Is “The 78” Dead? Or even more alive? Fire announce plans for SSS

[77 Hitmen]

8 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

The upper deck isn’t that bad especially after lopping off 8 rows in 2004 along with a cozier roof, it’s no worse than a lot of the other new retro parks. If there was one less tier of suites it would be just about ideal.

IMO, the upper deck seats between 1st and 3rd and maybe about 8 or 10 rows up in that area are pretty good.  After that, they're not so great.  Worst of all is (unless there's a small crowd), anyone with an UD ticket is prohibited from entering the lower deck concourse.  That alone is a HUGE demerit for EVERY SINGLE upper deck seat.  

When you say "no worse than a lot of other new retro parks", remember that most new parks have multiple levels of generally-available seating above the lower deck.  See the photo below of Truist Park to see how their seating levels are staggered (without a ton of luxury suites in between).  So yeah, there are other bad upper decks elsewhere, but they're also a smaller portion of that stadium's overall seats. 

Are there many other parks where, after the lower deck, all that is available is a very small (maybe about 1,500 seats??) mid-level (300 club) and then the next available seats are literally 5 levels up?  I also wonder how many other ballparks have upper deck seats that are 21 rows from the concourse entrance.

[southsider2k5]

The other huge mistake that really contributes to the feeling of the UD being higher is you have to go UP to even get to the 100 level.  Anything new seems to be an entrance at the TOP of the lower bowl, and going DOWN to box seats.  Changing escalators multiple times to enter the BOTTOM of the upper deck to then hike UP 15 to 20 MORE rows in a sellout situation is just piss poor planning. Many UDs have some amount of seats down below the UD seating entrance so again it doesn't feel like all UP.

[kba]

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

And according to the HOK architectural firm JR was offered the Camden Yards design before the Orioles seized upon it and he said no. 

Whenever I hear this, I encourage people to read Peter Richmond's book Ballpark.

He shows HOK's original 1986 and 1987 renderings for Camden Yards. The first looks like a generic stadium with no retro elements; the second resembles New Comiskey with a warehouse.  He says it was the Orioles management who insisted on the total-retro-design and had to persuade HOK to do another redesign in 1988. He quotes Orioles president Larry Lucchino saying of HOK, "Comiskey would have been the stadium they'd have built, given free reign."

According to Richmond, by the time HOK re-designed Camden Yards with what became the final plan, New Comiskey was already under construction.  So it's not clear to me how Reinsdorf could have been offered that design.

[Sleepy Harold]

37 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

IMO, the upper deck seats between 1st and 3rd and maybe about 8 or 10 rows up in that area are pretty good.  After that, they're not so great.  Worst of all is (unless there's a small crowd), anyone with an UD ticket is prohibited from entering the lower deck concourse.  That alone is a HUGE demerit for EVERY SINGLE upper deck seat.  

When you say "no worse than a lot of other new retro parks", remember that most new parks have multiple levels of generally-available seating above the lower deck.  See the photo below of Truist Park to see how their seating levels are staggered (without a ton of luxury suites in between).  So yeah, there are other bad upper decks elsewhere, but they're also a smaller portion of that stadium's overall seats. 

Are there many other parks where, after the lower deck, all that is available is a very small (maybe about 1,500 seats??) mid-level (300 club) and then the next available seats are literally 5 levels up?  I also wonder how many other ballparks have upper deck seats that are 21 rows from the concourse entrance.

That rule doesn't exist anymore. Got rid of it this season.

[The Mighty Mite]

54 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

IMO, the upper deck seats between 1st and 3rd and maybe about 8 or 10 rows up in that area are pretty good.  After that, they're not so great.  Worst of all is (unless there's a small crowd), anyone with an UD ticket is prohibited from entering the lower deck concourse.  That alone is a HUGE demerit for EVERY SINGLE upper deck seat.  

