U.S. Cellular Field history...

[tray]

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.

 

EXACTLY. I love the outfield concourse at Sox Park and also walking all the way around the park and being able to take sneak peaks at the game.

The park looks beautiful since they made several changes.

I also like driving to the park and tailgating before games. Can't do that at Wricketts Field.

 

[ewokpelts]

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?

Like tom ricketts doesn't want that too? Or the steinbrenners? Or rocky wirtz?

 

No matter who finances the stadium, owners want to control where you spend your money as Joe fan.

 

Oh, as for economic development, the neighborhoods surrounding the park are littered with million dollar homes. And the stadium itself has generated over 209 million in tax Revenue since 1991. The park was financed for 168 million.

Edited September 19, 2016 by ewokpelts

[southsider2k5]

Like tom ricketts doesn't want that too? Or the steinbrenners? Or rocky wirtz?

 

No matter who finances the stadium, owners want to control where you spend your money as Joe fan.

 

Oh, as for economic development, the neighborhoods surrounding the park are littered with million dollar homes. And the stadium itself has generated over 209 million in tax Revenue since 1991. The park was financed for 168 million.

 

The Cubs are buying the rooftops, building themselves a plaza, and a hotel. I'd say that is WAY past a bar and parking.

[captain54]

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.

 

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.

 

So you're okay with entire neighborhoods and hundreds of homes being displaced for the current parking situation?

 

there were plans to accommodate parking on the east side of the Ryan, with pedestrian overpasses and walkways erected..

 

but again, it's all a mute point, because it was never seriously considered...

 

the reason the Bess design never became an official design submitted to the Sox or IFSA, is because the Sox organization made pretty damn sure it was going to get ignored, seeing that it was in the way of what they wanted... as far as the public park and the field house.. a new park and field house was to be created on the site of the old Comiskey Park, with the old playing field used for public use...

 

 

 

from the Chicago Reader- 6/2/1988

 

The most important factor in the failure of this well-thought-out, interesting, and provocative proposal to even become a part of the discussion is simple: the White Sox won't consider it.

 

The White Sox' only comment last July, buried in Rapoport's column, came from executive vice president Howard Pizer, who sniffed, "It would seem to me that someone genuinely interested in putting forth a proposal for anything other than publicity purposes would talk to the prime tenant."

 

Bess has tried to talk to the prime tenant. "I tried to invite Pizer to look at it," Bess says. "He felt that by proposing it, I was making it more difficult for the Sox to do what they wanted to do." Indeed.

 

Pizer last week refused to discuss any aspect of the White Sox situation, saying, "We are maintaining a strict no-comment policy." The owners, of course, are talking only to governors these days.

 

How about the Sports Authority? The chairman of the authority's governing board, Thomas Reynolds Jr., said last week that he had seen Bess's proposal, and, "Conceptually, I think it's a neat idea." But he was brutally candid about its prospects: "It's not doable, because of the demands of the Sox. They've got [the plan], and they said they're not interested. If they're not interested, we're not interested."

[captain54]

Like tom ricketts doesn't want that too? Or the steinbrenners? Or rocky wirtz?

 

No matter who finances the stadium, owners want to control where you spend your money as Joe fan.

 

Oh, as for economic development, the neighborhoods surrounding the park are littered with million dollar homes. And the stadium itself has generated over 209 million in tax Revenue since 1991. The park was financed for 168 million.

 

In theory, the bonds that were used to finance not only the stadium, but the renovations to the stadium, and the restaurant/bar on the north side of 35th, were to be used to improve the state infrastuture and other much needed building or repairs of public and municipal facilities.. How exactly does an athletic stadium fit into that criteria?

 

and $209 million since 1991? In 2016, the state spent $12 billion in pensions ALONE

 

Imagine if Ricketts got his way and had the entire Wrigleyville area leveled for his own purposes. from Clark to Sheffield from Addison to Roscoe? and throw in north of Wrigley from Waveland to Grace, from Racine to Sheffield.. just for fun...

