U.S. Cellular Field history...

[Thad Bosley]

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.

That goes back to the lack of winning over the years. Check the won/loss records.

[Dick Allen]

That goes back to the lack of winning over the years. Check the won/loss records.

Yet you continue to whine about the 29th row in the upper deck that was removed a decade and a half ago, when the White Sox acknowledged a mistake. LMAO, you must be a fun guy to be around.

[Thad Bosley]

Yet you continue to whine about the 29th row in the upper deck that was removed a decade and a half ago, when the White Sox acknowledged a mistake. LMAO, you must be a fun guy to be around.

Pay closer attention to the discussion. My references to the 29th row have been in the context of the original design of the park, not in its current state. And LMAO as well, a renowned contrarian making observations about the kind of company I provide. Oh, the irony!

[Dick Allen]

Pay closer attention to the discussion. My references to the 29th row have been in the context of the original design of the park, not in its current state. And LMAO as well, a renowned contrarian making observations about the kind of company I provide. Oh, the irony!

 

I don't think anyone buying a 29th row upper deck ticket would be expecting a great view, no matter what the venue. Except for maybe one.

 

 

There is a reason they are called the cheap seats.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

2017 White Sox win the divison.

I don't think anyone buying a 29th row upper deck ticket would be expecting a great view, no matter what venue. Except for maybe one.

 

And the thing is that not only has it been over a decade, but Sox park is far from the only place designed like this. Read up on the upper deck of Toronto for a start.

[Thad Bosley]

I don't think anyone buying a 29th row upper deck ticket would be expecting a great view, no matter what the venue. Except for maybe one.

 

 

There is a reason they are called the cheap seats.

The discussion wasn't about the view, it was about the construction of a 29 row deck at an absurd angle with the opening at the deck's base. That was an architectural disaster. Seriously, it is almost beyond belief that such a design could ever be drawn up by a architectural firm, much less get approved by Sox management. New Comiskey's upper deck was so elderly and obese person unfriendly, it wasn't even funny. And it was soundly and appropriately rejected by Sox fans, as evidenced by the lack of tickets sold to sit up there in the 90s and early 00s.

[Dick Allen]

The discussion wasn't about the view, it was about the construction of a 29 row deck at an absurd angle with the opening at the deck's base. That was an architectural disaster. Seriously, it is almost beyond belief that such a design could ever be drawn up by a architectural firm, much less get approved by Sox management. New Comiskey's upper deck was so elderly and obese person unfriendly, it wasn't even funny. And it was soundly and appropriately rejected by Sox fans, as evidenced by the lack of tickets sold to sit up there in the 90s and early 00s.

Like an obese or elderly person would have no problem getting to the top row at Camden Yards. Again, when the park opened , it was cheaper to sit in the outfield.

 

 

[tray]

I am not and was not a fan of many of the design features in the new Comiskey, but many substantial changes have been made since the early 1990's.

An entirely different color on everything including replacement of every seat in the ball park, just for starters.

There are a lot of amenities in the park that Cub fans don't know about - the bullpen sports bar, the bar and grille by Gate 5, the stadium club, the wide concourses around the park and in the outfield, the XFinity areas, and of course all of the private parking around the park so people do not have to ride a trolley with sweaty cub fans to get to and from there.

 

There are possibilities to reconfigure and even remove sections of the upper deck, IF that is warranted.

 

Another point to consider,, The demographics within the city limits of Chicago include mostly minorities, so having aNY seats that are "cheap" is probably not that bad of an idea. Same goes for young people that want to go to a game with their friends. Tne Sox just need to improve the amenities for those with seats in the upper Tank, and more importantly field a winning team.

[Thad Bosley]

And the thing is that not only has it been over a decade, but Sox park is far from the only place designed like this. Read up on the upper deck of Toronto for a start.

Actually, Jerry Reinsdorf should have done that back in the late 80s. Toronto's upper deck is as bad as the new Comiskey Park's was. A 36 degree angle on that bad boy with a similarly misplaced entrance at the base of the deck.

 

Again, terrible design by the architecture firm and even worse judgement rendered by Sox management for approving such an obviously flawed concept. The irony in all of this is all the empty suites year after year after year that they can't sell out, the very suites that inspired the bad design in the first place.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Thad Bosley

[Thad Bosley]

Like an obese or elderly person would have no problem getting to the top row at Camden Yards. Again, when the park opened , it was cheaper to sit in the outfield.

The worst case scenario in climbing to the last row of the upper deck at Camden Yards is to climb 17 rows at a 31 degree angle. That's because the Orioles ownership was smart and took the advice from the same architecture firm that built new Comiskey and built the opening of the deck in the middle of the deck, not at the base.