When you say "no worse than a lot of other new retro parks", remember that most new parks have multiple levels of generally-available seating above the lower deck.  See the photo below of Truist Park to see how their seating levels are staggered (without a ton of luxury suites in between).  So yeah, there are other bad upper decks elsewhere, but they're also a smaller portion of that stadium's overall seats. 

Are there many other parks where, after the lower deck, all that is available is a very small (maybe about 1,500 seats??) mid-level (300 club) and then the next available seats are literally 5 levels up?  I also wonder how many other ballparks have upper deck seats that are 21 rows from the concourse entrance.

That was a huge mistake in the UD with the concourse at the same level as the first row especially when the the park opened and it was 29 rows. Just horrible, I'm sure it was a cost cutting measure.

Edited August 12 by The Mighty Mite

[chitownsportsfan]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

The other huge mistake that really contributes to the feeling of the UD being higher is you have to go UP to even get to the 100 level.  Anything new seems to be an entrance at the TOP of the lower bowl, and going DOWN to box seats.  Changing escalators multiple times to enter the BOTTOM of the upper deck to then hike UP 15 to 20 MORE rows in a sellout situation is just piss poor planning. Many UDs have some amount of seats down below the UD seating entrance so again it doesn't feel like all UP.

One of the nicest features of Camden I thought was literally walking in from the street and being basically at seat level. Makes it feel connected to the neighborhood. 

At T-Mobile you have to go up just to get to 100 level as well. IMO it makes the stadium seem more self contained, like it was just dropped into that particular corner.

[southsider2k5]

19 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

One of the nicest features of Camden I thought was literally walking in from the street and being basically at seat level. Makes it feel connected to the neighborhood. 

At T-Mobile you have to go up just to get to 100 level as well. IMO it makes the stadium seem more self contained, like it was just dropped into that particular corner.

I know Cleveland, Houston and the just recently deceased Arlington Stadium were street level entries for the top of the lower bowl.

[77 Hitmen]

6 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said:

That rule doesn't exist anymore. Got rid of it this season.

Excellent news.  I know it was imposed after the Ligue and another incident of a moron running onto the field, but bad upper deck and restrictive policy wasn't exactly helping the ballpark's image. 

[greg775]

14 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

"Nothing wrong with..."

"It's no worse than..."

"If... It would be just about ideal"

 

Such ringing endorsements.

Good post. If folks want to kill an hour or two go to youtube and watch the 3-4 people who go to games and rate the ballparks. Our park, Rate Field, consistently is the worst park the reviewer(s) have ever watched a game. Our park does reek but it has to be in the top five in terms of delicious (albeit overpriced) food.

[greg775]

6 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

One of the nicest features of Camden I thought was literally walking in from the street and being basically at seat level. Makes it feel connected to the neighborhood. 

Old Comiskey was that way. If you had lower level boxes first 5-10 rows or so you'd walk in the park and walk thru one of the tunnel entrances and BOOM, a glorious baseball field overcoming all your senses. I don't think my senses have ever been through a more glorious experience than entering old Comiskey field level. Actually Wrigley may be that way too but I can't remember that as much as Sox Park, 35th and Shields.

Edited August 13 by greg775

[77 Hitmen]

12 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

A representative weighs in:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/08/12/opinion-chicago-bears-leave-arlington-heights-property-tax/

"Every lawmaker in Springfield should look at this proposal and ask themselves how they will explain it back home." 

...and this rep's (Kam Buckner) district includes Soldier Field.  Not a surprise that he's very opposed to the Bears leaving Soldier Field for Arlington Heights.  That doesn't necessarily mean most of his colleagues in the General Assembly feel the same way.  

[caulfield12]

8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

IMO, the upper deck seats between 1st and 3rd and maybe about 8 or 10 rows up in that area are pretty good.  After that, they're not so great.  Worst of all is (unless there's a small crowd), anyone with an UD ticket is prohibited from entering the lower deck concourse.  That alone is a HUGE demerit for EVERY SINGLE upper deck seat.  

