Architects of U.S. Cellular Field

[rmackman]

So last night was my third time at "The Cell," but it was the first that I didn't drink much. Thus I was able to think a lot clearer, and I came to realize that while the location really isn't that big of a deal (they kind of cleaned up that part of the South Side...sort of) the real issue with U.S. Cellular Field is the direction it faces. Southeast....towards the actual South Side. If you rotate it 180 degrees, it faces the skyline of Chicago. Wouldn't that have been a sweet backdrop for the stadium? How do you overlook that? Great job HOK....you guys really blew it.

[rams80]

So last night was my third time at "The Cell," but it was the first that I didn't drink much. Thus I was able to think a lot clearer, and I came to realize that while the location really isn't that big of a deal (they kind of cleaned up that part of the South Side...sort of) the real issue with U.S. Cellular Field is the direction it faces. Southeast....towards the actual South Side. If you rotate it 180 degrees, it faces the skyline of Chicago. Wouldn't that have been a sweet backdrop for the stadium? How do you overlook that? Great job HOK....you guys really blew it.

If you rotate it 180 degrees you're actually facing the suburbs. If you wanted to see skycrapers, you'd need to have the stadium face directly north, which is kind of a placement problem.

FWIW Wrigley doesn't face the city either.

[rmackman]

So last night was my third time at "The Cell," but it was the first that I didn't drink much. Thus I was able to think a lot clearer, and I came to realize that while the location really isn't that big of a deal (they kind of cleaned up that part of the South Side...sort of) the real issue with U.S. Cellular Field is the direction it faces. Southeast....towards the actual South Side. If you rotate it 180 degrees, it faces the skyline of Chicago. Wouldn't that have been a sweet backdrop for the stadium? How do you overlook that? Great job HOK....you guys really blew it.

If you rotate it 180 degrees you're actually facing the suburbs. If you wanted to see skycrapers, you'd need to have the stadium face directly north, which is kind of a placement problem.

FWIW Wrigley doesn't face the city either.

Fair enough...but yes it should face north! So yes, the location is fine, but the rotation of the stadium is a complete screwup. With Wrigley it works because of the rooftop seating. Wrigley has a neighborhood feel too it that everyone loves.

[Sodboy13]

Yeah, but you used to have a great view of the Robert Taylor Homes before those got torn down.

The alignment of the park was the one mistake that can't be fixed in New Comiskey. But so much has been done in the past decade to change the park over from sterile, blue-seat-and-concrete ballmall - think Skydome/Rogers Centre without the roof - to appealing ballpark. Filling in the outfield bullpen dungeons, cutting off the top several rows of the upper deck and adding the flat roof, and putting in green seats, along with the renovations to the concourses, have really made the Cell a more intimate, appealing place to catch a ballgame. I like it.

Was there a reason for aligning the stadium the way they did? I honestly don't remember, so maybe someone else can fill me in. I can tell you, though, that my company has a camera mounted to one of the left field light towers, and we can swing it around to a fantastic shot of the skyline. A truly missed opportunity.

Here's a write-up on an alternative proposal to what eventually got built.

[TheOldRoman]

First off, even if they faced the outfield towards downtown, it is so far away that there wouldn't be much of a view. You can see from the ramps as you enter or leave on the third base side, but all you really see is trees and the tops of a few buildings in the distance.

The reason for facing was that they wanted the main entrance to be on 35th and Shields, just like the old park, so it could have the same exact address. Strangely enough, that "main entrance" isn't an entrance for the general public, but into the team offices. Yes, there were a lot of design flaws with New Comiskey as it was built, but I don't blame them that much for not facing it north. If they would have built a park in the South Loop a few years earlier (as was discussed), then I would blame them for not facing the city. However, the South Loop sports complex proposal with the stadiums for the Bears, Sox and Bulls/Hawks was in the 70's, and therefore would have been an even more bland, cookie-cutter ballpark than New Comiskey was. Although the location would have been great, the park would have been very dated by the mid '90s. They would have either rebuilt it from scratch or moved to another location by now. And as mentioned above, the park is really a night and day transformation from when it opened. It isn't up there with Oriole Park or PNC, but it is nice and provides a great atmosphere.

[BBTV]

So last night was my third time at "The Cell," but it was the first that I didn't drink much. Thus I was able to think a lot clearer, and I came to realize that while the location really isn't that big of a deal (they kind of cleaned up that part of the South Side...sort of) the real issue with U.S. Cellular Field is the direction it faces. Southeast....towards the actual South Side. If you rotate it 180 degrees, it faces the skyline of Chicago. Wouldn't that have been a sweet backdrop for the stadium? How do you overlook that? Great job HOK....you guys really blew it.

