View Single Post
  #28  
Old 07-02-2013, 11:11 AM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,152
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
Every ballpark built before Dodger Stadium and Candlestick Park both built in the early 60s, had the same problem with the girders and sightlines, that's the way they built ballparks in the early 20th century.
I read a book on Comiskey Park that Zachary Davis who designed Comiskey told Charles Comiskey that he could build a park without girders much like todays parks but the cost would have been 300,000 dollars more, Comiskey nixed the idea because of the cost and he also thought that the upper deck would be too far away from the action.
I read the same thing about the design of the old park. Of course, when you were at the old park, if you looked closely, you could see where the original upper deck ended. It didn't go far down the lines. The outfield wasn't double-decked. So it wasn't an extra $30K (pre World War I money) for the upper deck we remember, but an extra $30K for just the upper deck behind home plate. Most of the upper deck was added in the 1920s, not because the White Sox were especially popular, but because they needed more seats for people coming to see the Yankees and Babe Ruth, or vice versa. The result of the upper deck behind home plate was that there were some really bad seats behind home plate. That was true everywhere until Kansas City built a baseball only park. In the last season of County stadium in Milwaukee, I found seats behind home plate where you couldn't even see home plate And, of course, just about any ball hit in the air would disappear in the ceiling.

If you bring the upper deck closer to the field, you diminish the quality of a considerable number of seats in the lower deck. That really is most true for baseball. When architects started seriously designing baseball-only ballparks in the 1970s, the upper decks were moved farther from the field.
Reply With Quote