When you say "no worse than a lot of other new retro parks", remember that most new parks have multiple levels of generally-available seating above the lower deck.  See the photo below of Truist Park to see how their seating levels are staggered (without a ton of luxury suites in between).  So yeah, there are other bad upper decks elsewhere, but they're also a smaller portion of that stadium's overall seats. 

Are there many other parks where, after the lower deck, all that is available is a very small (maybe about 1,500 seats??) mid-level (300 club) and then the next available seats are literally 5 levels up?  I also wonder how many other ballparks have upper deck seats that are 21 rows from the concourse entrance.

Kauffman...Tokyo Dome

[The Mighty Mite]

7 hours ago, greg775 said:

Good post. If folks want to kill an hour or two go to youtube and watch the 3-4 people who go to games and rate the ballparks. Our park, Rate Field, consistently is the worst park the reviewer(s) have ever watched a game. Our park does reek but it has to be in the top five in terms of delicious (albeit overpriced) food.

Most of the reviews lately have it rated a bit higher, I saw one earlier in the year that had the Rate in the middle of the pack. There is no way it’s worse than the Trop, Anaheim Stadium, Rogers Center, Bank One and a few others. 
One other thing, some of the Retro stadiums are just plain phony with goofy unnatural quirks. Some of the parks of yesteryear built in the early 1900s had quirks that were real and were there because of the acreage they were built on, most of those old parks were built on city blocks that weren’t close to being square, they were more rectangle or worse thus the Green Monster in Fenway, high right field fences in Ebbets Field and Connie Mack Stadium, weird layout of Crosley Field which gave it the Moon Deck bleachers in right field, old Braves Field which had the Jury Box bleacher in right field, the Polo Grounds which was a much better Football stadium than Baseball, Griffith Stadium which had a jigsaw piece in center field because of two home owners who refused to sell their houses, the right field overhang in Tiger Stadium, Yankee Stadium with the short homer porch in right field and Forbes Field which was a mishmash and actually pretty ugly. I’m pretty sure old Comiskey was the only park that was built on land that was large enough that there were no quirks and with a fair symmetrical design, no cheap homers at the Palace, if you hit one over the fence, you earned it regardless of where you hit it.
 

 

 

 

Edited August 13 by The Mighty Mite

[MiddleCoastBias]

13 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I know Cleveland, Houston and the just recently deceased Arlington Stadium were street level entries for the top of the lower bowl.

Minneapolis too. I was just there a couple of weeks ago for the Nats series. Overall pretty meh stadium (a little disappointed), but walking in from the street in the RF corner to an open concourse/plaza that leads down to the 1B-side seats was really nice.

[Sleepy Harold]

5 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said:

Minneapolis too. I was just there a couple of weeks ago for the Nats series. Overall pretty meh stadium (a little disappointed), but walking in from the street in the RF corner to an open concourse/plaza that leads down to the 1B-side seats was really nice.

Busch stadium I also believe is that way, at least coming from Ballpark Village you the outfield concourse. Truist in Atlanta was similar walking through The Battery into the stadium.

[Kyyle23]

The best and worst thing about the Rate is it is just generic.  Run of the mill stadium design, nothing special about it, no real memorable features.  But it’s a stadium and it works, it’s not falling apart, so there is that 

[WBWSF]

8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

...and this rep's (Kam Buckner) district includes Soldier Field.  Not a surprise that he's very opposed to the Bears leaving Soldier Field for Arlington Heights.  That doesn't necessarily mean most of his colleagues in the General Assembly feel the same way.  

If a team pays for a stadium the government usually pays for the infrastructure. The owners of the Bulls and Blackhawks paid for the United Center and the government paid for the infrastructure. I can't help but wonder, if the Bears pay for their new stadium and the government doesn't pay for the infrastructure, what will the Bears ownership do? They don't want to stay in Soldier Field. Would they take an offer from northwest Indiana?

