PDA

View Full Version : Comparisons of the Upper Deck at the Cell


paciorek1983
07-11-2007, 06:54 PM
I was wondering if anyone knows where there is any official data on the comparisons of the upper decks of major league ballparks. I really want to know how the Cell compares to them. I have seen photos of other parks and of course on tv, and most of them really don't look that much different.

I've sat in Petco's UD and I've been to Miller Park's Fridays. I didn't see that much difference UD's. I've read somewhere The Ballpark in Arlington has the highest seats, but noone has ever blasted the Rangers for that, unlike the Sox and their UD.

Anyone have information on height, steepness, etc?

chisoxfanatic
07-11-2007, 07:26 PM
This isn't mathematical information; but, when I was at Kauffman less than two weeks ago, I found the upper deck to appear significantly steeper than ours! I wasn't up there; but, it's quite obvious by just its appearance.

HartmanSox
07-11-2007, 07:33 PM
It may or may not be the worst in baseball, but the UD at the Cell is pretty steep! Kinda fun though.

paciorek1983
07-11-2007, 07:39 PM
It may or may not be the worst in baseball, but the UD at the Cell is pretty steep! Kinda fun though.

Have you been to other modern ballparks?

HotelWhiteSox
07-11-2007, 07:43 PM
I find it pretty hilarious when the Cell's UD gets ripped on (just saw it happen weeks ago in that ESPN review), just looking at pictures around the league almost all the parks look the same or worse. Plus it's not even that bad. I'm scared of heights, was in the last rows of the upper RF corner, took a 2 second adjustment and it was great, awesome view.

I can't say because I haven't sat there, but even Soldier Field looks worse, but I never hear a peep about that.

paciorek1983
07-11-2007, 07:47 PM
I find it pretty hilarious when the Cell's UD gets ripped on (just saw it happen weeks ago in that ESPN review), just looking at pictures around the league almost all the parks look the same or worse.
I

Well yeah that's what I think. I just wonder why our parks UD gets the bad rap on it. That's why I want to see factual data about this.

Vernam
07-11-2007, 07:57 PM
About 10 years ago, Smithsonian Magazine had some respected architects evaluate the phenomenon of retro parks, which was then fairly new. They looked at Camden Yards and the Ballpark in Arlington, and I think New Comiskey. Their assessment was that seats in the upper deck were on average more than 100 feet farther away from the field than upper decks in old parks like Tiger Stadium and Comiskey Park. That was due to the pitch of the decks and to the skyboxes underneath them. Really wish I'd kept that magazine -- can't find a trace of it via Google.

Our UD seats are in the second row, so you wouldn't think the roof would make a big difference. But somehow it does feel a lot cozier up there now. To actually follow the game action, a lot of UD seats are way better than a lot of the lowers. I really like being able to tell where the pitches are, which is hard to do from the lower seats unless they're between the dugouts (or at least between the tarps).

Vernam

Frater Perdurabo
07-11-2007, 08:25 PM
Just this season I've visited AT&T Park (San Francisco), RFK stadium (Washington) and the Cell. I've also been to a lot of games at Rangers Ballpark at Arlington.

From my non-mathematical, anecdotal observation, the Cell's upper deck is no steeper than any of those other three upper decks.

RFK and AT&T's UDs are not as high up above the ground, but they are just as steep as that of the Cell.

A note about Rangers Ballpark: the upper deck is VERY high above field level, but from the outside of the park it doesn't look so high because the field is significantly below ground level. Again, the UD is as steep as that of the Cell.

bnlfanmatt
07-11-2007, 09:41 PM
A note about Rangers Ballpark: the upper deck is VERY high above field level, but from the outside of the park it doesn't look so high because the field is significantly below ground level. Again, the UD is as steep as that of the Cell.

Anyone know why they build a field below ground level? Jacobs Field is like that as well, it would seem like a lot more extra excavation and more planning for water runoff (think like a retention pond).

