PDA

View Full Version : Interesting 1991 New Comiskey article in TIME


skobabe8
04-11-2007, 09:21 PM
Talks about the change in architecture from the cookie cutters, even quoting Fay Vincent as saying "This is the best that baseball can do in terms of architecture."

Also talks about the upcoming parks in Cleveland, Baltimore, etc.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,972836,00.html

thomas35forever
04-11-2007, 09:28 PM
Wow, the public's opinion before the other ballparks opened and Comiskey would be highly criticized.

Corlose 15
04-11-2007, 09:40 PM
Its interesting that, IMO, baseball has fallen back into the "cookie cutter" mode because a lot of the new "retro" parks look the same.

theoakwoody
04-11-2007, 10:05 PM
I think the new Busch is pretty uninspired as well as the drawings I've seen for what they are going to do up in Minnesota. I love what I've seen coming out of New York for the Mets and Yankees but they are also spending like 3 times as much as everyone else. I like Oakland's plan, especially the fact that it will be a smaller park.

The new park that I'm most disappointed with is the Nationals park. Okay, cherry trees behind the bleachers is unique but I just figured they'd make this stadium another DC monument. I know this is just my opinion but where are the colonnades, statues, and other cathedral like architecture.

This is off topic but I recently found out that Philip Bess , who is featured here for his alternative plan for the new comiskey (Armour Field), worked at my alma mater Andrews University. That really sucks because I would have loved to sit down with him to talk about his plan in depth. I'm not saying his plan is good or bad but I have found it really interesting. I guess he's since moved on to Notre Dame.

nasox
04-11-2007, 10:18 PM
I've read that when Comiskey originally opened, it was hailed as beginning of a new age of ballpark construction. However, when Camden was unveiled, the problems and omissions at Comiskey were glaring.

However, we can all agree that New Comiskey is better than the St. Petersburg Sox. :D:

nasox
04-11-2007, 10:25 PM
I found this funny:

It is a talisman that the wonder of the game will survive this era of luxury sky boxes, insanely lucrative television contracts and pouty $4 million sluggers.

And a little bit sad. :(:

Vernam
04-11-2007, 10:27 PM
Thanks for the link, skobabe. With all the improvements to the park, one constant has been that it's just a great place to watch baseball. The article really makes me regret never seeing a game at Tiger Stadium, though . . .

Vernam

Fenway
04-11-2007, 10:35 PM
The White Sox back in 1991 did everything "right"

Camden Yards proved Phil Bess was correct


NOW USCF is equal to those parks that came after.........but in retrospect the park should have been in "Printers Row"

rdivaldi
04-11-2007, 11:24 PM
NOW USCF is equal to those parks that came after.........but in retrospect the park should have been in "Printers Row"

Printers Row the neighborhood? There's no land there for a ballpark.

Fenway
04-12-2007, 12:38 AM
Printers Row the neighborhood? There's no land there for a ballpark.

There was in 1990

FireMariotti
04-12-2007, 05:38 AM
"pouty $4 million sluggers" :lol::lol::lol:

Nowadays pouty $4 million dollar sluggars are "pouty" because they don't get paid enough.

I know a lot of people here like the look of that proposed "Armour Field", but that design could not have realistically been considered. First, the foul lines are WAYYY too short for any modern major league stadium. Also, what sense does it make to build a ballpark inside a compact area? I know this is how the century old ballparks were built, but I'm sure the architects of those parks would have loved a little more space to build. I'll take the near flawless sightlines of the Cell anyday, thank you. I think the idea behind Armour Park ( a neighborhood stadium that blends in with its surroundings as well as provide a great view of the Chicago skyline) was a good one, but the actual design of the stadium was too unrealistic.

rdivaldi
04-12-2007, 10:10 AM
There was in 1990

If I'm not mistaken the land where Dearborn Park I now sits was sold to real estate developers in 1977 from the Halas family. I can't see where or how a stadium could have been built in Printers Row in the late 80's.

soxfan13
04-12-2007, 10:36 AM
If I'm not mistaken the land where Dearborn Park I now sits was sold to real estate developers in 1977 from the Halas family. I can't see where or how a stadium could have been built in Printers Row in the late 80's.

There was plenty of available land for a stadium south of Harrison which is all condos and a brand new police headquarters

Luke
04-12-2007, 10:41 AM
If I'm not mistaken the land where Dearborn Park I now sits was sold to real estate developers in 1977 from the Halas family. I can't see where or how a stadium could have been built in Printers Row in the late 80's.

They might have been using Printer's Row to generically refer to the South Loop.

I think the Allyns proposed a mixed use Sox/Bears facility in the South Loop in the 60s, but the Halas familiy quashed it because of their relationship with the Cubs. Maybe I'm just imagining it though.

rdivaldi
04-12-2007, 10:45 AM
They might have been using Printer's Row to generically refer to the South Loop.

I think the Allyns proposed a mixed use Sox/Bears facility in the South Loop in the 60s, but the Halas familiy quashed it because of their relationship with the Cubs. Maybe I'm just imagining it though.

I could see it if they did mean the South Loop. Heck they could build a stadium today on the vacant land bounded by Roosevelt, 18th, Clark and the River.

I've read before that they were proposing a Bears facility but I don't think I've ever heard about a mixed use stadium. Thank G-d they didn't do that.

Luke
04-12-2007, 10:50 AM
Thank G-d they didn't do that.

No kidding, it would have looked like the Vet/Three Rivers/Shea/Busch/Candlestick.

rdivaldi
04-12-2007, 10:54 AM
There was plenty of available land for a stadium south of Harrison which is all condos and a brand new police headquarters

Not in the late 80's, that land was sold and being developed for said condos. Which police station are you referring to? The one on 18th?

ewokpelts
04-12-2007, 12:10 PM
I could see it if they did mean the South Loop. Heck they could build a stadium today on the vacant land bounded by Roosevelt, 18th, Clark and the River.

I've read before that they were proposing a Bears facility but I don't think I've ever heard about a mixed use stadium. Thank G-d they didn't do that.cant...some rich iraqi owns it...and is trying to deveolp it

rdivaldi
04-13-2007, 09:53 PM
cant...some rich iraqi owns it...and is trying to deveolp it

I thought he was forced out of ownership? That created quite a stir when it was revealed.

chitownhawkfan
04-14-2007, 05:36 AM
The White Sox back in 1991 did everything "right"

Camden Yards proved Phil Bess was correct


NOW USCF is equal to those parks that came after.........but in retrospect the park should have been in "Printers Row"


The Sox dropped the ball in building New Comiskey, but what is wrong with Bridgeport? Had they moved to Printers Row it wouldn't even be the same fan base. You have to respect the fact that they have played in their neighborhood longer than any American sports franchise.

skobabe8
04-16-2007, 06:38 PM
The Sox dropped the ball in building New Comiskey, but what is wrong with Bridgeport? Had they moved to Printers Row it wouldn't even be the same fan base. You have to respect the fact that they have played in their neighborhood longer than any American sports franchise.

Is this true? Who comes in second?

ewokpelts
04-16-2007, 06:41 PM
Is this true? Who comes in second?tigers played almost 100 years at the same corner.
red sox will be 100 years at fenway in 5 years.