[Sleepy Harold]

 

 

[77 Hitmen]

18 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The other huge mistake that really contributes to the feeling of the UD being higher is you have to go UP to even get to the 100 level.  Anything new seems to be an entrance at the TOP of the lower bowl, and going DOWN to box seats.  Changing escalators multiple times to enter the BOTTOM of the upper deck to then hike UP 15 to 20 MORE rows in a sellout situation is just piss poor planning. Many UDs have some amount of seats down below the UD seating entrance so again it doesn't feel like all UP.

 

17 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

One of the nicest features of Camden I thought was literally walking in from the street and being basically at seat level. Makes it feel connected to the neighborhood. 

At T-Mobile you have to go up just to get to 100 level as well. IMO it makes the stadium seem more self contained, like it was just dropped into that particular corner.

This is absolutely yet another thing that makes Rate Field feel removed from its surroundings.   You have to take an escalator or walk up a series of ramps just to get to the 100 level concourse and the BEST seats.  Right off the bat, fans get the feeling of everything being high up and the park being "mall like".  If you want to get to the 500 level, you need to take THREE escalators up.    If you're entering at Gate 2 and have upper deck tickets in the 20th row, I hope you brought some good walking shoes and decent stamina.

I see several examples have been posted about other ballparks where you can enter at street level.  When I went to Nationals Park, we entered into the outfield concourse right from street level.  At Petco Park, they have a freaking city square that's just beyond their OF concourse and is gated off as part of ticketed entry while a game is going on.  

Edited August 13 by 77 Hitmen

[southsider2k5]

10 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

This is absolutely yet another thing that makes Rate Field feel removed from its surroundings.   You have to take an escalator or walk up a series of ramps just to get to the 100 level concourse and the BEST seats.  Right off the bat, fans get the feeling of everything being high up and the park being "mall like".  If you want to get to the 500 level, you need to take THREE escalators up.    If you're entering at Gate 2 and have upper deck tickets in the 20th row, I hope you brought some good walking shoes and decent stamina.

I see several examples have been posted about other ballparks where you can enter at street level.  When I went to Nationals Park, we entered into the outfield concourse right from street level.  At Petco Park, they have a freaking city square that's just beyond their OF concourse and is gated off as part of ticketed entry while a game is going on.  

AND THEN you STILL need to go up stairs to your seat no matter where you are.

[77 Hitmen]

6 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

Most of the reviews lately have it rated a bit higher, I saw one earlier in the year that had the Rate in the middle of the pack. There is no way it’s worse than the Trop, Anaheim Stadium, Rogers Center, Bank One and a few others. 
One other thing, some of the Retro stadiums are just plain phony with goofy unnatural quirks. Some of the parks of yesteryear built in the early 1900s had quirks that were real and were there because of the acreage they were built on, most of those old parks were built on city blocks that weren’t close to being square, they were more rectangle or worse thus the Green Monster in Fenway, high right field fences in Ebbets Field and Connie Mack Stadium, weird layout of Crosley Field which gave it the Moon Deck bleachers in right field, old Braves Field which had the Jury Box bleacher in right field, the Polo Grounds which was a much better Football stadium than Baseball, Griffith Stadium which had a jigsaw piece in center field because of two home owners who refused to sell their houses, the right field overhang in Tiger Stadium, Yankee Stadium with the short homer porch in right field and Forbes Field which was a mishmash and actually pretty ugly. I’m pretty sure old Comiskey was the only park that was built on land that was large enough that there were no quirks and with a fair symmetrical design, no cheap homers at the Palace, if you hit one over the fence, you earned it regardless of where you hit it.

Do you have a link to any reviews that rank Rate Field middle of the pack or higher than say 24th?  I haven't seen any and would be interested in reading/seeing them.  Yes, I've seen it ranked higher than Angel Stadium, Chase Field, or maybe the Rogers Centre, but that isn't exactly great company and would still put them at 25th out of 29.  Tropicana Field is always dead last now that Oakland is gone, but it's on its way out one way or another in a few years. 