Just curious... since you seem so adamant about it - why are you placing the blame on HOK? Do you know who / why the decision was made? There are a lot of factors at play - some that are in the architect's control, many that are not.

[infrared41]

I think they should renovate it by blowing it up and replacing it with a new stadium.

[The_Admiral]

New Comiskey was designed to be plopped in the middle of an Addison (the western suburb, not the north side street) parking lot. If it looks like it was built with no consideration of its surroundings, that's pretty much why.

Most of the renovations have improved it, but that Fundamentals thing really throws off the intended symmetry of the park, and I'm surprised they were able to grow all that ivy beyond center field without segments of the fanbase having a major collective craplosing.

[webdav]

Typically, it's not about the view. Baseball fields are typically laid out with a line from home to second base being along a north/south axis and first to third being east/west. The reason is tradition, mainly, these days, but when baseball was played during the day, it was about the angle of the sun and making it so the sun wasn't directly in the eyes of the batter.

[The_Admiral]

This reminds me of how people want a new Wrigley Field that either has skyscrapers for a backdrop, is actually right on Lake Michigan, or somehow both. The inherent folly of putting the ballpark right on the water in a city with "cooler by the lake" as part of its vernacular--never mind the fact that Wrigley itself is already just a mile off the shore and cold as balls when the wind blows in this time of year--doesn't seem to dawn on its proponents. Furthermore, Chicago is a large place that can't cram everything into everything (hot dogs excluded). It's like going to Yankee Stadium and grousing that you can't see the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and Coney Island from the concourse food court. Another strike against the ballpark-as-civic-theme-park movement, I guess.

[njmeadowlanders]

Well there is more to tradition with respect to the direction of the sun. The Mets had early on surveyed Long Island City during the original "New Ebbets" plan (across the East river from Manhattan) but one of a few reasons that site wasn't selected (mostly because of cost, owners of the land, traffic, etc.) was that any view could not have faced west into the city. A setting sun every night would have been quite detrimental to the play on the field...

[TheOldRoman]

This reminds me of how people want a new Wrigley Field that either has skyscrapers for a backdrop, is actually right on Lake Michigan, or somehow both. The inherent folly of putting the ballpark right on the water in a city with "cooler by the lake" as part of its vernacular--never mind the fact that Wrigley itself is already just a mile off the shore and cold as balls when the wind blows in this time of year--doesn't seem to dawn on its proponents. Furthermore, Chicago is a large place that can't cram everything into everything (hot dogs excluded). It's like going to Yankee Stadium and grousing that you can't see the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and Coney Island from the concourse food court. Another strike against the ballpark-as-civic-theme-park movement, I guess.

Another problem would be, depending on where you put it (and it's not like there is a bunch of condemned lakefront property) a lot of the shore is landfill. That is the huge problem with Soldier Field. Soldier Field has super-powered pumps which pump something like four million gallons of water out of the field each hour. Even with that (and the insane cost of doing that), the drainage is still horrible, making the field horrible. Some Chicago sports stooge (I believe Sam Smith) was pitching for USCF (before renovations) to have an upper deck build all around and become a football field, while they would build a new park for the Sox in the space of current Soldier Field. This is possibly the worst idea of all time. Soldier Field with its terrible parking situation and total lack of transit support is barely workable for Bears games 8 times a year on Sundays. Even if the Cubs moved to the museum campus they would have attendance problems.

[NatsFan2004]

Just to be accurate - the most desirable orientation for a ballpark is for the line from home plate to 2nd base to be in a north-northeasterly direction. That would ideally put the line between home and 3rd in a due north orientation and the line between home and 1st in a due east orientation. Only 5 MLB parks are laid out so that the line between home and 2nd goes due north.

[The_Admiral]

This reminds me of how people want a new Wrigley Field that either has skyscrapers for a backdrop, is actually right on Lake Michigan, or somehow both. The inherent folly of putting the ballpark right on the water in a city with "cooler by the lake" as part of its vernacular--never mind the fact that Wrigley itself is already just a mile off the shore and cold as balls when the wind blows in this time of year--doesn't seem to dawn on its proponents. Furthermore, Chicago is a large place that can't cram everything into everything (hot dogs excluded). It's like going to Yankee Stadium and grousing that you can't see the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and Coney Island from the concourse food court. Another strike against the ballpark-as-civic-theme-park movement, I guess.

Another problem would be, depending on where you put it (and it's not like there is a bunch of condemned lakefront property) a lot of the shore is landfill. That is the huge problem with Soldier Field. Soldier Field has super-powered pumps which pump something like four million gallons of water out of the field each hour. Even with that (and the insane cost of doing that), the drainage is still horrible, making the field horrible. Some Chicago sports stooge (I believe Sam Smith) was pitching for USCF (before renovations) to have an upper deck build all around and become a football field, while they would build a new park for the Sox in the space of current Soldier Field. This is possibly the worst idea of all time. Soldier Field with its terrible parking situation and total lack of transit support is barely workable for Bears games 8 times a year on Sundays. Even if the Cubs moved to the museum campus they would have attendance problems.