MCHSoxFan
07-11-2007, 09:52 PM
Regardless of the fact that there maybe lower or less steep UD's in the MLB, I really enjoy the USCF upper deck. I think it offers great views. Heck, I went all the way up to 531 row 21 and I still did not mind it. However, I did NOT like the UD supporters form row 16 and up. The only thing I would never do is sit farther than 520 or 544. TOO FAR AWAY!!! The INFIELD of the upper deck is by far the best in the whole UD and by far the best deal in terms of value (money and views) at the Cell.

MCHSoxFan
07-11-2007, 09:54 PM
About 10 years ago, Smithsonian Magazine had some respected architects evaluate the phenomenon of retro parks, which was then fairly new. They looked at Camden Yards and the Ballpark in Arlington, and I think New Comiskey. Their assessment was that seats in the upper deck were on average more than 100 feet farther away from the field than upper decks in old parks like Tiger Stadium and Comiskey Park. That was due to the pitch of the decks and to the skyboxes underneath them. Really wish I'd kept that magazine -- can't find a trace of it via Google.

Our UD seats are in the second row, so you wouldn't think the roof would make a big difference. But somehow it does feel a lot cozier up there now. To actually follow the game action, a lot of UD seats are way better than a lot of the lowers. I really like being able to tell where the pitches are, which is hard to do from the lower seats unless they're between the dugouts (or at least between the tarps).

Vernam

AGREED!!!! READ MY POST.
:D:

wassagstdu
07-11-2007, 10:28 PM
A note about Rangers Ballpark: the upper deck is VERY high above field level, but from the outside of the park it doesn't look so high because the field is significantly below ground level. Again, the UD is as steep as that of the Cell.
I never understood what the problem was with the upper deck at USCF. My first game there I sat in the second row from the top in the left field corner looking over the foul pole and loved it! Maybe the problem started because of those pictures showing the new park looming over the old during the last season of Comiskey.

Parrothead
07-11-2007, 10:48 PM
By definition, all UD are not great seats. I have been to all but 10 parks remaining and the first place I go in a park is last row in the UD. They all are high. The best was Pitt.

oeo
07-11-2007, 10:51 PM
I hate when people complain about the steepness of an upper deck. When you're that high up, it has to be steep, unless you want to watch the back of the head in front of you.

GlassSox
07-11-2007, 11:20 PM
I don't have any comparison data but I really do not mind sitting in UD in USCF. I hate the UD in Wrigley the few times I have been there.

paciorek1983
07-12-2007, 12:00 AM
WEll for the record, i do like sitting in the upper deck. i don't lke the fact that there is no access to the lower level, but oh well.

I really don't get why our park always seems to have the UD mentioned in a negative tone and the same facts are ignored when people talk about other parks that have the same issue.:?:

Still, anyone out there who has any statistical data on all of the modern parks?

chisoxfanatic
07-12-2007, 12:01 AM
I really don't get why our park always seems to have the UD mentioned in a negative tone and the same facts are ignored when people talk about other parks that have the same issue.:?:
Because the media always likes to talk bad about our beloved Sox.

paciorek1983
07-12-2007, 12:06 AM
Because the media always likes to talk bad about our beloved Sox.

Why is that?


And, for some reason, the White Sox and the fans never seem to be endeared by the media. If you've seen some of the new mastercard commercials as well as some others you'll understand what I mean.

MetroPD
07-12-2007, 12:42 AM
I think the new UD offers a nice unobstructed view vs the old park, but as mentioned, they are much further back. Miller Park's UD is on par with US Cellular. With that being said, I prefer the old parks, because you felt closer to the field and action, of course the views were not equally great dependent upon how high up and what angle you were at.

TornLabrum
07-12-2007, 12:46 AM
I think the beef with the steepness of the upper deck at The Cell has less to do with the actual steepness but with the perception that comes from the fact that access to the deck is from the bottom. In most ball parks, access is about halfway up. Some people actually get to walk down to their seats, and the ones who climb have fewer steps to climb up.

