CanOfCorn Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Wasn't there a plan at one time to have a shared Bears/Sox stadium? I seem to recall something where the stadium acted like scissors. With the apex behind home plate, it would open for baseball and then close for football. It would've been near or on the current location of Soldier Field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Ginger Kid Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 10:28 AM) I'm sure this has been answered before: Why is US Cellular Field pointed SE instead of N or NE towards the skyline of Chicago? There's probably a logistical reason, but I've never read it. i know i've discussed it on here before, and like it's been said, it was just a stupid, stupid mistake. Especially when you walk down the corridor and see the beautiful skyline and think, huh, wouldn't that look sweet over CF? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bighurt574 Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Soxman72 @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 01:37 PM) FWIW.....I was in Baltimore a few years back and did the stadium tour. I was told that the design group that created their ballpark first pitched the design to the White Sox ownership, but that it was turned down. The Sox claimed that they wanted a "new design" and did not want to have an old time feel to their new park. New Comiskey was approved to be built right before the boom of "old time" new parks like Baltimore. Baltimore did make changes to the original design (warehouse & the stadium is built into the ground. You enter the park on the main concourse). Sox ownership wanted a brand new concept for their park without obstructed views. Today there are obstructed views due to the batters eye and upper deck supports. I think it is a great place to watch the game and I enjoy going to the park. I know there are better parks out there, but it could be worse. We could be in Tampa. It's been a few years since I've been to Camden Yards, but it's not like the design is all that unique or anything. It's really those changes to the design that were Baltimore-specific (e.g., the warehouse) that made it distinctive. If you just took the basic design and plopped it down on the South Side I'm not sure it would be much different from what we have now. Edited August 30, 2010 by bighurt574 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 QUOTE (bighurt574 @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 05:52 PM) It's been a few years since I've been to Camden Yards, but it's not like the design is all that unique or anything. It's really those changes to the design that were Baltimore-specific (e.g., the warehouse) that made it distinctive. If you just took the basic design and plopped it down on the South Side I'm not sure it would be much different from what we have now. It seems a natural transition to me from Sky Dome to Camden Yards/Jake. We really were that in between stepping stone design. Wasn't the goal to emulate Kauffman stadium in KC? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeavyTime Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 12:40 PM) http://www.flyingsock.com/OldComiskey/Progress.htm Apparently, it was also a money stipulation. Please never refer to FlyingSock. That place is run by satan's sons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 QUOTE (PeavyTime @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 07:17 PM) Please never refer to FlyingSock. That place is run by satan's sons. I'll reference who I want if it's pertinent to a discussion. But, I do understand your meaning behind that statement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeavyTime Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 QUOTE (knightni @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 06:20 PM) I'll reference who I want if it's pertinent to a discussion. But, I do understand your meaning behind that statement. Haha yeah I wasn't seriously telling you what to do, just wanted to take a shot at them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Soxfan Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 This is one of the non game threads of the year, great question and unless there is an MLB rule, that architect should have been fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 I love the Northerly Island idea, but also the Cell since it's the only home ballpark I've ever known. What they should (if Jerry were Mark Cuban times 2) is build a Comiskey Park replica on Northerly Island with a water feature like AT&T and play 1/3 of their home games there. But, that's an insane thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 QUOTE (Allsox @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 03:43 PM) Agree 100%. 650 million and one can't navigate the west grandstand or end zone seating for crap or have more bathrooms/point-of-sale facilities at all. It's like they spent 649 million on the Cadillac side (Great views, excellent navigation pts, tons of bathrooms/concessions but at the price of your first-born) and left a million for the commoners' sections. I was in seats saturday where the aisle actually ended before my row and we had to jump over the row behind us to get to the seats. With that said, theres a great view from every seat in the stadium, much better than old Solider. The Cell is one of the better ballparks out there now, I've been to a majority of them including the new Twins stadium and the Cell really has some great feature that are ignored in today's new venues. I like how the concourse is set up, you can glance at the game while standing in line for food. And our food BTW is TOP NOTCH. The sections are arranged nicely, not too far a walk to get down to the bottom which is a prob with new stadiums, there is also a trend of having the OF wall extremely high before the seats start, I think thats dumb (Cle, Minny). Its not the best park, but its not the s*** show it was when it opened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 30, 2010 Author Share Posted August 30, 2010 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 04:39 PM) Wasn't there a plan at one time to have a shared Bears/Sox stadium? I seem to recall something where the stadium acted like scissors. With the apex behind home plate, it would open for baseball and then close for football. It would've been near or on the current location of Soldier Field. hmmmm.... I dont think I've ever heard this before. I seem to remember something about them possibly sharing a stadium, btu not this scissor thing you are describing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted August 30, 2010 Share Posted August 30, 2010 Soldier Field is atrocious, but you can't really blame that on Daley. He