U.S. Cellular Field history...

[Lip Man 1]

At the Chicago Baseball Museum site there is a terrific story on the history of U.S. Cellular Field including quotes from the architect who unveiled the design for the original Armour Field back in the late 1980's.

 

Thoroughly researched, it sheds some light on the political maneuverings, how and why the Sox placed the park where they did and what could happen in the future.

 

Here is the link if anyone is interested:

 

http://www.chicagobaseballmuseum.org/files...ss-20160913.pdf

 

Mark

[Swingandalongonetoleft]

Enjoyed that read, thank you.

[TheTruth05]

Great read, very solemn tone though.

[Hatchetman]

Interesting read. Who's this George Castle guy? Sounds like another Bad Fan.

[Lip Man 1]

Interesting read. Who's this George Castle guy? Sounds like another Bad Fan.

 

George has been in the Chicago media for a number of years beginning in the 1970's when he worked for the Tribune. He's a Chicago Baseball Historian. I work with him writing for the CBM and he's an interesting guy. We often disagree on things but I respect his thoroughness when doing stories along the lines of this one on U.S. Cellular Field.

 

Mark

Edited September 14, 2016 by Lip Man 1

[Thad Bosley]

At the Chicago Baseball Museum site there is a terrific story on the history of U.S. Cellular Field including quotes from the architect who unveiled the design for the original Armour Field back in the late 1980's.

 

Thoroughly researched, it sheds some light on the political maneuverings, how and why the Sox placed the park where they did and what could happen in the future.

 

Here is the link if anyone is interested:

 

http://www.chicagobaseballmuseum.org/files...ss-20160913.pdf

 

Mark

Terrific article, Lip, and thank you again for yet another great contribution to this site. I very much appreciate and enjoy things like this article and the video/audio links you send. Great stuff!

 

Quick question for you on this article that I'm wondering if you know about. The reference to the 35 degree angle of the infamous upper deck - do you have any insight as to how that compares to the upper decks in the other ballparks built subsequent to the new Comiskey? I've always wondered if the more critical problem with the design of the upper deck was the fact they built the opening at the base, versus in the middle of the deck as you see in many other stadiums. But obviously the 35 degrees was quite steep, but just wondering if that's also the case in other places.

[Lip Man 1]

Terrific article, Lip, and thank you again for yet another great contribution to this site. I very much appreciate and enjoy things like this article and the video/audio links you send. Great stuff!

 

Quick question for you on this article that I'm wondering if you know about. The reference to the 35 degree angle of the infamous upper deck - do you have any insight as to how that compares to the upper decks in the other ballparks built subsequent to the new Comiskey? I've always wondered if the more critical problem with the design of the upper deck was the fact they built the opening at the base, versus in the middle of the deck as you see in many other stadiums. But obviously the 35 degrees was quite steep, but just wondering if that's also the case in other places.

 

I haven't ever seen an actual study done but I have read reports that there are a few other stadiums with an upper deck angle as steep. I even saw one if I remember right that said the upper deck angle was actually steeper than at U.S. Cellular Field.

 

Also thank you for the kind words.

 

Mark

[WBWSF]

The 3 levels of suites made the upper deck what it is today. JR wanted 3 levels of suites. 1 level of suites would have made the upper deck a great place to sit. 2 levels of suites would have made the upper deck decent. 3 levels of suites has made the upper deck lousy. It has ruined the park. The 3 levels of suites was ordered by JR. It was his doing and it will be the main reason why no tears will be shed by anybody when this stadium is knocked down. The team is basically giving those upper deck tickets away and still nobody wants to sit up there. I've been a Season Ticket holder for years and if they ever move me upstairs in the upper deck, I will stop going.

[ewokpelts]

The 3 levels of suites made the upper deck what it is today. JR wanted 3 levels of suites. 1 level of suites would have made the upper deck a great place to sit. 2 levels of suites would have made the upper deck decent. 3 levels of suites has made the upper deck lousy. It has ruined the park. The 3 levels of suites was ordered by JR. It was his doing and it will be the main reason why no tears will be shed by anybody when this stadium is knocked down. The team is basically giving those upper deck tickets away and still nobody wants to sit up there. I've been a Season Ticket holder for years and if they ever move me upstairs in the upper deck, I will stop going.

There are two levels of suites.

 

Facts have a pesky way of making your rant look stupid.

 

Also, the sox really can't "move you upstairs". They make more money from you buying lower level seats.