DeadMoney
07-12-2007, 01:07 AM
Want high?:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/103/295612945_04fd8dbb8b.jpg?v=0

Want steep?:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/192156622_79a14490fd.jpg?v=0

Both of these extremes are worse than the Cell IMO. The difference with Chase Field is the massive roof overhead makes those seats seem more cozy (and maybe the air conditioning vents make them cool too). And the difference with Yankee Stadium is their upper deck overhangs the lower tiers and gets you closer to the field. Other then those small quirks that make them seem better, these stadiums are the worst I've been to when it comes to upper decks.

valkyrie
07-12-2007, 01:19 AM
Anyone know why they build a field below ground level? Jacobs Field is like that as well, it would seem like a lot more extra excavation and more planning for water runoff (think like a retention pond).

I read something recently about how Coors Field was constructed a little below ground level so it would be less imposing to its neighbors. I don't know if that's the reasoning for other fields being below ground level, though.

DSpivack
07-12-2007, 01:32 AM
I read something recently about how Coors Field was constructed a little below ground level so it would be less imposing to its neighbors. I don't know if that's the reasoning for other fields being below ground level, though.

Comerica is also below ground; you enter from the top, far as I recall. I didn't mind the upper deck there, and that park seemed among the smallest of the major league parks to which I've been. Dodger Stadium you also enter at the top, but it's built on a hill (Chavez Ravine), so I don't think it was truly dug into the ground, though I'm not sure.

areilly
07-12-2007, 01:51 AM
I don't have blueprints handy, but the upper deck at Great American Ballpark in Cincy has a very good feel to it, and I would rate it as superior to USCF.

Miller Park...well, what do you want for $5?

Metrodome...not steep, but if you're sitting where we were (the row in front of the LED scoreboard) it's maybe a mile to home plate.

SkyDome/Rogers Centre...see Metrodome.

Yankee Stadium...irrelevant. Whole stadium's full of *******s.

Wrigley...really, what did anyone know about building a ballpark in 1910? Something tells me that place wasn't meant to last that long.

DumpJerry
07-12-2007, 08:16 AM
I don't have blueprints handy, but the upper deck at Great American Ballpark in Cincy has a very good feel to it, and I would rate it as superior to USCF.
Sat there behind Home for a game last year. Nightmare. The row was about 25 seats long and we were in the middle. To get up to get something required ropes and other safety equipment since there are about a 4 inch wide space to walk to the aisle with peoples' feet and legs in the way. It did have nice views of the river and park, however.

I recall reading shortly after new Comiskey opened that Dodger Stadium and the Blue Jays' stadium have a steeper UD pitch than ours.

Max Power
07-12-2007, 08:33 AM
The steepest upper deck I've encountered is at "new" Soldier Field. The first time I sat there I turned to my friend and said, "I don't want to hear anyone complaining about the UD anymore." And yet, it didn't bother me. I'd rather it be steep than farther away from the field.

Luke
07-12-2007, 09:32 AM
Anyone know why they build a field below ground level? Jacobs Field is like that as well, it would seem like a lot more extra excavation and more planning for water runoff (think like a retention pond).

A less imposing overall height, and it allows more seats without increasing the footprint of the building.

I agree with just about everyone here. The upperdeck is not steeper that most other places, it just got a bad rep in the media, and people started to regurgitate what they read.

itsnotrequired
07-12-2007, 09:41 AM
A less imposing overall height, and it allows more seats without increasing the footprint of the building.

I agree with just about everyone here. The upperdeck is not steeper that most other places, it just got a bad rep in the media, and people started to regurgitate what they read.

Part of the reason it got a bad rap was the whole "retro" craze. When Camden opened, The Cell suddenly looked cold and sterile. Other ballparks followed the Camden model and the rest is history.

Although the retro craze appears to be dying down. The Cell looks really good now and doesn't have unnecessary quirks just for the sake of having quirks. New stadiums (i.e. Twins and Yankees) look similar.