wanted an indoor venue to host many different things. Either way, I've never met anyone who likes Soldier Field's design. PLUS THEY HAVE BLUE SEATS!!! As far as the Cell, I like it a ton. They have come a long way with that ballpark. I don't forsee them moving for a while though. I'd probably say maybe in 50 years if that. The United Center is a place that should've been moved. It's in a bad location, but it's arguably the best venue we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 I'm curious of everyone's thoughts on the Armour Field proposal that never took off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 07:51 PM) I'm curious of everyone's thoughts on the Armour Field proposal that never took off. Thanks for making me more depressed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChiliIrishHammock24 Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 07:51 PM) I'm curious of everyone's thoughts on the Armour Field proposal that never took off. Seriously? Who thought a square outfield was a good idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OilCan Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 04:39 PM) Wasn't there a plan at one time to have a shared Bears/Sox stadium? I seem to recall something where the stadium acted like scissors. With the apex behind home plate, it would open for baseball and then close for football. It would've been near or on the current location of Soldier Field. Back in the 80s, I remember on Channel 7 that had a proposal at a railroad track depot for a shared Bears/Sox stadium. I believe the news ran around 85/86. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shamrock4Life Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 When it first opened new Comiskey was cool, until you went to your seats in the Upper Deck. I haven't (and probably won't unless its for a special game) sit in them again. I don't get the address thing. Does home plate really need to be the address of the park. Couldn't they have put the front offices in the LF corner of the lot? I love the "open" concorse design. Where no matter where you are on the main deck you can see the field of play. St. Louis really screwed that up in the new Busch. The rest of the stadium is great there, but the concorse sucks. I would think you would want the northerly island stadium to face NW though so the whole grandstand has a good view of the skyline, though I could be remember the sky line a little wrong from that posistion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wedmesday Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) Threads like this are what make this board great. Edited August 31, 2010 by 11and1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 By the way, speaking of the concourse, it's gotta be one of the best concourse's in baseball. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 QUOTE (OilCan @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 08:49 PM) Back in the 80s, I remember on Channel 7 that had a proposal at a railroad track depot for a shared Bears/Sox stadium. I believe the news ran around 85/86. Are you thinking of this... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 I admit it...I like the new Soldier Field. The half-bowl on the West Side is my least favorite part, but I can't imagine of another way to preserve the outside while redoing the site lines! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 10:13 AM) I admit it...I like the new Soldier Field. The half-bowl on the West Side is my least favorite part, but I can't imagine of another way to preserve the outside while redoing the site lines! The ironic part is that they have now removed the "historic" status from the stadium thanks to the renovations. That is what kept the Bears/city from ripping the whole thing down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 06:42 PM) Soldier Field is atrocious, but you can't really blame that on Daley. He wanted an indoor venue to host many different things. Either way, I've never met anyone who likes Soldier Field's design. PLUS THEY HAVE BLUE SEATS!!! As far as the Cell, I like it a ton. They have come a long way with that ballpark. I don't forsee them moving for a while though. I'd probably say maybe in 50 years if that. The United Center is a place that should've been moved. It's in a bad location, but it's arguably the best venue we have. The United Center is actaully one of the easier venues to drive to as all major highways have access to it. As for Daley I never heard him pitch an indoor venue. The Forbes valuation of the Bears and the the debacle that has become Chicago finances are the issues. Daley did some great things for the city in the early to mid-90's now it is a joke. Millenium Park and Soldier Field are the most wasted $1.6B you could have without actually burning the money. There is no reason why the Bears are not in an indoor faciltiy or the Sox playing with a retracatable roof. The Final Four, Super Bowl and now one of the Big Ten tournamants/championship games would be played in Chicago annually. The NFL is willing to play outdoors to get NY a game...... A smart NFL owner should try and move a team to Chicago and build a stadium like this in the suburbs. The Bears could use an onus to get better as they are as poorly run as the Wirtz run Hawks. Chicago fans deserve better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnB Posted August 31, 2010 Share Posted August 31, 2010 QUOTE (Shamrock4Life @ Aug 30, 2010 -> 09:37 PM) When it first opened new Comiskey was cool, until you went to your seats in the Upper Deck. I haven't (and probably won't unless its for a special game) sit in them again. Really? My favorite seats in the park are Upper Deck behind the plate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuskyCaucasian Posted August 31, 2010 Author Share Posted August 31, 2010 (edited) QUOTE (Jenks Heat @ Aug 31, 2010 -> 10:21 AM) A smart NFL owner should try and move a team to Chicago and build a stadium like this in the suburbs. A couple of problems with this: It wouldn't be very smart to move a NFL franchise into established "Bears territory" I HIGHLY doubt that the McCaskeys would allow another team to move into their market Other than Chicago, I dont think there is a suburb in the area that could fund a new $500+ million dollar stadium Given the states HUGE financial issues, there is no way an second NFL team gets state funding to build a stadium With that being said, it wouldnt be a bad idea to keep an eye on teams like the Jaguars, Saints, and Chargers. But they are more lekely to go to places like LA, San Antonio, or San Jose (most likely the future home of the 49ers). Edited August 31, 2010 by Athomeboy_2000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.