Originally Posted by DumpJerry
Nope. Skyboxes were needed for revenue enhancements and there was no place to put them in Comiskey. That is the main reason why new Comiskey was built. I know they put some in Wiggley, but I have never heard anyone describe them as being nice or desirable.
The Sox did add Skyboxes in 1982 on either side of the press box in the upper deck from 3rd base to 1st base, probably not enough to give them the revenue they wanted but they could have extended them all the way down the lines but the sight lines were pretty bad down in the corners at the old place.
My original point though was that old Comiskey down through the years was not maintained as well as Wrigley because the Comiskey's money came from baseball while Wrigley had all that chewing gum money. Taking Skyboxes out of the equation, if the Comiskey family had the money Wrigley had, old Comiskey would probably still be with us.
Somone posted a couple months ago that the Comiskey's were devastated when the Cardinals pulled out of Comiskey in 1959 and played their final season at Soldier Field. They actually counted on and needed the rental money the Cards paid them, did not know they counted on that money that much.
Back to skyboxes, the downfall of Comiskey II was that they built one extra tier of skyboxes which led to the steep upper deck which fans avoided in droves. They could have kept 2 tiers of skyboxes if they did not build the club level seats. I give the Sox credit for fixing the errors they made including the remake of the upper deck but unless they start over it will always be a little steep up there for a lot of fans.
Here's a question; if old Comiskey was still with us would it be the tourist attraction that Wrigley is? I will say maybe a little but it all comes down to location, location, location.