Frontman
07-12-2007, 09:45 AM
Actually, on really hot days that have a breeze? It's very comfortable to sit in the UD along the 3rd base side. High enough to get the breeze, especially if its blowing in from right, plus the shade. We were there Saturday and loved it.

russ99
07-12-2007, 09:51 AM
My issue with the Upper Deck initially was not for the steepness, it was for the height.

Compared to other parks at the time, and especially Old Comiskey very few other parks had 3 levels of luxury seating/skyboxes between the lower concourse and the start of the upper deck.

The restriction of Upper Deck ticketholders from the lower level, due to the convenient excuse of one nutjob and his son running onto the field, was also upsetting but with the larger crowds of the last few years, I could see that mixing decks could have become a logistical nightmare. If the Sox drop off in attendance again (hope not) I can see a chance of that being laxed a bit.

With the addition of the roof, the enclosed upper level concourse and the same food options as the lower level, the Upper Deck is a pretty good place to catch a game, and if the seats are in the infield/home plate area, the view of the game is spectacular. I certainly don't miss all the posts and obstructed views in the Old park.

If the Sox to make one improvement to the upper deck, they'd turn the seats near the lines to face the mound (as with the lower level) as the rotating you need to do to face the pitcher is often uncomfortable.

I don't mind sitting in the upper deck, but I'd take lower level seats all the time, given the chance.

PatK
07-12-2007, 10:16 AM
I could never get why the same people that rip on the upper deck of the cell and say it's too far away are often people that spend over $5,000 to see a game from a rooftop across the street from Wrigley.

Like that's any closer than the upper deck.

HotelWhiteSox
07-12-2007, 11:11 AM
Want steep?:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/53/192156622_79a14490fd.jpg?v=0




Great YS pic! Maybe I should bookmark it in case anyone else I meet online wants to rip on the UD on the Cell.

Sat there Saturday, worked out great as I was under the roof in the shade when it was hot out. My only UD gripe is it takes about 45 minutes to walk down the ramps after the game :redface:


Great point above about the rooftop too, ha, I never even thought of it like that

kaufsox
07-12-2007, 11:23 AM
I think the reason the Cell continues to get a bad rap is the pre-roof design. One architecture critic said it had the feel "that I was climbing to heaven." I kind of agree with that, except I liked that. I'm not a big fan of retro, more of a modernist at heart and all of the changes of USCF have been for the worse, IMO. The reputation for bad seats stuck, kind of like the idea that Wrigley is a great experience etc. To paraphrase Louis Sullivan when he was commenting on Daniel Burnham's designs "the retro ball park movement has set ball park design and architecture back ten years."

"Make it NEW!" Ezra Pound

Fenway
07-12-2007, 11:27 AM
Great YS pic! Maybe I should bookmark it in case anyone else I meet online wants to rip on the UD on the Cell.

Sat there Saturday, worked out great as I was under the roof in the shade when it was hot out. My only UD gripe is it takes about 45 minutes to walk down the ramps after the game :redface:


Great point above about the rooftop too, ha, I never even thought of it like that

Kauffman Stadium is no picnic either

Blind Lemon 5103
07-12-2007, 12:42 PM
I have learned to embrace the upper deck. I get to go to more games that way (costs less). Save a few bucks, eat more churros.....:smile:

My favorite section of late has been 538, along the third base side. I'm not as fond of the seats in the corners (i.e. section 558), but that's because I've always preferred to sit in the infield, whether upper or lower level.

I would rather be in the upper deck on the infield than in the bleachers or outfield reserved.

The upper deck gets an undeserved bad rap.

Matlock
07-12-2007, 12:50 PM
The upper deck at Sox park is just way to steep and dangerous, it is a matter of time before someone gets hurt up there. The spouse always likes sitting on the lower level, so since i gave up our season tickets in 02 in Sec 136, we try to still get tickets in that area when we go to a game.

itsnotrequired
07-12-2007, 01:47 PM
The upper deck at Sox park is just way to steep and dangerous, it is a matter of time before someone gets hurt up there. The spouse always likes sitting on the lower level, so since i gave up our season tickets in 02 in Sec 136, we try to still get tickets in that area when we go to a game.

