the new Comiskey: age well with time? (Chicago, Bridgeport: theatre, live)

[css9450]

Originally Posted by AmosBanks

I am sure the architects presented an ultra-modern design as well as a retro design. The Sox people likely bounced the retro design

I've heard that story too. Supposedly the architects (HOK - who also designed many or most of the new parks that came afterward) presented two plans - one retro plan and another which was chosen and was built as the new Comiskey. So a year or two later, the retro plan was used with only minor changes in Baltimore.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by css9450

I've heard that story too. Supposedly the architects (HOK - who also designed many or most of the new parks that came afterward) presented two plans - one retro plan and another which was chosen and was built as the new Comiskey. So a year or two later, the retro plan was used with only minor changes in Baltimore.

And the reason why the "retro" plan was not chosen was why even tear down Comiskey in the first place if you are going to build a new "retro" park? Comiskey could have been rehabbed.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by AmosBanks

Comiskey is doing the best it can given that it totally missed the move to retro stadiums. I am sure the architects presented an ultra-modern design as well as a retro design. The Sox people likely bounced the retro design as they did not want to make a Wrigley Field South. Then every single stadium since Comiskey embraced the retro look. I go to as many Sox games as Cubs games, but every time I go to Comiskey I think about how it's a testament to decision makers who missed the ball.

I doubt anyone would have considered it "Wrigley Field South" so much as "Old Comiskey Park redone with modern amenities" lest one forget that the old Comiskey was even older than Wrigley Field.

[css9450]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

And the reason why the "retro" plan was not chosen was why even tear down Comiskey in the first place if you are going to build a new "retro" park? Comiskey could have been rehabbed.

That's an interesting point. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone who has torn down an ancient park and built a new "retro" right across the street. Detroit replaced their old park with a new retro one but its located further downtown in the theater district. Cleveland built a retro park to replace 30s-era Municipal Stadium which I suspect most people said good riddance to.... Cincy, Atlanta, St. Louis, Philly, Pittsburgh and the Mets built retro parks to replace their concrete donuts. Minnesota moved out of the horrific Metrodome last year....

I wish they had rehabbed Old Comiskey but without room for very many luxury boxes it was clear the owners wanted nothing to do with it.

[tonythetuna]

Originally Posted by css9450

I wish they had rehabbed Old Comiskey but without room for very many luxury boxes it was clear the owners wanted nothing to do with it.

Reinsdouche should have paid for the park himself then, instead Chicago taxpayer's (and a to a far less extent, Illinois taxpayer's footed the bill.)

[Drover]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

And the reason why the "retro" plan was not chosen was why even tear down Comiskey in the first place if you are going to build a new "retro" park? Comiskey could have been rehabbed.

Because oftentimes it's easier to tear something down and start from scratch even if you plan to make the new building similar to the old one. By the time you bring everything up to current code and then factor in the ongoing maintenance costs of an older structure and the compromises needed to retrofit modern amenities into an older, existing layout, you might as well just start from the ground up where you can incorporate everything you want without trying to retrofit an older building. In a way though you're probably right -- they figured if you're going to start from scratch, you might as well go in a completely different direction. It just so happened that they went in the complete wrong direction trend-wise.

[tonythetuna]

I don't think enough Sox fans stuck up for Comiskey enough, had they done so it may have not been torn down.

[Drover]

Not only that but I think many Sox fans were eager for something new. For all the jokes about what a roachbox Wrigley is, Comiskey was in even worse shape, maybe even irretrievably so. And the sightlines in a big chunk of the outfield seats were a little "meh." I seem to remember sentiment was pretty evenly split between tearing it down or keeping it, maybe even leaning in favor of tearing down. But this was also right before teams went on a wrecking-ball rampage and started knocking down every older stadium still standing. Comiskey was the beginning of this wave so fan nostalgia for the "old" stadiums wasn't as strong as it would later become.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

I don't think enough Sox fans stuck up for Comiskey enough, had they done so it may have not been torn down.

Sox fans liked the old park but weren't cultish about it. And like Drover said many favored tearing it down and prefer the new park. As far as the lower deck is concerned I much prefer the new park. The upper deck in the old one was better but these high, set back upper decks are a feature of many new parks and the problems are not unique to Sox park.

I think the current park is honest and does a fine, workmanlike job with no fuss. Fitting for the Sox.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by tonythetuna

And the reason why the "retro" plan was not chosen was why even tear down Comiskey in the first place if you are going to build a new "retro" park? Comiskey could have been rehabbed.

I don't think so, tony. Don't forget that unlike Wrigley (which the Wrigley family kept in pretty good shape all those years they spent more on the ballpark than the team), Comiskey was falling apart at the end. There was no rescue.

As for the Cell today, I actually think it looks fairly good and stands up well to many of the retroparks. Those parks are often over the top in all the odd quirks they add to give the retro feel. To me, few of those techniques work at all. They just deliver visual overload.

The ones that work best do so naturally. Baltimore was spot on to keep the warehouse in right field. San Francisco's short right field dimensions were dictated by China Basin, an arm of the bay.

The Cell has natural, clean lines. In some respects, it bears a similiarity in layout to the new Yankee Stadium, but IMHO pulls things off far better than in the Bronx because it acutally feels like a ballpark, not the ridiculous palace the Yankees had built for them.

The Cell has been humanized in recent years. It is anything but a bad ballpark. I would at some point like to see the outfield signage removed to the point that opens up a view. Sure that view isn't downtown which it should have been if the park had been oriented the right way. But it still opens up a vista across the South Side, arguably towards Hyde Park with its high rises visible.