White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
GO SOX! DSNB!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-10-2018, 11:32 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 32,357
Default The Chicago Ballpark That Never Was...

Tour de Force story on the history of the new Sox Park and the stadium that "almost" got built.

Author really went into detail historically:

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/t...anged-history/

Answers a lot of questions and clears up a lot of issues and misconceptions.

Last edited by Lip Man 1; 04-10-2018 at 11:42 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:20 PM
Red Barchetta Red Barchetta is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,281
Default

Great article. I've read previous articles about Armour Square, but this updated article makes some excellent points.

Could, shoulda, woulda. Hopefully the next time the White Sox build a new ballpark, it will be near the south or west loop and they can truly compete for the city because as it stands now, they are stuck between the city and suburbs.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:25 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Barchetta View Post
Great article. I've read previous articles about Armour Square, but this updated article makes some excellent points.

Could, shoulda, woulda. Hopefully the next time the White Sox build a new ballpark, it will be near the south or west loop and they can truly compete for the city because as it stands now, they are stuck between the city and suburbs.
Yes, I think they are stuck in between, but I think I needs to be city. Depending on how one looks at things, it isn't just about going and watching a game anymore.

To be honest, I want the amenities of the new park, but the intimacy and surroundings of the old park. It can be done. will it ever be done?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:51 PM
Harry Chappas Harry Chappas is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Logan Square
Posts: 1,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Barchetta View Post
Great article. I've read previous articles about Armour Square, but this updated article makes some excellent points.

Could, shoulda, woulda. Hopefully the next time the White Sox build a new ballpark, it will be near the south or west loop and they can truly compete for the city because as it stands now, they are stuck between the city and suburbs.
In terms of location, would Armour Square really move the needle much? I would hope the Sox would build closer to downtown if/when they move although I have no idea where that would be.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:58 PM
TomC727 TomC727 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Suburbs
Posts: 532
Default

Really great article.

What could have been.
__________________
GO WHITE SOX


CUBS SUCK

White Sox Fans, knowing more about baseball and the cubs than their own fans since 1901.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-10-2018, 01:05 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Chappas View Post
In terms of location, would Armour Square really move the needle much? I would hope the Sox would build closer to downtown if/when they move although I have no idea where that would be.
Good question. I think it might, if the entire concept was completed with the ballpark and all of the development around it. If it's just the ballpark itself, then no, I don't think it would that much.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-10-2018, 01:45 PM
bestkosher bestkosher is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 518
Default

I like the revelation that Camden yards was almost built the same way with the warehouse gone until a competing builder forced the hand. It kind of demystifies the myth of Comiskey/Cellular/Rate being the last of the cookie cutter being built.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-10-2018, 02:55 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 579
Default

So now, NBC Sports Chicago has an article about the CBS article.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-10-2018, 03:06 PM
northsidesoxfan northsidesoxfan is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: northside
Posts: 19
Default

A very informative article.What could have been.And also the land still vacant bounded by Roosevelt Rd, the river,18th street and Clark street.That land has been mentioned as a possible Amazon site and a developer wants to build the 78th neighborhood in Chicago in that spot.Not too many options if in a few years the team wants a new stadium and also factor in the State and city not having any capital at all to pitch in.I don't see any reason myself to believe that they'll ever get a new stadium.But it's always fun think what if.

http://www.78chicago.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-10-2018, 08:15 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,358
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SI1020 View Post
That among other revelations makes this one of the best links ever on this site. What a thoroughly enjoyable and comprehensive read. I totally agree with Bess concerning the abilities of old time architects.
I agree on all counts.
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-10-2018, 08:52 PM
Red Barchetta Red Barchetta is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Chappas View Post
In terms of location, would Armour Square really move the needle much? I would hope the Sox would build closer to downtown if/when they move although I have no idea where that would be.
Not much in terms of location, but a lot better in terms of fan interaction and ballpark intimacy. I went to the opening game in Comiskey II as sat in the second row, upper deck off the 1st base line. The absolute first thing I noticed, compared to old Comiskey, was how far away from the field I was sitting in the second row of the upper deck.

The ballpark has improved cosmetically, but the engineering per the article, can't be changed.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-10-2018, 09:22 PM
StillMissOzzie StillMissOzzie is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lombard, IL
Posts: 5,725
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Barchetta View Post
Not much in terms of location, but a lot better in terms of fan interaction and ballpark intimacy. I went to the opening game in Comiskey II as sat in the second row, upper deck off the 1st base line. The absolute first thing I noticed, compared to old Comiskey, was how far away from the field I was sitting in the second row of the upper deck.

The ballpark has improved cosmetically, but the engineering per the article, can't be changed.
Yes, me too. When I was at the first game of then Comiskey Park II, I was in the upper tank. Parts of the original Comiskey Park were still standing, and I could tell the the floor of the upper deck of the new joint was higher that the last row of the upper deck of the old joint.

The engineering indeed can't be changed.

SMO
__________________
2018 tally: x 1, x 1, and x 0 (4th inning free coffee from DD)
COTC Record: 1 - 1 (lifetime)
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-11-2018, 09:41 AM
ozzman ozzman is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: West Loop
Posts: 516
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Barchetta View Post
Not much in terms of location, but a lot better in terms of fan interaction and ballpark intimacy. I went to the opening game in Comiskey II as sat in the second row, upper deck off the 1st base line. The absolute first thing I noticed, compared to old Comiskey, was how far away from the field I was sitting in the second row of the upper deck.

The ballpark has improved cosmetically, but the engineering per the article, can't be changed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by StillMissOzzie View Post
Yes, me too. When I was at the first game of then Comiskey Park II, I was in the upper tank. Parts of the original Comiskey Park were still standing, and I could tell the the floor of the upper deck of the new joint was higher that the last row of the upper deck of the old joint.

The engineering indeed can't be changed.

SMO

Always reminds me of this graphic
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-11-2018, 09:41 AM
Harry Chappas Harry Chappas is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Logan Square
Posts: 1,012
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Barchetta View Post
Not much in terms of location, but a lot better in terms of fan interaction and ballpark intimacy. I went to the opening game in Comiskey II as sat in the second row, upper deck off the 1st base line. The absolute first thing I noticed, compared to old Comiskey, was how far away from the field I was sitting in the second row of the upper deck.

The ballpark has improved cosmetically, but the engineering per the article, can't be changed.
Good point but it seems like the idealized notion of tons of retail, bars, restaurants, etc., flanking the could-have-been park were a little pie in the sky. That neighborhood isn't quite there yet and definitely wasn't there back in the 80s.

Seems like the biggest improvement would be to the upper deck but only at the expense of the generous concourses that surround the existing 'bowl.' That seems like a pretty big price to pay in the hopes that you get enough fans through the turnstile to justify it. Even back in '06, coming off a WS, the Sox struggled to fill their upper deck.

To me, the biggest hindrance to attendance isn't the layout of the ballpark, it's the location on the South Side. That doesn't change if you build a stadium in Armour Square.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-11-2018, 11:49 AM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,250
Default

Nice article, but it's not accurate when it says that the ballpark underwent major renovations at taxpayer expense. If I remember correctly, the ballpark renovations were funded by the naming rights deal. I believe it they sold the naming rights to U.S. Cellular for $68M and that was the money that funded the renovations.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:33 AM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.