It isn't any steeper than other upper decks around the country.

Luke
07-12-2007, 02:18 PM
The upper deck at Sox park is just way to steep and dangerous, it is a matter of time before someone gets hurt up there. The spouse always likes sitting on the lower level, so since i gave up our season tickets in 02 in Sec 136, we try to still get tickets in that area when we go to a game.

It's been 16 years. I think it's safe up there.

C-Dawg
07-12-2007, 02:38 PM
Anyone know why they build a field below ground level?

Many, or most ballparks are like that; ours is an exception. If you've ever been to, say, Jacobs Field and seen how nice the field looks when peeking in from the sidewalk-level picnic area, you'll see the attraction that the below-ground-level field has.

I have a theorey that maybe there were soil issues here in Chicago that prevented them from doing it at the Cell. Much of Chicago has a fairly stiff "crust" on the surface of the soil, but digging down 10 or so feet one will encounter soil with about the consistency of toothpaste. Remediating the soil to support the playing field may have been an expense they didn't want to have. Or who knows; maybe they never thought it out fully.

I keep meaning to check the file room here at the office; we did soil borings and construction monitoring for the new park.

The upper deck at Sox park is just way to steep and dangerous, it is a matter of time before someone gets hurt up there

Read the rest of the thread; the general consensus is that a LOT of newer parks have upper decks as steep or steeper than ours. I can't remember ever hearing about someone getting hurt.

LITTLE NELL
07-12-2007, 02:41 PM
Does anyone remember the second balcony at the Chicago Stadium. Now that was steep, in fact if someone stoodup you didnt have to yell "down in front''.

russ99
07-12-2007, 03:13 PM
The upper deck at Sox park is just way to steep and dangerous, it is a matter of time before someone gets hurt up there. The spouse always likes sitting on the lower level, so since i gave up our season tickets in 02 in Sec 136, we try to still get tickets in that area when we go to a game.

It's nothing like at Wrigley, where you're in fear for your life getting to/from your seat in the top 5-10 rows in the upper deck. :o:

The cell has nice wide rows, and handrails a-plenty, it's really very safe despite appearances.

IronFisk
07-12-2007, 07:02 PM
Does anyone remember the second balcony at the Chicago Stadium. Now that was steep, in fact if someone stoodup you didnt have to yell "down in front''.

Actually the third balcony - each row came with railings! I considered it the best seats in the house - you were close to the action and NO obstructions (well, again the railings - you had to lean over the whole game).

As for this UD "argument" - it's nothing more than petrified crap-on-a-stick. The shaved rows and roof overhang have brought a far more psychological comfort to the whole experience of sitting up there. The distance from the plate may be a bit too much, but hey, it's fine!

Time to move on - let's talk home run porch!

areilly
07-12-2007, 07:05 PM
Read the rest of the thread; the general consensus is that a LOT of newer parks have upper decks as steep or steeper than ours. I can't remember ever hearing about someone getting hurt.

I've seen a few people bite it in the upper deck at New Comiskey, but they were due more to reckless overconsumption of alcohol than any architectural touches.

MCHSoxFan
07-12-2007, 09:38 PM
I could never get why the same people that rip on the upper deck of the cell and say it's too far away are often people that spend over $5,000 to see a game from a rooftop across the street from Wrigley.

Like that's any closer than the upper deck.

YEEEEEESSSS!!!!!
I TOTALLY AGREE!!! I mean, it is sooooo stupid. One your not even in the park. Two, you are like ACROSS THE DANG STREET from the field!!! Lastly, the UD is probably LOWER anyway.

