SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
a little revisionist history, if you please. Try chewing on the following questions:

1. What if Comiskey Park II hadn't been built in 1990? What if a less anxious Jerry Reinsdorf hadn't minded waiting a little and Camden Yards in Baltimore had openned before Comiskey. What effect would the Baltimore park had on Chicago? Would we have followed the route of retro-park (ball park as attraction) in the downtown area? Would a retro park been built on the current site of Comiskey II (a few cities, very few, like Philly and Milw, chose outskirt ball parks rather than downtown). Where would the park been built and what would it have been like? Would it have been closely related to Balt, Clev, SF, Pgh, Hou, etc?

2. Did things actually work out better than we thought on the South Side? A good percentage of the retro parks are a bit over the top with their assymetrical fields, their quirks for the sake of quirks, their too cute ways of trying to emulate old fashioned ball parks. Is it just possible that conventional wisdom is wrong and the Cell's straight forward lines (plus correcting errors, particularly the super steep upper deck) is almost refreshingly clean cut and down to earth? Is it also possible that a neighborhood ball park in Bridgeport is better than a downtown ball park...especially in light of what is arguably baseball's best environment is tucked away on Chicago's North Side at Clark and Addison? Could we actually have gotten this one right...or is that too much to hope for?

3. And a third totally off-the-wall question (just for fun): what if one of those older leagues (like the Federal) had survived and Chicago had a franchise in it What would baseball have been like in Chicago with three major league teams, not two...with the Cubs on the North Side, the Sox on the South, and the immaginary team in the new league on the west? Any thought what such a (admittedly unlikely) set up might have meant in our city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,278 Posts
The White Sox org. did the right thing to build in the neighborhood. Also, for me the Cell has really grown on me. Granted, it doesn't have that old school flavor and charm that Comiskey did, but I enjoy going to the park.

Let me ask this question, does anyone here believe that Bridgeport will one day rival Wrigleyville in any way?
 

·
born again cyclist
Joined
·
3,671 Posts
edsg25 said:
3. And a third totally off-the-wall question (just for fun): what if one of those older leagues (like the Federal) had survived and Chicago had a franchise in it What would baseball have been like in Chicago with three major league teams, not two...with the Cubs on the North Side, the Sox on the South, and the immaginary team in the new league on the west? Any thought what such a (admittedly unlikely) set up might have meant in our city.
actually, if the federal league had survived, they would be playing on the northside and the cubs would still be playing on the westside. wrigley was originally built for the chicago whales of the federal league, after that league folded, the cubs moved up to the northside, leaving behind the old west side grounds, the only cubs stadium that was ever home to a championship cubs team.
 

·
2,000+
Joined
·
82 Posts
Old Comiskey should have never been torn down, period. No amount of cosmetic imperfections or inconveniences were worth that cold concrete monstrosity we have now.

To think that right now Chicago could have two historic ballparks is almost too much to take.

If the Sox were going to tear down Comiskey, they should have just rebuilt it almost brick by brick, but with changes here and there for modern advances in technology and with better planning where necessary.

Old Comiskey: Dead

Soldier Field: Dead

What's next on the chopping block?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
Old Comiskey wasn't well maintained especially at the end of its life. It was cool going to Old Comiskey but I love going to U.S. Cellular Field. I don't get it. People bitch about the UC but its much nicer than the Old Stadium. New Soldier Field is much nicer than the old, yet everyone bitches. New Comiskey is much nicer than the old one yet everyone bitches. If Wrigley was torn down you'd see how many true cubs fans there are as opposed to Wrigley Field fans.

Now a real good question (in my opinion) is if the Comiskey Park area would be different had the Dan Ryan not been built right next to it? They ripped out part of the neighborhood. I know the building had something to do with racial tension and dividing the two neighborhoods.

Something else interesting. I read an article that Camden Yards had been designed to be built very similar to US Cellular Field but at the last moment someone in the oriole management wanted to add some of his designs and there started the "retro" design where all these new "retro" stadiums are becoming the new "cookie cutter" stadiums of the 70s.