I agree that I don't like the phony, gimmicky quirkiness.  The hill and flagpole they used to have in play in Houston was pretty ridiculous IMO and I'm glad they removed it.  I haven't been to every new ballpark, but at least the ones in Seattle, New York (Citi Field), SF, and SD didn't come off as phony to me.  

And most recent reviews that I've seen that rank Rate Field very near the bottom aren't taking cheap shots or making ignorant comments about the stadium either.  Many actually say something to the effect that there's "nothing wrong with it" and point out some of its positives.  But in the end, they conclude that the park is pretty boring and forgettable and that there's very little to do around the stadium.  

Edited August 13 by 77 Hitmen

[Lip Man 1]

3 hours ago, WBWSF said:

If a team pays for a stadium the government usually pays for the infrastructure. The owners of the Bulls and Blackhawks paid for the United Center and the government paid for the infrastructure. I can't help but wonder, if the Bears pay for their new stadium and the government doesn't pay for the infrastructure, what will the Bears ownership do? They don't want to stay in Soldier Field. Would they take an offer from northwest Indiana?

Does it matter? Seriously, they'll go to where the McCaskey family can try to extort the most money or the best deal.

Edited August 13 by Lip Man 1

[The Mighty Mite]

19 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Do you have a link to any reviews that rank Rate Field middle of the pack or higher than say 24th?  I haven't seen any and would be interested in reading/seeing them.  Yes, I've seen it ranked higher than Angel Stadium, Chase Field, and maybe the Rogers Centre, but that isn't exactly great company and would still put them at 25th out of 29.  Tropicana Field is always dead last now that Oakland is gone, but it's on its way out one way or another in a few years. 

I agree that I don't like the phony, gimmicky quirkiness.  The hill and flagpole they used to have in play in Houston was pretty ridiculous IMO and I'm glad they removed it.  I haven't been to every new ballpark, but at least the ones in Seattle, New York (Citi Field), SF, and SD didn't come off as phony to me.  

And most recent reviews that I've seen that rank Rate Field very near the bottom aren't taking cheap shots or making ignorant comments about the stadium either.  Many actually say something to the effect that there's "nothing wrong with it" and point out some of its positives.  But in the end, they conclude that the park is pretty boring and forgettable and that there's very little to do around the stadium.  

Petco is a good park but having that old factory building down the left field line is sort of silly. I can't remember the site where the Rate was rated middle of the pack. When I want to find the latest rankings I just Google MLB ballpark rankings.

 

[DoUEvenShift]

I asked Chat GPT to combine several sources to compile a ranking list

Quote

 

My Composite MLB Ballpark Ranking (1–30)

1. Wrigley Field (Chicago Cubs) – Tops the SI list for its timeless charm and neighborhood energy SI. Fans rave that “Wrigley takes the cake IMO.” Reddit

2. Oracle Park (San Francisco Giants) – Renowned for breathtaking bay views and memorable quirks like the Coke bottle and McCovey Cove SI.

3. PNC Park (Pittsburgh Pirates) – Universally loved for its intimate layout and skyline views; often topping fan/fan-poll discussions SIWikipediaReddit.

4. Fenway Park (Boston Red Sox) – Legendary historic atmosphere, nostalgia, and iconic features like the Green Monster SITalksport.

5. Petco Park (San Diego Padres) – Modern design with scenic waterfront setting and excellent amenities SIWikipedia.

6. Oriole Park at Camden Yards (Baltimore Orioles) – The retro-ballpark template with classic architecture and warehouse backdrop SI+1.