 

Ricketts..can dream .. but Ricketts dreams.. became JR's reality...

 

 

[Lip Man 1]

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.

 

Ewok:

 

Just to be clear the story at the Chicago Baseball Museum was not written by me. Didn't even know it was coming until I saw it published last week.

 

It is a fact though as the authors wrote in "Ballpark, the Building of Camden Yards" quoting the original architectural designers that they did offer JR directly the option of a Camden Yards design and he rejected it. And they wrote that it was not an associate or someone else in the organization...it was him personally.

 

I don't think you can necessarily hold that against him. No one knew at the time that "retro-parks" would come into vogue however he did have an opportunity to do something unique and different and rejected the idea. I have heard basically the same thing from a number of folks, he wanted basically an in-house way to keep as much revenue as possible and honestly thought the Sox were going to be a "hot item" so he wanted an additional level of suites.

 

Someone perhaps can check this but I don't think the Sox have ever sold out all of their luxury boxes have they?

 

Mark

Edited September 19, 2016 by Lip Man 1

[southsider2k5]

In theory, the bonds that were used to finance not only the stadium, but the renovations to the stadium, and the restaurant/bar on the north side of 35th, were to be used to improve the state infrastuture and other much needed building or repairs of public and municipal facilities.. How exactly does an athletic stadium fit into that criteria?

 

and $209 million since 1991? In 2016, the state spent $12 billion in pensions ALONE

 

Imagine if Ricketts got his way and had the entire Wrigleyville area leveled for his own purposes. from Clark to Sheffield from Addison to Roscoe? and throw in north of Wrigley from Waveland to Grace, from Racine to Sheffield.. just for fun...

 

Ricketts..can dream .. but Ricketts dreams.. became JR's reality...

I'd say you got those two things backwards. How many hotels does Jerry own next to Sox Park? How many private residences does he own?

[ewokpelts]

Ewok:

 

Just to be clear the story at the Chicago Baseball Museum was not written by me. Didn't even know it was coming until I saw it published last week.

 

It is a fact though as the authors wrote in "Ballpark, the Building of Camden Yards" quoting the original architectural designers that they did offer JR directly the option of a Camden Yards design and he rejected it. And they wrote that it was not an associate or someone else in the organization...it was him personally.

 

I don't think you can necessarily hold that against him. No one knew at the time that "retro-parks" would come into vogue however he did have an opportunity to do something unique and different and rejected the idea. I have heard basically the same thing from a number of folks, he wanted basically an in-house way to keep as much revenue as possible and honestly thought the Sox were going to be a "hot item" so he wanted an additional level of suites.

 

Someone perhaps can check this but I don't think the Sox have ever sold out all of their luxury boxes have they?

 

Mark

the site also can't allow a sunken field like oriole park. The chicago infrastructure is still not in place to accommodate that. The budget had already been cut more than once(which explains the precast concrete and the sox moving away from a brick exterior), and the city didn't have the money to re-do the sewer system to allow a sunken field.

 

 

As for the suites and the "sea of parking", EVERY OWNER wants that. Bill wirtz strictly forbid street hawkers after the united center was built, and to this day there is no tailgating at hawks or bulls games. Not when his son owned the concession company! Secondly, not all suites are meant as season rentals. The sox sell game day suites for every game. But they also have modified some suites for other uses. The press box is in former suite space, as is the sox war room/scouting hq.

 

[Thad Bosley]

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.