MCHSoxFan
07-12-2007, 09:52 PM
I have learned to embrace the upper deck. I get to go to more games that way (costs less). Save a few bucks, eat more churros.....:smile:

My favorite section of late has been 538, along the third base side. I'm not as fond of the seats in the corners (i.e. section 558), but that's because I've always preferred to sit in the infield, whether upper or lower level.

I would rather be in the upper deck on the infield than in the bleachers or outfield reserved.

The upper deck gets an undeserved bad rap.

YEEEESSSS!!!! :D:

That is what I told my father. Now, after this season, he will get rid of his seats in LR 159 for a pair in Premium Upper Box or Upper Box. However he will not sit higher than row 15. This is due to the support poles from rows 16-21. He even told me that he may not even want to go higher than row 10. He has the Hit & Run (WEEKDAY) plan. His seats were about $800-$900. Now, he will pay about $600 per person. He loves the view, pricing, and the view of the fireworks. As you can tell, he does NOT mind the UD. :D:

hsnterprize
07-13-2007, 07:28 AM
The upper deck at USCF, IMHO, wouldn't have been so ostracised if the ballpark were facing the downtown skyline. You see, one of the big draws to Oriole Park at Camden Yards was that it was built near downtown Baltimore. So even if the baseball was bad, a person sitting in the upper deck there, no matter how high his/her seat was or how steep the deck was, could look straight ahead and see a part of downtown Baltimore. In other words, other ballparks' upper decks provided some eye candy whereas USCF's UD did not. If New Comiskey/USCF's upper deck faced downtown, I'm sure there wouldn't have been as many complaints.

Honestly, I was one of those who wanted the Sox to do something about the UD...and I'm very happy they did. If cutting down the top 8 rows of the old upper deck at the Cell did anything, it cut down the PERCEPTION that the upper deck is too high. Now, people aren't complaining about it as much, even though there are modern retro-looking stadia that have higher UD's than ours. Remember...perception is reality.

Now if only the Sox got rid of the policy that doesn't allow UD ticket holders to mingle in the lower deck. Boyer said the Sox put that policy in place to protect those who were already in the lower deck against any "idiots" in the UD who'd want to come down and cause trouble. Remember...the schmucks who ran on the field and attacked the umpire and Tom Gamboa originally sat in the upper deck, and moved down.

hsnterprize
07-13-2007, 07:30 AM
YEEEEEESSSS!!!!!
I TOTALLY AGREE!!! I mean, it is sooooo stupid. One your not even in the park. Two, you are like ACROSS THE DANG STREET from the field!!! Lastly, the UD is probably LOWER anyway.

Ditto...it's just the "status" thing to do to sit across the street from Wrigley to watch a game. I saw a news report about people who do that, and they interviewed folks who didn't even know the names of the players on the field...wearing the home-team colors!!!!! Shame...a real shame.

mrfourni
07-13-2007, 08:11 AM
Now if only the Sox got rid of the policy that doesn't allow UD ticket holders to mingle in the lower deck. Boyer said the Sox put that policy in place to protect those who were already in the lower deck against any "idiots" in the UD who'd want to come down and cause trouble. Remember...the schmucks who ran on the field and attacked the umpire and Tom Gamboa originally sat in the upper deck, and moved down.


I actually like that rule for no other reason than when it gets crowded in the lower deck, it is nearly impossible to move around in the outfield where my seats are. The lower bowl is full, so people hang out on the outfield concourse for the unobstructed view.

BainesHOF
07-13-2007, 10:43 AM
The first row in the Cell's upper deck is farther away than the last row in Comiskey's upper deck. That's a huge difference.

Jollyroger2
07-13-2007, 10:47 AM
Does anyone remember the second balcony at the Chicago Stadium. Now that was steep, in fact if someone stoodup you didnt have to yell "down in front''.

It was very steep but that was part of the fun, I remember my first game there in like 79 or 80 and with all the noise, commotion, etc after a goal I really felt like I had to hang on to my Dad to keep from falling straight down onto the ice...still...what a fantastic place for hockey, so many good times there...