Bridgeport won't rival, nor does it want to rival, Lakeview. South Halsted is going through a great transformation right now though. In order to rival I think you have to compete and they aren't even playing in the same game. Lakeview has the highest percent of residents not born in the city of any neighborhood. Bridgeport has long been a family oriented, people keeping their roots there, houses, as opposed to apts. in lakeview.

With the CHA highrises coming down and the new developments going up, the area definetly will change.
 

·
C.B.P.
Joined
·
1,188 Posts
eon said:
Old Comiskey: Dead

Soldier Field: Dead

What's next on the chopping block?
Don't forget the Chicago Stadium and the International Amphitheatre.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
478 Posts
UrbanSophist said:
Give it some years. The retro parks will indeed go out of style, and the Cell will be seen as a classic. You just wait...

(Wrigley won't go out of style due to it being an original.)
I completely agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
ChiSox2005 said:
Bridgeport won't rival, nor does it want to rival, Lakeview. South Halsted is going through a great transformation right now though. In order to rival I think you have to compete and they aren't even playing in the same game. Lakeview has the highest percent of residents not born in the city of any neighborhood. Bridgeport has long been a family oriented, people keeping their roots there, houses, as opposed to apts. in lakeview.
There is intrest in Bridgeport to change like Lakeview but there is also enough people who are anti-change that don't want to see the changes occur. It all depends on which side end winning out.

I personally would like to see more things happen down in Bridgeport. I think its great for the neighborhood.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,500 Posts
Thirty years ago I lived in a 5-room walkup at Waveland and Halsted. My aunts wouldn't visit me because they thought the neighborhood was unsafe. We all know what that neighborhood is like now. I suspect as the South Side revives, Bridgeport may surprise a lot of people with its potential for revitalization, and Comiskey II will be a big part of the attraction. Chicago is divided into halves when it comes to baseball fans. I am one of the few people I know who actually root for both the Cubs and the Sox. Last year my friend who was raised in Hyde Park but who currently lives in LA like me was totally insuffrable for half the year gloating about the Sox and making nasty comments about the Cubs. My other friend (currently in Seattle) needed anti depressants because the Sox won. Chicago needs stadiums on opposite sides of the city.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
People bitch because they compare the Cell to the newer ballparks built in the last 15 years and see a boring and plain run of the mill design. Sure, the amenities are better than the old Comiskey, but that is because the park is much newer, so people don't factor this into the equation. The changes made to the Cell in the last few years have actually changed my mind about it. I no longer see it as plain and boring because I can appreciate it for the retro styling, which makes it a more simple design.

If they wanted to make the atmosphere around the Cell better, they should have eliminated some of the huge parking lots around there (Parking garage or underground as possible solutions) and put in some green space with restaurants and shops so people will have more options to hang out before and after the game. They have made good strides to make it a family atmosphere at the ballpark but with no family activities around the park. I guess it all comes down to economics and this would cost too much money. What a shame.

Also, does anyone know why the park wasn't built with home plate facing East to maximize the view of the wonderful Chicago skyline? This to me is probably the most regretable aspect of the park.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
The park was built facing SE for the same reason the old one was facing NE, so that the main gate behind home plate was accessible to the people from the parking lots and 35th st. If it was facing the NE the main gate would have been away from 35th street and not seen by many people. Honestly why do people complain about those details. When I go to a ball game anyways i'm not looking over the outfield to see downtown. I see downtown all the time, I'm there to watch a ball game. Underground parking or garages would really be feasible. I think the should slowly phase out the further lots and build on them, and try to get people to use more PT. Secondly the could use remote lots further from the stadium and use shuttles to get people to the game.
 

·
What'u smokin' Willis?
Joined
·
2,097 Posts
Underground garages are almost never feasable, unless forced by law. A parking deck in the middle of the block surrounded by shopping seems like a fine alternative. There aren't many around, but I've seen a few and you'd never know there is a huge ass deck behind the retail/dining.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top