US Cellular Field: how well has it aged? (Camden: maintenance, assess)

[edsg25]

the New-Comiskey/Cell is now 22 years old. How well do you think it has aged?

Before I give my assessment, I should mention that my favorite baseball team is the Cubs and my second favorite is the White Sox. I'm one of those weird folks who likes and cheers for both teams.

And, of course, I consider Wrigley to be an absolute classic.

the Cell? I think it has aged very well.

It opened in 1990 to great reviews, unfortunately one year before Camden Yards in Baltimore, the start of the retro-park. Comiskey went from praise to pan as each new quickly, old fashioned ballpark opened. Yet in time, a lot of the quirks in the new parks seemed forced, so different from the old ballparks where the dimensions of their sites gave them their unique character (think Fenway).

In time, the Cell started to look better; I liked its straight forward, symmetrical layout. The renovations (lowering the upper deck, new roof, green seats, etc.) were major improvements.

If there is one ballpark that I think the new Yankee Stadium most resembles it would be the Cell. But the Cell looks and feels like a real ballpark compared to the cold, corporate new park in the Bronx.

On the whole, I think the Cell has aged extremely well.

[campsdeloscamps]

es bueeeeeeeno

[Irishtom29]

Sox Park is straightforward and honest. The design is clean and functional and the park is comfortable and has good sight lines. Good ballpark.

The retro parks are so contrived, I don't care for them.

[Drover]

The renovations they did to de-monstrify it from its original form did wonders for it. Considering its origins I think it looks pretty nice.

[Vlajos]

I like it.

[rparz]

Lifelong Cubs fan, but I have to say my favorite ballpark is the Old Comiskey.
It had a lot of history and character, it's a shame they didn't keep up on maintenance.

[long101]

IMO it really hasnt aged, but it is a decent ballpark, I still call it Comiskey. We really do have the best of both worlds in this city

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

Sox Park is straightforward and honest. The design is clean and functional and the park is comfortable and has good sight lines. Good ballpark.

The retro parks are so contrived, I don't care for them.

contrived they are. I consider AT&T in SF to be the best of the bunch. For one thing, it is the first privately built ballpark since Dodger Stadium. and its quirkiest feature, a very short right field, is as authentic as Fenway's left field:

the ballpark was shoehorned in on a tight space with an off-shoot of SF Bay, China Basin, in the outfield: this is what caused the short length to the right field wall....nothing contrived; just authentic.

straightforward, honest, clean, and functional are all adjectives I'd readily apply to the Cell.

[FAReastcoast]

Originally Posted by edsg25

the New-Comiskey/Cell is now 22 years old. How well do you think it has aged?

Before I give my assessment, I should mention that my favorite baseball team is the Cubs and my second favorite is the White Sox. I'm one of those weird folks who likes and cheers for both teams.

And, of course, I consider Wrigley to be an absolute classic.

the Cell? I think it has aged very well.

It opened in 1990 to great reviews, unfortunately one year before Camden Yards in Baltimore, the start of the retro-park. Comiskey went from praise to pan as each new quickly, old fashioned ballpark opened. Yet in time, a lot of the quirks in the new parks seemed forced, so different from the old ballparks where the dimensions of their sites gave them their unique character (think Fenway).

In time, the Cell started to look better; I liked its straight forward, symmetrical layout. The renovations (lowering the upper deck, new roof, green seats, etc.) were major improvements.

If there is one ballpark that I think the new Yankee Stadium most resembles it would be the Cell. But the Cell looks and feels like a real ballpark compared to the cold, corporate new park in the Bronx.

On the whole, I think the Cell has aged extremely well.

I notice a very negative undertone towards NYC when you mention it in your posts. I'm wondering if you have actually ever
been to new Yankee stadium because it is anything but cold and sterile.
I've only been to the cell a few times, but from looking at old pics of it, it seems they tried to retrofit quirks into it by changing the outfield dimensions, adding decorative roof, etc.
I think the cell is a fine stadium but the biggest complaint I'd have if I were a sox fan would be watching a game in a half empty stadium, something about the energy of the crowd really makes a ball game for me. Something I didn't get at the cell

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Drover

The renovations they did to de-monstrify it from its original form did wonders for it. Considering its origins I think it looks pretty nice.

i agree. in fact, i'd say the inside of the ballpark is almost a whole new environment.

less easy to fix: the exterior. let's face it: all those ramps that were built outward from the structure were never to be part of another ballpark again, starting with Camden Yards.

you can't have architecture if you have this kind of a set up. what a shame these couldn't' have been built within the structure.

the cell's exterior without these would stand up very nicely. with them, it is marred. i suspect that with whatever renovations go onto the exterior of Wrigley, it will end up being a far more striking ballpark from the outside than the Cell.