Can Chicagoland support 2 MLB teams?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

That's what I was getting at-- not only does the SE-facing stadium face away from the skyline, but it also goes against the desired directional orientation for a baseball stadium (though it's far from being the only stadium that breaks this "rule"). So why did they face it that way?

My guess? The preferred orientation for a ballpark is north and east: of course, the only consideration on alignment is the sun. When you face north, the sun is behind you. When you face east by game time past noon, the sun is behind you to the west.

that's what you want to do unless conditions on the ground prevent you from doing it. Comiskey Park had that north/east alignment, of course. 35th Street was south of the ballpark. You basically need a major street on the south and the west to make a good location for a ballpark. Comiskey had both.

Not so for our Whatever-You-Call-It Field. So lets place the new Comiskey on that favorable north/east alignment with a drop dead view of the skyline in the background. Why not? With 35th Street being the only major street surrounding the ballpark, the new Comiskey would have had 35th Street in the outfield if it faced in the preferred direction. That puts both the main structure having along side streets. The main entrance would be in the middle of nowhere. The old park was torn down and it was to be used for parking. What would have happened to that idea if the N/E was used? you'd have to close 35th Street every single game day. How could it stay in operation without the skywalks to take you from parking lot to ballpark? Where would the skywalks end on the south side of 35th...in back of the bleachers that are single decked (and for what it is worth if they were double decked, you lose that skyline view). So instead of a skybridge, you'd have a plank: go from parking lot up to above street level, cross 35th and JUMP down into the bleachers. A bit brutal, but maybe more fun watching that fireworks after home runs.

If a park does not face north/east, it means it can't. Its site does not allow it to. In Chicago that meant there would have been no major street to the south and west. For San Francisco (where Oracle Park is on its fourth name even though it is less than 20 years old), the north/east alignment had been tested. And if it had been implemented can you even imagine the view facing north of the skyline right in front of you (not distant like 35th St), the bay, the Bay Bridge, the mountains in Marin in view in the background. But the test the Giants took mad north/east a bad choice. The Giants were escaping Candlestick Park, basically a wind tunnel. A "correctly" placed park would have put similar conditions on the new park. The Giants rotated the park's parameters to make it less windy. And it worked.

NFL unlike MLB has one two choices for alignment: north/south and east/west. Period. And only north/south works. If it faced west, every day game could be a disaster (depending on weather conditions). Any drive going east-to-west would have the sun in the face of offense...including the quarterback who would be throwing with the sun in his eyes.

Of course there is some good news here: if you want to build a basketball/hockey arena, you have a full 180 degrees of choice in how to align it.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by edsg25

My guess? The preferred orientation for a ballpark is north and east: of course, the only consideration on alignment is the sun. When you face north, the sun is behind you. When you face east by game time past noon, the sun is behind you to the west.

Correct. Again, that's what I was getting at. I'm not sure why you're the second person to clarify what I thought was understood-- perhaps I wasn't clear enough regarding the orientation of ballparks, or it's not as known as I thought.

Originally Posted by edsg25

Comiskey Park had that north/east alignment, of course.

Yep. Wrigley has it, too. It seems with older parks the vast majority of them faced Northeast, while with newer parks it's a smaller majority or even half. Maybe it's considered less important in an era when most games are played at night, but still, when you add in the skyline view potential in this case it seems doubly weird to face it the "wrong" way.

Originally Posted by edsg25

Why not? With 35th Street being the only major street surrounding the ballpark, the new Comiskey would have had 35th Street in the outfield if it faced in the preferred direction. That puts both the main structure having along side streets. The main entrance would be in the middle of nowhere. The old park was torn down and it was to be used for parking. What would have happened to that idea if the N/E was used? you'd have to close 35th Street every single game day. How could it stay in operation without the skywalks to take you from parking lot to ballpark? Where would the skywalks end on the south side of 35th...in back of the bleachers that are single decked (and for what it is worth if they were double decked, you lose that skyline view). So instead of a skybridge, you'd have a plank: go from parking lot up to above street level, cross 35th and JUMP down into the bleachers. A bit brutal, but maybe more fun watching that fireworks after home runs.

The "entrance in the middle of nowhere" occurred to me, too, and was the only reason I could think of. This doesn't seem to me like it should be that big of an obstacle, though. Given the costs already involved with building the stadium, parking lots, etc., would creating a couple of extra blocks of "major street" to the other side of the really be that big of an added expense, relatively speaking? Especially when you consider the people and money that a nice ballpark brings to an area? I would just think of it as part of the necessary infrastructure for the park.

As far as traffic on 35th being affected by pedestrians crossing the street, that's a good point that I hadn't considered, but wouldn't that pale in comparison the clustereff of stalled cars and pedestrians that shuts down a major portion of Lakeview for every Cubs game? At least in the Sox Park area it would be easier for drivers to divert around the traffic than it is in Wrigleyville, a denser area further from the expressway.

Originally Posted by edsg25

NFL unlike MLB has one two choices for alignment: north/south and east/west. Period.

That's a different topic, and one I know far less about, but a quick google search shows that this isn't absolute, either. The Cowboys' and Browns' stadiums runs NE/SW, while the Patriots, 49ers, and Jets/Giants run varying degrees of NW/SE.

[paytonc]

Originally Posted by SkylarkPhotoBooth

The "entrance in the middle of nowhere" occurred to me, too, and was the only reason I could think of. This doesn't seem to me like it should be that big of an obstacle, though.

Yeah, the stadiums I'm most familiar with (Nationals, Orioles, Pirates) all have their primary game-day pedestrian entrances pointed right at center/left field. It's a long walk to get to most of the seats, which are generally stacked up along the baselines, but that results in all the more chances to sell stuff.

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by paytonc

Yeah, the stadiums I'm most familiar with (Nationals, Orioles, Pirates) all have their primary game-day pedestrian entrances pointed right at center/left field. It's a long walk to get to most of the seats, which are generally stacked up along the baselines, but that results in all the more chances to sell stuff.

Good point. That solution crossed my mind, as well!

[Chicago_Person]

Well. Southern Illinois supports a 3rd with their cardinal plates

[SkylarkPhotoBooth]

Originally Posted by Chicago_Person

Well. Southern Illinois supports a 3rd with their cardinal plates

Southern Illinois is closer to St. Louis than it is to Chicago, so that's only natural. Note that the thread title clearly states Chicagoland, not Illinois.

[Surgzown]

Originally Posted by Chicago_Person

Well. Southern Illinois supports a 3rd with their cardinal plates

You know the state of Missouri where the Cardinals are based have tons of Cubs fans, right?

[CCrest182]

Originally Posted by Surgzown

You know the state of Missouri where the Cardinals are based have tons of Cubs fans, right?

And fans of this team called "The Kansas City Royals"