 PM
If Reinsdorf had better foresight, he should have recognized that Old Comiskey Park had the potential of being a landmark and should have enhanced and renovated the stadium back to its 1930's look. This would have made this stadium a landmark monument much as Wrigley Field presently is and Chicago could have had a heritage of boasting both parks as original turn of the century classic baseball stadiums which would also be tourist attractions. I will never forgive Jerry Reinsdorf, City of Chicago, and the state of Illinois' General Assembly in approving tearing down such a beautiful stadium. I have written a story and my opinion about Old Comiskey Park and its successor and suggested rebuilding the stadium in all its original glory at White Sox Interactive (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/ (http://whitesoxinteractive.com/)) and at comiskeypark1910@yahoogroups.com (http://sports.groups.yahoo.com/group/comiskeypark1910/post?postID=Nwo7aDnPzZ7ekTCokru4naVeX26lK4Pn-XAZgFGr5IBC9GrRjBwZUZZ690x3m6BqLxCZOr0vF0kbj4L4HFa-tCmqln6_86IG).

I suggest all White Sox fans purchase a book called "It's Hardly Sportin'," by Costas Spirou and Larry Bennet that was published in 2003 that deals with the stadium issue not only of Old Comiskey Park, New Comiskey Park, but also of Wrigley Field and its stadium lights issue with the Chicago Tribune.

This book tells all about the Comiskey Park saga, from the old one to the new. Plans by the "Save Our Sox" group which was fighting to preserve the Old Comiskey Park but didn't have the financial clout, were to restore Old Comiskey Park back to the 1930's look with its restored red brick and have cobble stone sidewalks with old fashioned street lights! Not only that, but it would have been designated as a historical landmark by the federal government.

This book explains in detail on what could have been and like us, laments the loss of Old Comiskey Park and its historical legacy. Because Jerry Reinsdorf wasn't interested and totally disavowed any suggestions, we are saddled with this new stadium that most people dislike. It took 68 million dollars just to make it acceptable. Just think what 68 millions dollars could have done with Old Comiskey Park.

soxinem1
09-06-2006, 09:49 PM
They can go F themselves!!! I love our park!!!

I like it more now than when it first opened. But even the 1991 version was better than the HHH Dome EVER was.

That's like Tony Batista telling Joe Crede how to field!! Jerks!

Hitmen77
09-06-2006, 10:15 PM
It's still be great to see a Metra stop on 35th street that makes a single stop on game nights on the way back. That way a lot of people "down South" who came in for work would have an easy ride back.

Last I heard, Metra was moving forward with the station - but it'll be 2-3 years before it's done.

hi im skot
09-06-2006, 10:35 PM
Because Jerry Reinsdorf wasn't interested and totally disavowed any suggestions, we are saddled with this new stadium that most people dislike.

I'm gonna have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. This thread itself should prove that this is not the case.



The article in question wasn't really that big of a deal and I think some folks are overreacting a bit. I think we can all agree that New Comiskey didn't exactly turn out the way we had hoped, but after the renovations, it's beautiful, cozy, and most importantly, a great place to watch a ballgame.

Nellie_Fox
09-06-2006, 11:43 PM
If Reinsdorf had better foresight, he should have recognized that Old Comiskey Park had the potential of being a landmark and should have enhanced and renovated the stadium back to its 1930's look.Renovation and enhancement would have taken longer than building the new ballpark, as the steel infrastructure was badly corroded under the crumbling concrete. The place would have had to be pretty much totally gutted and then rebuilt.

Where would the Sox have played during the renovation? Wrigley? I don't think the Cubs would have gone for that. Soldier Field? That would have been lovely. The Yankees could play at Shea during the 70's renovation of Yankee Stadium because Shea belongs to the city, not to the Mets.

By the way, the bricks weren't red; they were a sandy color, pretty much the color of the pre-cast concrete of the new ballpark. That's why they dyed the concrete that color. The picture you have probably seen where the bricks look red was a black and white photo that was subsequently hand-tinted, not an uncommon practice in those days.

TheKittle
09-07-2006, 02:25 PM
Renovation and enhancement would have taken longer than building the new ballpark, as the steel infrastructure was badly corroded under the crumbling concrete. The place would have had to be pretty much totally gutted and then rebuilt.

Is that really true? Or was that a part of JR's smear campaign? I mean he pushed the last season at Comiskey and somehow the steel held up to those large crowds??? While there is no doubt there were some structural damage, I mean nobody actually tried to maintain Comiskey, I don't think it was on the verge of collapse!!!

MUsoxfan
09-07-2006, 03:46 PM
Is that really true? Or was that a part of JR's smear campaign? I mean he pushed the last season at Comiskey and somehow the steel held up to those large crowds??? While there is no doubt there were some structural damage, I mean nobody actually tried to maintain Comiskey, I don't think it was on the verge of collapse!!!

I'm not sure of the case of Old Comiskey, but there was some concern in Milwaukee during County Stadium's farewell. The Brewers were unsure of the stability of it because the last time there were that many people there was the '82 World Series.

A MUCH older and aging Comiskey Park would probably have the same concerns then and in the future

TheKittle
09-07-2006, 04:38 PM
I'm not sure of the case of Old Comiskey, but there was some concern in Milwaukee during County Stadium's farewell. The Brewers were unsure of the stability of it because the last time there were that many people there was the '82 World Series.

