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
  #16  
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
  #17  
Old 04-11-2018, 09:41 AM
Harry Chappas Harry Chappas is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Logan Square
Posts: 1,067
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
  #18  
Old 04-11-2018, 11:49 AM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 12,595
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
  #19  
Old 04-11-2018, 12:19 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
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.
Right, there would have been no renovations without the naming rights deal.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-11-2018, 01:19 PM
I_Liked_Manuel I_Liked_Manuel is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: downers ****ing grove
Posts: 1,485
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.
This is one of the park's two fundamental problems imo, the other being the angle of the upper deck being too steep
__________________
Teacher Says, Every Time Brian Anderson Gets A Hit, An Angel Gets Its Wings.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-11-2018, 03:17 PM
Irishsox1 Irishsox1 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,529
Default

When the 1992 season opened and Sports Illustrated showed a double page photo of the new Camden Yards, I literally said "Why didn't we building a stadium like that?"

There is nothing wrong with the current stadium, except that it's boring and even though it's boring it doesn't have a retractable roof. So it's just a boring MLB stadium with no charm and no functionality given how boring it is.

The current stadium will last at least another 20 years and when the time comes to build a new one, I hope they build a cool looking stadium with a retractable roof.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-11-2018, 04:22 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 612
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishsox1 View Post
When the 1992 season opened and Sports Illustrated showed a double page photo of the new Camden Yards, I literally said "Why didn't we building a stadium like that?"

There is nothing wrong with the current stadium, except that it's boring and even though it's boring it doesn't have a retractable roof. So it's just a boring MLB stadium with no charm and no functionality given how boring it is.

The current stadium will last at least another 20 years and when the time comes to build a new one, I hope they build a cool looking stadium with a retractable roof.
I really don't want a retractable roof. I visited Milwaukee a few weeks ago and had lunch at the Fridays in there, and the roof was open, although nice, it still seemed like a dome. Too much disconnect from the outdoors to me, which is where baseball should be played--outdoors.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-11-2018, 04:31 PM
Harry Chappas Harry Chappas is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Logan Square
Posts: 1,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnut67 View Post
I really don't want a retractable roof. I visited Milwaukee a few weeks ago and had lunch at the Fridays in there, and the roof was open, although nice, it still seemed like a dome. Too much disconnect from the outdoors to me, which is where baseball should be played--outdoors.
Ask me this question in March and early April, and you'll get a difference answer than when Summer finally arrives but I completely agree re: Miller Park. Even when open, you never for a minute forget you're in a dome. No thanks. I'd rather suffer through some miserable weeks early in the season.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-11-2018, 05:31 PM
SaltyPretzel SaltyPretzel is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: South Loop
Posts: 2,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Chappas View Post
Ask me this question in March and early April, and you'll get a difference answer than when Summer finally arrives but I completely agree re: Miller Park. Even when open, you never for a minute forget you're in a dome. No thanks. I'd rather suffer through some miserable weeks early in the season.
I've been to a few stadiums with retractable roofs and the only one I really liked was Safeco in Seattle. It just has a roof and the stadium isn't fully enclosed.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-11-2018, 06:59 PM
TomBradley72 TomBradley72 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Antioch, IL
Posts: 6,845
Default

That version of Sox park would have been very interesting- not sure how I feel about the field dimensions (<290 down the lines, 400+ in the alleys, etc.)

Interesting concept- but I've never heard that anyone ever gave it any serious consideration. ****, if they had told someone "make another Comiskey Park"- with arches over the outfield seats and upper decks with roofs for roof shots- it could have been a thing of beauty- with the modern amenities.

The real problem is that new park had no one with true "love for the White Sox" involved in the design and funding of it. The design came from Reinhorn- who were strictly carpetbaggers at that stage, and the money came grudgingly from an Illinois legislature who had to be strong armed by Thompson.

It was a shotgun marriage- based on money and politics- not any true affection for the charter American League franchise with a rich, interesting history.
__________________
TomBradley72
http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/334c0314
Players that are an important part of the rebuild:
Anderson, Giolito, Lopez, Moncada
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-12-2018, 08:34 AM
nsolo nsolo is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Si quaeris peninsulam amoenam, circumspice
Posts: 401
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishsox1 View Post
When the 1992 season opened and Sports Illustrated showed a double page photo of the new Camden Yards, I literally said "Why didn't we building a stadium like that?"