Actually the posters comment, not "rant", wasn't stupid at all. According to this Tribune article from 1993, there was a "triple decker sandwich" unique to the new Comiskey Park that was not present in the construction of Camden Yards the following year. That's because the same architects responsible for designing both ballparks gave the Orioles owners and Reinsdorf & Co. the same option - intimacy vs. revenue generation. The former chose intimacy, and therefore the "architects tucked a single tier of 75 skyboxes" between the lower and upper deck at Camden. The latter wanted more skyboxes, thus necessitating the need for a second level of skyboxes which, combined with a tier for the press box, resulted in three tiers between the lower and upper decks at the new Comiskey. Result: this decision "jacked up the upper deck by more than 30 feet (which) forced HOK to tilt the upper deck at 35 degrees to bring the jacked-up seats closer to the action."

 

So with the Orioles choosing intimacy over revenue generation, they built an upper deck closer to the field and at a far more relaxed and comfortable angle of 31 degrees. This choice, among many other smart decisions in designing Camden Yards, led that park to being regarded as the standard bearer for well designed new ballparks during the recent era of new ballpark construction.

 

Meanwhile Reinsdorf, who never met a franchise-crippling decision he didn't like, made the decision to try and squeeze as many suites as he possibly could into his new ballpark, choosing revenue generation over any semblance of intimacy, and in the process ended up building the infamous 29 row upper deck and its crazy 35 degree angle, with the opening to this architectural disaster at the base of the deck to boot. That decision proved to be so bad that the team would end up sawing off nine rows in 2003 simply because they were hardly ever used.

 

Those are the facts, Ewok. The only thing "stupid" I think you'll see are the critical decisions which were made around the design and construction of the new ballpark at 35th and Shields in the late '80s by the owners of the Sox.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09...comiskey-park/3

[ewokpelts]

Actually the posters comment, not "rant", wasn't stupid at all. According to this Tribune article from 1993, there was a "triple decker sandwich" unique to the new Comiskey Park that was not present in the construction of Camden Yards the following year. That's because the same architects responsible for designing both ballparks gave the Orioles owners and Reinsdorf & Co. the same option - intimacy vs. revenue generation. The former chose intimacy, and therefore the "architects tucked a single tier of 75 skyboxes" between the lower and upper deck at Camden. The latter wanted more skyboxes, thus necessitating the need for a second level of skyboxes which, combined with a tier for the press box, resulted in three tiers between the lower and upper decks at the new Comiskey. Result: this decision "jacked up the upper deck by more than 30 feet (which) forced HOK to tilt the upper deck at 35 degrees to bring the jacked-up seats closer to the action."

 

So with the Orioles choosing intimacy over revenue generation, they built an upper deck closer to the field and at a far more relaxed and comfortable angle of 31 degrees. This choice, among many other smart decisions in designing Camden Yards, led that park to being regarded as the standard bearer for well designed new ballparks during the recent era of new ballpark construction.

 

Meanwhile Reinsdorf, who never met a franchise-crippling decision he didn't like, made the decision to try and squeeze as many suites as he possibly could into his new ballpark, choosing revenue generation over any semblance of intimacy, and in the process ended up building the infamous 29 row upper deck and its crazy 35 degree angle, with the opening to this architectural disaster at the base of the deck to boot. That decision proved to be so bad that the team would end up sawing off nine rows in 2003 simply because they were hardly ever used.

 

Those are the facts, Ewok. The only thing "stupid" I think you'll see are the critical decisions which were made around the design and construction of the new ballpark at 35th and Shields in the late '80s by the owners of the Sox.

 

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-09...comiskey-park/3

four degrees. That'/ the difference between "cozy" angelos field and sox park.

 

Bigwhoop. The tribune Hachet job also fails to mention the oriole's field is below street/sea level. An advantage the sox didn't have due to chicago infrastructure.

 

But hey, what do I know? I don't read the cubune.

 

And as for rants, the poster's "comments" included an insane belief that the sox will move a season ticket holder to the upper level without his consent.

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by ewokpelts

[Thad Bosley]

four degrees. That'/ the difference between "cozy" angelos field and sox park.

 

Bigwhoop. The tribune Hachet job also fails to mention the oriole's field is below street/sea level. An advantage the sox didn't have due to chicago infrastructure.