One day, Soldier Field is just going to sink right into the lake, and when it does, I won't miss it. Putting a football field next to a bunch of museums was a dumb idea anyway.

[MadmanLA]

This reminds me of how people want a new Wrigley Field that either has skyscrapers for a backdrop, is actually right on Lake Michigan, or somehow both. The inherent folly of putting the ballpark right on the water in a city with "cooler by the lake" as part of its vernacular--never mind the fact that Wrigley itself is already just a mile off the shore and cold as balls when the wind blows in this time of year--doesn't seem to dawn on its proponents. Furthermore, Chicago is a large place that can't cram everything into everything (hot dogs excluded). It's like going to Yankee Stadium and grousing that you can't see the Statue of Liberty, the Empire State Building, and Coney Island from the concourse food court. Another strike against the ballpark-as-civic-theme-park movement, I guess.

Another problem would be, depending on where you put it (and it's not like there is a bunch of condemned lakefront property) a lot of the shore is landfill. That is the huge problem with Soldier Field. Soldier Field has super-powered pumps which pump something like four million gallons of water out of the field each hour. Even with that (and the insane cost of doing that), the drainage is still horrible, making the field horrible. Some Chicago sports stooge (I believe Sam Smith) was pitching for USCF (before renovations) to have an upper deck build all around and become a football field, while they would build a new park for the Sox in the space of current Soldier Field. This is possibly the worst idea of all time. Soldier Field with its terrible parking situation and total lack of transit support is barely workable for Bears games 8 times a year on Sundays. Even if the Cubs moved to the museum campus they would have attendance problems.

One day, Soldier Field is just going to sink right into the lake, and when it does, I won't miss it. Putting a football field next to a bunch of museums was a dumb idea anyway.

See Coliseum, Los Angeles Memorial

[Gothamite]

Well there is more to tradition with respect to the direction of the sun. The Mets had early on surveyed Long Island City during the original "New Ebbets" plan (across the East river from Manhattan) but one of a few reasons that site wasn't selected (mostly because of cost, owners of the land, traffic, etc.) was that any view could not have faced west into the city. A setting sun every night would have been quite detrimental to the play on the field...

That's balderdash. They never seriously looked at any other sites. I know they made claims to the contrary, but they're the Wilpons. You cant actually believe them.

Due to the orientation of Manhattan, a ballpark in Long Island City with its home plate aligned due north (shielding the batters from setting sun) would have had spectacular views of Midtown from all but the left-field stands.

Would've been marvelous.

[Your Name Here]

In that article on White Sox Insider, George Bova wrote:

"Ill-fated Sox campaign" is practically an oxymoron.

No, it's not.

[TheOldRoman]

In that article on White Sox Insider, George Bova wrote:

"Ill-fated Sox campaign" is practically an oxymoron.

No, it's not.

Yeah, I think he meant to say it was redundant.

[IronChefShark]

So last night was my third time at "The Cell," but it was the first that I didn't drink much. Thus I was able to think a lot clearer, and I came to realize that while the location really isn't that big of a deal (they kind of cleaned up that part of the South Side...sort of) the real issue with U.S. Cellular Field is the direction it faces. Southeast....towards the actual South Side. If you rotate it 180 degrees, it faces the skyline of Chicago. Wouldn't that have been a sweet backdrop for the stadium? How do you overlook that? Great job HOK....you guys really blew it.

Just curious... since you seem so adamant about it - why are you placing the blame on HOK? Do you know who / why the decision was made? There are a lot of factors at play - some that are in the architect's control, many that are not.

Every time I read one of the OP's posts, I feel like I'm reading the internet forum equivalent to watching a Tony Little infomercial

[njmeadowlanders]

Well there is more to tradition with respect to the direction of the sun. The Mets had early on surveyed Long Island City during the original "New Ebbets" plan (across the East river from Manhattan) but one of a few reasons that site wasn't selected (mostly because of cost, owners of the land, traffic, etc.) was that any view could not have faced west into the city. A setting sun every night would have been quite detrimental to the play on the field...

That's balderdash. They never seriously looked at any other sites. I know they made claims to the contrary, but they're the Wilpons. You cant actually believe them.

Due to the orientation of Manhattan, a ballpark in Long Island City with its home plate aligned due north (shielding the batters from setting sun) would have had spectacular views of Midtown from all but the left-field stands.

Would've been marvelous.

Right. It was never seriously considered, the biggest reason being that it would've been a VERY expensive situation, whereas it cost them absolutely nothing to have to acquire the Shea Stadium parking lot.