There is nothing wrong with the current stadium, except that it's boring and even though it's boring it doesn't have a retractable roof. So it's just a boring MLB stadium with no charm and no functionality given how boring it is.

The current stadium will last at least another 20 years and when the time comes to build a new one, I hope they build a cool looking stadium with a retractable roof.
I couldn't agree more. Considering the Chicago climate, a retractable roof is, in my opinion, a necessity. Yes, baseball should be played outside, but it also should not be played in foul weather.

As for attendance, the Sox are lacking in promotional/marketing prowess. Fixing that could prove to be more effective in filling seats than a new ballpark.
__________________
Yes Virginia, there really is a Kalamazoo.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-12-2018, 10:22 AM
Irishsox1 Irishsox1 is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Chappas View Post
Ask me this question in March and early April, and you'll get a difference answer than when Summer finally arrives but I completely agree re: Miller Park. Even when open, you never for a minute forget you're in a dome. No thanks. I'd rather suffer through some miserable weeks early in the season.
If the next Sox owners were to not move the Sox and in fact build a new stadium, let alone could afford to build one with a retractable roof, it would have 6 other retractable roofs to look at for design ideas...maybe 7 when the new Rangers stadium opens.

I love outdoor baseball but the practical financial side of me doesn't like rain outs, rain make up double headers, cold games where less than 1,000 fans show up or families with young kids that buy tickets but then don't show up due the threat of cold weather or rain. All of those are bad for business.

When I go to a Brewers game, I know the game is going to be played and that I won't have to sit for 3 hours in bad weather so I always buy a parking pass and due to the ideal conditions I usually stay for the entire game and therefore buy more concessions. Yes, the game doesn't feel like they are totally outside but when it's open there is natural sunlight on the field, there is a breeze and it feels like I'm outside.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-12-2018, 10:58 AM
jshanahanjr jshanahanjr is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Frankfort
Posts: 437
Default New Park

33K seats with options for a safe standing room only crowd. Maybe a combo between Old Comiskey and PNC Park? A light retractable roof, so Sox can play and the fans can watch more comfortable games in April and early May.

The current park is fine for me, but in 25-30 years hopefully a new one will be built on the South Side.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-13-2018, 07:42 AM
Red Barchetta Red Barchetta is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,296
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnut67 View Post
I really don't want a retractable roof. I visited Milwaukee a few weeks ago and had lunch at the Fridays in there, and the roof was open, although nice, it still seemed like a dome. Too much disconnect from the outdoors to me, which is where baseball should be played--outdoors.
I agree. I would gladly trade a few rain delays/postponed games each season for an open air, retro, urban ball park.

Comiskey II, aka US Cellular Field, aka Guaranteed Rate Field is a ballpark designed for the suburbs and crammed into an urban setting. Although I like the Armour Square ballpark design better due to it's retro charm and distinct angles, the neighborhood and location are still the primary issues.

I just wish the SOX would fight for the city and still hope that someday they will play in a urban-designed, retro-style ballpark nestled into the south or west loop with the Sears Tower (yep, I still call it that) and the rest of the Chicago skyline looming over the outfield walls.

SOX fans want to be just as proud of their ballpark as Cubs fans are of their Wrigley Field, MLB Disneyland-like atmosphere created on the north side.

As much as I hate to admit it, Rickett's really did a nice job in renovating and modernizing Wrigley Field without sacrificing their trademark old-school charm they have been selling for years and had a better plan in place for the development of the surrounding area.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-13-2018, 11:09 AM
chisoxfanatic's Avatar
chisoxfanatic chisoxfanatic is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Body is in Chicago. Mind is in Salt Lake City, Utah
Posts: 27,020
Blog Entries: 1
Default

I'd like a retractable roof if we ever got a new ballpark. The one in Seattle is nice. You really feel like you're outside when the roof is open. It's better than the one in Milwaukee.

I think a skyline view with the ballpark facing the skyline would be a lot more dynamic if the ballpark were closer to downtown. South Loop is the best location if we want that skyline view that will provide a severe "wow" factor. Truth be told, I've had dreams of HR shots landing in the Chicago river kind of like what they do in San Francisco.
__________________
2018-2019 Blackhawks Attendance Record: 1-1-1
Next Game: October 20 vs. Columbus Blue Jackets - Nationwide Arena, Columbus Ohio


States Visited: 49
Last Up: Hawaii in January
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 01:43 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.