 

But hey, what do I know? I don't read the cubune.

 

And as for rants, the poster's "comments" included an insane belief that the sox will move a season ticket holder to the upper level without his consent.

Don't be an apologist for the bad decisions made in the construction of new Comiskey. The angle of old Comiskey's upper deck was 27 degrees, Wrigley's is 30 degrees, Camden 31 degrees. Compare that to the 35 degree slant at the new Comiskey and combine it with a full 29 rows AND the opening at the base of that "jacked up" deck, and you have one HUGE disaster. No excuses. Reinsdorf really screwed that one up royally.

[Bananarchy]

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.

Raiders are gone. Oakland will never come up with that money.

[tray]

I don't like the steep angle but you can't compare upper decks that have obstructed views with Sox park.

There are several things that can be done to make upper decks seats more attractive. I would like to see the last several rows eliminated and the angles cut down.

The worst ones could be replaced by building upper deck grandstands in RF with updated features and amenities that are currently lacking in the "cheap seats."

The first level of the park is one of the best in baseball, no question about that. in fact, it is so noce thst it often looks like far fewer people are in the park than there are in attaendance because people are down in the RF bullpen area , the XFinity areas, standing in the outfield concourse drinking and eating, or just walking around the park. You don't have to be tied down to your seat for the entire game.

I don't think cub fans get that because they can't leave their seat and walk around that easily during a game and when they have to in order to go to the restroom, it is a major hassle.

I like our park, even when the team is not that great and even when they lose, I always have a good time with friends.

[Thad Bosley]

I don't like the steep angle but you can't compare upper decks that have obstructed views with Sox park.

There are several things that can be done to make upper decks seats more attractive. I would like to see the last several rows eliminated and the angles cut down.

The worst ones could be replaced by building upper deck grandstands in RF with updated features and amenities that are currently lacking in the "cheap seats."

The first level of the park is one of the best in baseball, no question about that. in fact, it is so noce thst it often looks like far fewer people are in the park than there are in attaendance because people are down in the RF bullpen area , the XFinity areas, standing in the outfield concourse drinking and eating, or just walking around the park. You don't have to be tied down to your seat for the entire game.

I don't think cub fans get that because they can't leave their seat and walk around that easily during a game and when they have to in order to go to the restroom, it is a major hassle.

I like our park, even when the team is not that great and even when they lose, I always have a good time with friends.

Well, the "last several rows eliminated" part has already happened, as Reinsdorf took out his chain saw and buzzed off eight of 'em back in '03. Now cutting that 35 degree angle down, well, that's an interesting request. How do you propose the team go about doing that?

[Dick Allen]

What is interesting is the article said the seats were just as far away from the field in both upper decks. The Sox park, and Camden Yards.

 

Upper decks are pretty similar all around. Sox fans were spoiled with the old park's upper deck. That isn't happening again. People need to get over it. Of course they don't even sell out of the $15 lower deck tickets with a free t shirt when Sale pitches, so most of the whining about the upper deck is much ado about nothing.

[captain54]

What is interesting is the article said the seats were just as far away from the field in both upper decks. The Sox park, and Camden Yards.

 

Upper decks are pretty similar all around. Sox fans were spoiled with the old park's upper deck. That isn't happening again. People need to get over it. Of course they don't even sell out of the $15 lower deck tickets with a free t shirt when Sale pitches, so most of the whining about the upper deck is much ado about nothing.

 

You make a valid point, but consider that the architecture of the new park, and decision to not renovate the old park, was mainly due and predicated by the decision to jam as many luxury suites in as possible.. The Sox are among the league leaders in MLB, in number of luxury suites available.. almost double that of Wrigley.. club and executive level seats can now be had for a song ... it's almost impossible to get an actual number on the number of luxury/corporate suites are actually sold, but I do know that they aren't hard to come by at all these days.. so really, what was the point?