A MUCH older and aging Comiskey Park would probably have the same concerns then and in the future

Again smear campaign to get a new stadium? Or is it the case that yes there are some issues but not enough to cause concern? I don't know much about the issues in Milwaukee but JR built sky boxes a few years before he went on his smear campaign and some how they stadium was still standing.

SoxEd
09-07-2006, 06:20 PM
Despite my absolutely zero knowledge of the issues under discussion, I'm going to throw in my $0.02 anyway.
:redneck

Again smear campaign to get a new stadium? Or is it the case that yes there are some issues but not enough to cause concern? I don't know much about the issues in Milwaukee but JR built sky boxes a few years before he went on his smear campaign and some how they stadium was still standing.

I'd guess that a major (perhaps primary) reason for not trusting the old Comiskey steel structures with a major refurb of that Park was neither a definite knowledge that it was unsound, nor an attempt to gull the State legislature into stumping up for a new stadium.

Rather, I'd put it down to all the Insurance companies telling the Sox FO something like "well, unless you can PROVE that ALL of the structural steel in old Comiskey is 100% up to modern Code standards, we're going to up your Public Liability premiums by 1000%".

And, you can call me a silly, sentimental old fool if you like, but I'd also add that I think it's better to leave/replace a Ballpark before socking great lumps of concrete start dropping off the ceilings into seating areas.

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2006, 12:10 AM
And, you can call me a silly, sentimental old fool if you like, but I'd also add that I think it's better to leave/replace a Ballpark before socking great lumps of concrete start dropping off the ceilings into seating areas.A huge chunk of concrete had already fallen out of the upper deck at old Comiskey, exposing badly rusting steelwork. You could see rust stains seeping out through cracks in the concrete in some places.

It was not just JR propaganda; the place was old and in bad shape from years and years of "deferred maintenance" because the Allyns and Veeck didn't have the money. It would have taken a long time and a lot of money to renovate.

mrs. hendu
09-08-2006, 12:13 AM
They can go F themselves!!! I love our park!!!
Agreed. The renovations made it look really nice IMO.

MUsoxfan
09-08-2006, 12:36 AM
Again smear campaign to get a new stadium? Or is it the case that yes there are some issues but not enough to cause concern?

In Milwaukee it was a legit issue because the new stadium was already near completion. County Stadium smear tactics weren't an issue at that point

maurice
09-08-2006, 12:04 PM
A huge chunk of concrete had already fallen out of the upper deck at old Comiskey, exposing badly rusting steelwork.

:MacPhail
All JR needed to do was put up netting, deny that it was dangerous, raise ticket prices, and then change the subject.

TheKittle
09-08-2006, 02:07 PM
A huge chunk of concrete had already fallen out of the upper deck at old Comiskey, exposing badly rusting steelwork. You could see rust stains seeping out through cracks in the concrete in some places.

It was not just JR propaganda; the place was old and in bad shape from years and years of "deferred maintenance" because the Allyns and Veeck didn't have the money. It would have taken a long time and a lot of money to renovate.

There were many other reports that said Comiskey Park could have been refurbished and made up to code for a lot less than a new ballpark would have cost.

I'm not an engineer but they could have done it in "sections" over a period of time, much like the Angels did when they renovated Anaheim Stadium. Yes I know it's different since Anaheim Stadium was built 50 years after and the climate is much different.

Nellie_Fox
09-08-2006, 02:18 PM
I'm not an engineer but they could have done it in "sections" over a period of time, much like the Angels did when they renovated Anaheim Stadium. Yes I know it's different since Anaheim Stadium was built 50 years after and the climate is much different.I'm not an engineer either, and maybe you're right, but it couldn't have been done during the season that way, and it would have taken a real long time only working on it during the winter.

I guess I'm just one of the few who isn't nostalgic for Old Comiskey. I had a lot of great experiences there, but the park itself didn't play into them much. It was cramped (I usually had to sit jammed in sideways because my knees wouldn't fit behind the seat in front of me,) a lot of seats had terrible sightlines (either blocked by a pillar or the overhang of the upper deck) it was dark, dank and smelly in the concourse area, the bathrooms would gag a maggot, and the field developed major drainage problems after the Dan Ryan was built so that players would be splashing around in left field for days after a rain. As a result of not being terribly sorry to see it go, I guess I accepted the explanations at face value.

Frontman
09-08-2006, 08:41 PM
I'll always have fond memories of the old ballpark, but it was in very poor condition. I do remember the smell being awful at times in that place, and when the game ended very early, WGN was showing footage of the old ballpark (I believe it was the Chicago Hitmen mini-documentary) the park looked awful. It wasn't anywhere near what would be acceptable by todays standards.

Nellie and I might not agree on everything, but I can back up his comments about the drainage issues. I remember that being bad, as well as my Grandad's season tickets were very decent views, but the roof overhang did block the view to the scoreboard a bit. One section over from us had an awful blocked view because of a pillar.

A few weeks ago, I sat in the 500 level for a game, I do believe I could see the actual top of the foul pole. But those were even better seats than the season tickets in the old ballpark.

Front