Been in a few other upper decks and it varies...RFK Stadium has a pretty steep upper deck, doesn't seem to be better than the Cell.

itsnotrequired
07-13-2007, 11:07 AM
The first row in the Cell's upper deck is farther away than the last row in Comiskey's upper deck. That's a huge difference.

But that first row is closer than the last row in the lower deck of Comiskey...

HotelWhiteSox
07-13-2007, 11:15 AM
The upper deck at USCF, IMHO, wouldn't have been so ostracised if the ballpark were facing the downtown skyline. You see, one of the big draws to Oriole Park at Camden Yards was that it was built near downtown Baltimore. So even if the baseball was bad, a person sitting in the upper deck there, no matter how high his/her seat was or how steep the deck was, could look straight ahead and see a part of downtown Baltimore. In other words, other ballparks' upper decks provided some eye candy whereas USCF's UD did not. If New Comiskey/USCF's upper deck faced downtown, I'm sure there wouldn't have been as many complaints.

Honestly, I was one of those who wanted the Sox to do something about the UD...and I'm very happy they did. If cutting down the top 8 rows of the old upper deck at the Cell did anything, it cut down the PERCEPTION that the upper deck is too high. Now, people aren't complaining about it as much, even though there are modern retro-looking stadia that have higher UD's than ours. Remember...perception is reality.

Now if only the Sox got rid of the policy that doesn't allow UD ticket holders to mingle in the lower deck. Boyer said the Sox put that policy in place to protect those who were already in the lower deck against any "idiots" in the UD who'd want to come down and cause trouble. Remember...the schmucks who ran on the field and attacked the umpire and Tom Gamboa originally sat in the upper deck, and moved down.

A big part is perception, I know I am afraid of heights, so before I even went up there, just hearing the rep and looking at the slope, I figured you would need a seat belt to stay in your seat, it's all mental, I wanted to conquer it for myself so I went to the top and saw the view was great, and the 'UD factor' was gone after maybe 2 seconds, worst part being the climb up for the first time with all the perceptions.

I was thinking about the policy, I see both the positives and negatives, I was thinking maybe they should have some $5 type access fee for UD people who want to go downstairs? And maybe have it actually printed on the ticket (especially on the ticketfast ones), because even when I buy or use someone's season tickets, I notice some (not always) of the employees are still clueless and give me a hard time.

Thome_Fan
07-13-2007, 11:53 AM
This isn't mathematical information; but, when I was at Kauffman less than two weeks ago, I found the upper deck to appear significantly steeper than ours! I wasn't up there; but, it's quite obvious by just its appearance.

I was at Kauffman recently also. I didn't necessarily think it was any steeper, it seemed about the same. I was surprised by how small it actually seemed on the whole. The UD didn't wrap very far around at all, and the stadium itself felt very small after USCF. I liked it though, it did feel kind of cozy. (And it being a KC/TB game, it was actually pretty exciting.) Cool place IMO. (Of course, doesn't compare to USCF :cool:)

*edit* As for the ticket issue, I tend to be against it (although I do understand the reasoning.) I was at probably the only game I'll be able to make this year a week or so ago (one of the Balt. games.) My family was in the UD, and I looked down before the game and saw one of the Sox signing autographs down at the dugout. From where I sat it was hard to tell who it was but I think it was Burls. Being at a time when I didn't know if we would have him much longer, I would have really liked to get his autograph :-(.

areilly
07-13-2007, 12:58 PM
Ditto...it's just the "status" thing to do to sit across the street from Wrigley to watch a game. I saw a news report about people who do that, and they interviewed folks who didn't even know the names of the players on the field...wearing the home-team colors!!!!! Shame...a real shame.

I went to a rooftop party on Sheffield last year for the Friday Cubs/Sox game. I'm probably going to get blasted for saying this, but I actually had a lot of fun. Open bar, full buffet, and the view was really no worse than some of the upper deck seats inside the park. Call me a status-seeking jackass if you must, but be sure to add "entertained" and "full" and "drunk" to that statement.