View Single Post
Old 03-23-2013, 02:16 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 17,832

Originally Posted by asindc View Post
I had heard that was the initial idea but the architects could not adjust for the wind currents off the lake if it had been done.
That could have been a consideration. I have heard the ballpark doesn't face the skyline because home plate, which determines the address, was to be kept at 35th and Shields. The White Sox attract so much negative attention from the media and even fans who dislike the ownership that prejudices may go farther in determining which reason you believe.

Still, the unobstructed skyline I've seen from a ramp looking north isn't really a big deal. The Cell is too far south to get the dramatic skyline people insist it should have. It certainly wouldn't be the big deal that would make people rave about what an awesome place it is to watch a game.

AT&T was supposed to be built facing the as iconic and more in-your-face San Francisco skyline, although the park sits near the Bay Bridge, nowhere near the Golden Gate Bridge. Giants ownership raised money to build the park selling bonds with the skyline as a selling point. As I understand it, the ballpark was situated to play out toward the Bay because the wind currents made the location unplayable facing the city. That has worked out, with splash home runs and such. But perhaps it says something for views of what lies beyond the outfield fences when you consider that a park near the top of most best lists doesn't have a view of the iconic skyline outside, but rather, if you look closely on a clear day from the steep upper level seats, what many would consider baseball's worst ballpark.

Last edited by TDog; 03-23-2013 at 02:21 PM.
Reply With Quote