[ewokpelts]

Also, armour field was not feasible. Look at those dimensions

[WBWSF]

1)The second level of those useless club level seats serves the same purpose as a level of suites. The next time you go to the park just look how different the upper deck would look if it only had one level of suites. It would have been a tremendous upper deck.

2) I'm in a 27 game package. If they change my section to a 81 game package, I could lose my tickets in my section. If the powers to be make my package where I have to sit in the upper deck I would not renew my package.

[ewokpelts]

1)The second level of those useless club level seats serves the same purpose as a level of suites. The next time you go to the park just look how different the upper deck would look if it only had one level of suites. It would have been a tremendous upper deck.

2) I'm in a 27 game package. If they change my section to a 81 game package, I could lose my tickets in my section. If the powers to be make my package where I have to sit in the upper deck I would not renew my package.

How's that crack you're smoking? The sox will NOT make you go into an 81 game plan.

[soulfly]

Good read. One thing I'd point out though, it says Maddon is the owner, not the manager. Just figured I'd let you know.

[Quin]

Would really enjoy if the next stadium blends the best aspects of Comiskey Park and The Cell, with the skyline in the background.

 

That would be the best.

[WBWSF]

It seems like alot of cities want to build stadiums for teams. I read where the State of Nevada just approved $750 million for a new football stadium for the Raiders. I'm under the impression that the money is coming from the tax payers. Unless the city of Oakland comes up with a new stadium it looks like the Raiders are moving to Vegas.

Edited September 16, 2016 by WBWSF

[ewokpelts]

Would really enjoy if the next stadium blends the best aspects of Comiskey Park and The Cell, with the skyline in the background.

 

That would be the best.

Assuming they stay at the optimal location of 35th and the Dan Ryan, they will likely move on the old comiskey site, and possibly absorb some of the armour square parkland. I suspect the park will have a similar orientation as the old park.

[InTheDriversSeat]

 

Would really enjoy if the next stadium blends the best aspects of Comiskey Park and The Cell, with the skyline in the background.

 

That would be the best.

 

 

Who cares if a skyline is in the background? I don't. Just because other teams do that, doesn't mean we have to. Makes NO difference to me. I'm perfectly happy with the stadium we have now, and I could care less if I can see any skyline or not. I'm more interested with the game on the field, and the amenities inside the stadium. And to anyone who thinks the seats in the upper deck are too high, there's an easy solution: Buy a ticket in the lower deck. Problem solved.

 

 

.

[Quin]

Who cares if a skyline is in the background? I don't. Just because other teams do that, doesn't mean we have to. Makes NO difference to me. I'm perfectly happy with the stadium we have now, and I could care less if I can see any skyline or not. I'm more interested with the game on the field, and the amenities inside the stadium. And to anyone who thinks the seats in the upper deck are too high, there's an easy solution: Buy a ticket in the lower deck. Problem solved.

 

 

.

 

I'm not saying build a new one solely because of that, but the next one (as previously stated) will likely be on top of the Old Comiskey grounds. It would be difficult to angle that to have the skyline in the background and provide a nice aesthetic.

 

As for amenities, that's why I said blend the two.

 

[Donaldo]

The reference to the 35 degree angle of the infamous upper deck - do you have any insight as to how that compares to the upper decks in the other ballparks built subsequent to the new Comiskey?

 

Definitely not subsequent, but the upper deck at the old Yankee Stadium always looked very steep to me.

 

There are two levels of suites.

 

I always thought the 300 (Club) Level was kinda pointless.

 

IIRC, the first row of seats in the upper deck is higher up than the light towers at the old park... not much of a selling point to me.

[Lip Man 1]

Definitely not subsequent, but the upper deck at the old Yankee Stadium always looked very steep to me.

 

 

 

I always thought the 300 (Club) Level was kinda pointless.

 

IIRC, the first row of seats in the upper deck is higher up than the light towers at the old park... not much of a selling point to me.

 

I think it's actually the last row of seats in the upper deck of the original Comiskey Park was closer to the field than the first row of seats in the upper deck of the new stadium.

 

Mark

Edited September 17, 2016 by Lip Man 1

[southsider2k5]

I'm not saying build a new one solely because of that, but the next one (as previously stated) will likely be on top of the Old Comiskey grounds. It would be difficult to angle that to have the skyline in the background and provide a nice aesthetic.

 

As for amenities, that's why I said blend the two.

 

Pretty sure with where the ballpark is, you will get apartment buildings in the background, and not downtown, unless you are up high.