 

Meanwhile, with the opening at the base of the upper deck at new Comiskey, to get to the last row there, you had to climb another 12 rows at the absurd 35 degree angle AFTER having already climbed 17 rows at the same slope.

 

HUGE DIFFERENCE, Dick Allen. Huge difference in getting up and down the two decks. Pretty easy to understand why Sox fans rejected Comiskey's deck and why the Sox ultimately ended up lopping off those top eight rows, which was the team essentially acknowledging what we've been saying all along: they made a HUGE strategic blunder in allowing that architecturally flawed deck to be built in the first place.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Thad Bosley

[tray]

This is a moot point and you conveniently ignore the positive aspects of the design, stressing the worst aspects of it.

You try to make a direct correlation between the design of the upper deck and attendance, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion. You are looking to blame the owner for something that took place 20 years ago which is in and of itself strange, because this owner brought us a World Series Championship and has spent a lot of money on players to field competitive teams.

Is there anything that you like about Sox Park? There is a lot there to like if you look for it. As I said, I love going to games there with friends. We always have a good time even when we lose. We don't sit in our seats all game and b1tch about what Reinsdorf agreed to 20 years ago . We enjoy the moment and look forward to positive changes in the future.

Edited September 23, 2016 by miracleon35th

[tray]

One solution to the upper deck would be to remove most of it, lowering the height of the stadium on the North and South elevations... after adding outfield grandstands to replace that seating with more fan friendly seats that have access to the lower concourses.

Anything can be done construction -wise, but step one is to make the team more competitive next season.

[Thad Bosley]

This is a moot point and you conveniently ignore the positive aspects of the design, stressing the worst aspects of it.

You try to make a direct correlation between the design of the upper deck and attendance, but there is no evidence to support that conclusion. You are looking to blame the owner for something that took place 20 years ago which is in and of itself strange, because this owner brought us a World Series Championship and has spent a lot of money on players to field competitive teams.

Is there anything that you like about Sox Park? There is a lot there to like if you look for it. As I said, I love going to games there with friends. We always have a good time even when we lose. We don't sit in our seats all game and b1tch about what Reinsdorf agreed to 20 years ago . We enjoy the moment and look forward to positive changes in the future.

What does that have to do with the discussion at hand?

[InTheDriversSeat]

 

One solution to the upper deck would be to remove most of it, lowering the height of the stadium on the North and South elevations... after adding outfield grandstands to replace that seating with more fan friendly seats that have access to the lower concourses.

Anything can be done construction -wise, but step one is to make the team more competitive next season.

 

 

 

Originally a new, right field upper deck seating section was proposed to be built along with the renovations. This new seating would have replaced the lost capacity when the top 8 rows of the entire upper deck were removed. I'm glad the right field upper deck seats were never built.

 

 

 

http://ballparksofbaseball.com/renderingsmodels.htm

(scroll about half way down, on right)

 

 

.

[southsider2k5]

Actually, Jerry Reinsdorf should have done that back in the late 80s. Toronto's upper deck is as bad as the new Comiskey Park's was. A 36 degree angle on that bad boy with a similarly misplaced entrance at the base of the deck.

 

Again, terrible design by the architecture firm and even worse judgement rendered by Sox management for approving such an obviously flawed concept. The irony in all of this is all the empty suites year after year after year that they can't sell out, the very suites that inspired the bad design in the first place.

 

It didn't exist when the designs were being done for the new ballpark.

[Thad Bosley]

It didn't exist when the designs were being done for the new ballpark.

True, although the Skydome opened (April 1989) before ground was even broken on the new Comiskey (May 1989).

 

What did exist, however, were the same stadium design options given to the Orioles for the new Comiskey's design. O's ownership chose the Camden option; Reinsdorf & Co. the new Comiskey option.

 

Reinsdorf would say years later when asked about all of this "They (the Orioles) got what they wanted. We got what we wanted." Ok, Jerry. And how did that work out for you!

Edited September 23, 2016 by Thad Bosley

[southsider2k5]

True, although the Skydome opened (April 1989) before ground was even broken on the new Comiskey (May 1989).

 

What did exist, however, were the same stadium design options given to the Orioles for the new Comiskey's design. O's ownership chose the Camden option; Reinsdorf & Co. the new Comiskey option.

 

Reinsdorf would say years later when asked about all of this "They (the Orioles) got what they wanted. We got what we wanted." Ok, Jerry. And how did that work out for you!

 

So what you are saying is that the Sox should have recognized that Toronto had a very steep upper deck and changed their plans a month before they were set to break ground. That makes sense.