[tray]

Once again, I would like to see a new RF Grandstand. After that goes up remove the seats section in the upper deck on the third base side, opening a partial view to downtown.

 

Just out of curiosity, what is the seating capacity of the outfield bleachers in Wrigley compared to the outfield seats at Sox Park?

 

How many seats in the upper deck at Wrigley have obstructed views? I think a lot of them do.

 

[captain54]

How many seats in the upper deck at Wrigley have obstructed views? I think a lot of them do.

 

the ironic thing is the Fenway has a horrific number of seats with obstructed views, but yet, set a world record for consecutive sellouts.. and even without sellouts, they're never less than 30 K in attendance...

 

So how many years since the new Sox park has been in existence... have the number of unobstructed seats actually mattered?

[Kyyle23]

I think miracleon35th believes that US Cellular is made out of Legos and we can just restructure it however we want

[Thad Bosley]

What is interesting is the article said the seats were just as far away from the field in both upper decks. The Sox park, and Camden Yards.

 

Upper decks are pretty similar all around. Sox fans were spoiled with the old park's upper deck. That isn't happening again. People need to get over it. Of course they don't even sell out of the $15 lower deck tickets with a free t shirt when Sale pitches, so most of the whining about the upper deck is much ado about nothing.

Not true at all.

 

29 rows at a 35 degree angle with the opening to the deck at it's base is much worse than a 27 row upper deck at a 31 degree angle with the opening somewhere in the middle.

 

Period.

[Dick Allen]

Not true at all.

 

29 rows at a 35 degree angle with the opening to the deck at it's base is much worse than a 27 row upper deck at a 31 degree angle with the opening somewhere in the middle.

 

Period.

There hasn't been 29 rows in the upper deck for 13 or 14 years, and the article you linked said the distance to the field was the same. The higher degree angle makes the higher seats closer.

 

How many times did you have tickets for the 29th row in the upper deck and actually sat there?

 

And while having the concourse higher than the base makes sense, it really doesn't change the view AT ALL from the high rows. It did take out some front row seats.

 

Adam Jomes is calling out Orioles fans for their weak crowds. I guess a 31 degree slope wouldn't improve attendance either.

Edited September 21, 2016 by Dick Allen

[Thad Bosley]

There hasn't been 29 rows in the upper deck for 13 or 14 years, and the article you linked said the distance to the field was the same. The higher degree angle makes the higher seats closer.

 

How many times did you have tickets for the 29th row in the upper deck and actually sat there?

 

And while having the concourse higher than the base makes sense, it really doesn't change the view AT ALL from the high rows. It did take out some front row seats.

 

Adam Jomes is calling out Orioles fans for their weak crowds. I guess a 31 degree slope wouldn't improve attendance either.

Defending the disaster that is the construction of the 29 row, 35 degree angled upper deck of new Comiskey is the essence of arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[caulfield12]

http://mlb.nbcsports.com/2016/09/21/rob-ma...a-new-ballpark/

 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rob-manfred-made...-154511215.html

 

 

 

If the Rangers are at a competitive disadvantage without a new park, would hate to see the White Sox situation described...

Edited September 22, 2016 by caulfield12

[Dick Allen]

Defending the disaster that is the construction of the 29 row, 35 degree angled upper deck of new Comiskey is the essence of arguing just for the sake of arguing.

No. Arguing to argue is continuing to mention the 29th row in the upper deck which has been gone for a decade and a half.

 

The entire upper deck argument is silly. Not many people sat in the upper deck of the old park either. Check the attendance. When I was a kid I was at a game vs. the Yankees where the RF upper deck was closed. Reggie Jackson hit a HR up there and I was able to convince an Andy Frain to let me go get it. Pick out the worst seats at every park and there isn't one you would gripe about.

 

Another fun fact, the first several years this park was opened, it was cheaper to buy a lower deck bleacher seat than an upper deck ticket. So more arguing to argue.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

This is the most White Sox fan thread, ever.