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: 32,194
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: 2,278
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, 12:20 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 562
Default

I just read a little bit of it, at work so..

I wonder about the timing of it.

With the current ballpark lease up in 10 years, I wonder if this is the start of something.

I know it could be a matter of just signing another lease and there ya go.

Or could it be that someone is planting a seed before the next lease is signed.

It all depends on who the next owner is. That person or group may use their own money, so I don't want to get into who's going to pay for it.

But when that lease is up, where will things be? There's been a lot of $ invested in the ballpark over the last 15 + years, and the park looks really great right now with the new paint job etc.

If someone decides on a similar plan for the next one, where is everyone at on it? What is the next trend in ballpark design?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:25 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 562
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
  #5  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:51 PM
Harry Chappas Harry Chappas is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Logan Square
Posts: 978
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
  #6  
Old 04-10-2018, 12:58 PM
TomC727 TomC727 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: South Suburbs
Posts: 509
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
  #7  
Old 04-10-2018, 01:05 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 562
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
  #8  
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
  #9  
Old 04-10-2018, 02:55 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 562
Default

So now, NBC Sports Chicago has an article about the CBS article.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-10-2018, 03:06 PM
northsidesoxfan northsidesoxfan is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: northside
Posts: 18
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
  #11  
Old 04-10-2018, 03:36 PM
slavko slavko is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: North Suburban
Posts: 7,326
Default

He's got a point of view, all right, and exhaustively quotes the facts he need to sell it. The architect manages to fit the Polo Grounds, long gone New York Giants stadium, into a city block, minus the 480 foot CF, and make it look like Wrigley Field, complete with a thriving city neighborhood surrounding it. He says the subsequent renovations were almost all paid for by the public, ignoring the $68M from USC.

Because all the former Cubs fans are going to switch over since it looks like Wrigley and you can see the skyline. If you share his viewpoint, you loved the article. If you drive to get there, you don't love it, since he basically ignores those who have to drive.

And what would Tribune architecture critic/pest Blair Kamin say about obliterating the work of Burnham and Olmsted at Armour Park. Oh, the horror!
__________________
If it ain't broke, fix it till it is.

Last edited by slavko; 04-10-2018 at 07:50 PM. Reason: my computer went bonkers, really
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-10-2018, 08:14 PM
XplodingScorbord XplodingScorbord is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Just off the DFW flight path
Posts: 871
Default

The author says, "In Wrigley, there's a mere 15 feet or so between the last seat in the lower deck and the very edge of the building. Major concessions are hosted underneath the grandstand..."

He seems put excessive weight to the closeness of the upper deck, and is willing to put up with a lot to achieve it, including dismissing the importance of the posts holding the upper deck up obstructing views, and the fact that in rear rows of the lower deck you can't follow the flight of the ball on high flies.

Here's what I love:

--The concourse that goes all the way around the lower deck, packed with concession stands from which I can still keep an eye on the game. I hate going essentially outside of the stadium to get food, being completely divorced from the action the field.

--A lower bowl that I know no matter where I sit I won't have my view obstructed at all, unless I sit in close proximity to a foul pole.

I don't typically sit in the upper deck, so I guess I'm less moved than the author by trying to get those seats to be better at the expense of the more expensive seats below.
__________________
**Xploding Scorbord**
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-10-2018, 08:15 PM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 3,246
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
  #14  
Old 04-10-2018, 08:52 PM
Red Barchetta Red Barchetta is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,278
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
  #15  
Old 04-10-2018, 09:22 PM
StillMissOzzie StillMissOzzie is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Lombard, IL
Posts: 5,721
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 0, x 1
COTC Record: 1 - 1 (lifetime)
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 01:58 PM.




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.