[captain54]

At the Chicago Baseball Museum site there is a terrific story on the history of U.S. Cellular Field including quotes from the architect who unveiled the design for the original Armour Field back in the late 1980's.

 

Thoroughly researched, it sheds some light on the political maneuverings, how and why the Sox placed the park where they did and what could happen in the future.

 

Here is the link if anyone is interested:

 

http://www.chicagobaseballmuseum.org/files...ss-20160913.pdf

 

Mark

 

Lip, I always appreciate your passion with White Sox history. You can tell its in your blood, as it is mine.

 

Great article, insightful and well though out.

 

This isn't necessarily a knock on JR, and who knows, maybe he would do it all differently if he could. That being said, I think that The rejection of the Bess design was a serious miscalculation. In hindsight, the Armour Square park built north of Old Comiskey would have completed rejuvenated the entire area from the Ryan to Wallace, and from 31 St all the way to Pershing, making it a potential tourist/entertainment/urban living area, rivaling Lakeview/Wrigleyville

 

In 1987-1988, JR had no more interest in building a park that was advantageous to the development of the south loop/Chinatown/Bridgeport area than the man on the moon. Hell, his choice was to to book the city altogether and hi-tail it to the burbs. As was pointed out very clearly in the article, he then jumped on the chance to build a suburban style isolated park at 35th and Shields

 

I lived in the South Loop in the late 80's, and at that time it was CLEARLY evident that the south loop/Bridgeport area was ripe for development in terms of entertainment/urban living. Bess clearly foresaw this, indicated by his fan friendly/neighborhood integrated park, albeit (and here's the kicker) with a smaller capacity for both suites and seating

 

[ewokpelts]

Something Liptak and the author fail to mention is that the Bess Armour Field design was NOT an official design submitted to the Sox or ISFA. It was a SABR project that was published AFTER groundbreaking for what is now known as Guaranteed Rate Field.

 

 

I hate to link WSI, but they spell it out in the first paragraphs. http://whitesoxinteractive.com/FixComiskey...nversation1.htm

 

 

Never mind that the Field House for Armour Square park is now under landmark protection, or that you would be displacing a public park that is continually used by residents. Or that you have to buy even more land to build parking for the stadium and surrounding development.

 

But hey, f*** jerry and the city and state for approving a design that was actually submitted for bid review.

 

 

 

[Thad Bosley]

Lip, I always appreciate your passion with White Sox history. You can tell its in your blood, as it is mine.

 

Great article, insightful and well though out.

 

This isn't necessarily a knock on JR, and who knows, maybe he would do it all differently if he could. That being said, I think that The rejection of the Bess design was a serious miscalculation. In hindsight, the Armour Square park built north of Old Comiskey would have completed rejuvenated the entire area from the Ryan to Wallace, and from 31 St all the way to Pershing, making it a potential tourist/entertainment/urban living area, rivaling Lakeview/Wrigleyville

 

In 1987-1988, JR had no more interest in building a park that was advantageous to the development of the south loop/Chinatown/Bridgeport area than the man on the moon. Hell, his choice was to to book the city altogether and hi-tail it to the burbs. As was pointed out very clearly in the article, he then jumped on the chance to build a suburban style isolated park at 35th and Shields

 

I lived in the South Loop in the late 80's, and at that time it was CLEARLY evident that the south loop/Bridgeport area was ripe for development in terms of entertainment/urban living. Bess clearly foresaw this, indicated by his fan friendly/neighborhood integrated park, albeit (and here's the kicker) with a smaller capacity for both suites and seating

Jerry Reinsdorf was pretty clear on the objectives of the building of the new stadium: revenue generation leading to maximum profits for the White Sox. Period. Hence, the entire cost of the building of the stadium shifted to the backs of the taxpayers, and a sweetheart lease deal that entitles the team to all of the revenue streams generated by the park but very little in associated expenses. Lip service at the time was provided suggesting an economic boost to the surrounding neighborhood, but it was just that - empty words. There was no concrete plan established to make that happen, and as we all know, it never did materialize.

 

No, the new Comiskey Park was designed to be a one stop shopping destination for any and all discretionary spending by White Sox fans coming to watch a White Sox game. Why give a local bar owner $5 for a beer when you can give it to Jerry Reinsdorf instead, right?

Edited September 18, 2016 by Thad Bosley

[Hatchetman]

when are they going to rebuild McCuddy's like Big Jim promised?