7. Coors Field (Colorado Rockies) – Unique for its altitude, mountain views, and microbrewery atmosphere SIWikipedia.

8. Dodger Stadium (Los Angeles Dodgers) – Nostalgic and iconic; enduring charm and great vibes SI.

9. Target Field (Minnesota Twins) – Downtown location, elegant design, and comfortable experience SI+1.

10. Citizens Bank Park (Philadelphia Phillies) – Fantastic food scene and strong home-field feel SIWikipedia.

11. T-Mobile Park (Seattle Mariners) – Retractable roof, great “Pen” area, and balanced atmosphere SI+1.

12. Truist Park (Atlanta Braves) – Stylish and fun, with The Battery district offering a lively atmosphere SI.

13. Comerica Park (Detroit Tigers) – Quirky and memorable design details and skyline views SIWikipedia.

14. Busch Stadium (St. Louis Cardinals) – The Gateway Arch backdrop is unmistakable and majestic SI.

15. American Family Field (Milwaukee Brewers) – Convertible roof, Midwest charm, and the famed slide SI.

16. Citi Field (New York Mets) – Great food and entertainment, though less architectural flair SIWikipedia.

17. Yankee Stadium (New York Yankees) – Modern amenities with strong history—museum and Monument Park included SI.

18. Daikin Park (Houston Astros) – Unique train feature and renovated retro charm SIChron.

19. Kauffman Stadium (Kansas City Royals) – Relaxed and pleasant, though not particularly intimate SI.

20. Progressive Field (Cleveland Guardians) – Recently renovated with fan-friendly zones, underrated overall SI.

21. Great American Ball Park (Cincinnati Reds) – Solid but less distinctive; decent views and features SI.

22. Nationals Park (Washington Nationals) – Open concourse and good local amenities, though middling among peers SI.

23. Angel Stadium (Los Angeles Angels) – Lacks character despite some fun features SI.

24. Rogers Centre (Toronto Blue Jays) – Improved social areas and scenic enhancements, though still dated SI+1.

25. Chase Field (Arizona Diamondbacks) – Practical (roof), but feels dated SI.

26. Globe Life Field (Texas Rangers) – Extremely comfortable, yet lacking in distinctiveness SI.

27. LoanDepot Park (Miami Marlins) – Creative but underused; has potential but feels empty SI.

28. Rate Field (Chicago White Sox) – Lacks charm and atmosphere in comparison to older parks SI.

29. Sutter Health Park (Athletics, West Sacramento) – Minor-league level, temporary fix—not ideal SI.

30. George M. Steinbrenner Field (Rays temporary) – A spring-training field serving as a 2025 stopgap—far from ideal as a home MLB venue SI.

We only beat out the minor league and spring training parks.

Grok has us at the bottom as well
 

Quote

• Oracle Park (San Francisco Giants)
• Petco Park (San Diego Padres)
• PNC Park (Pittsburgh Pirates)
• Wrigley Field (Chicago Cubs)
• Fenway Park (Boston Red Sox)
• Target Field (Minnesota Twins)
• Oriole Park at Camden Yards (Baltimore Orioles)
• Coors Field (Colorado Rockies)
• Citi Field (New York Mets)
• Busch Stadium (St. Louis Cardinals)
• Dodger Stadium (Los Angeles Dodgers)
• Citizens Bank Park (Philadelphia Phillies)
• T-Mobile Park (Seattle Mariners)
• Truist Park (Atlanta Braves)
• Progressive Field (Cleveland Guardians)
• Kauffman Stadium (Kansas City Royals)
• Great American Ball Park (Cincinnati Reds)
• Daikin Park (Houston Astros)
• Nationals Park (Washington Nationals)
• American Family Field (Milwaukee Brewers)
• Comerica Park (Detroit Tigers)
• Rogers Centre (Toronto Blue Jays)
• Globe Life Field (Texas Rangers)
• LoanDepot Park (Miami Marlins)
• Yankee Stadium (New York Yankees)
• Angel Stadium (Los Angeles Angels)
• Chase Field (Arizona Diamondbacks)
• Rate Field (Chicago White Sox)
• George M. Steinbrenner Field (Tampa Bay Rays)
• Sutter Health Park (Oakland Athletics)

 

Edited August 13 by DoUEvenShift

[77 Hitmen]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Mite said:

Petco is a good park but having that old factory building down the left field line is sort of silly. I can't remember the site where the Rate was rated middle of the pack. When I want to find the latest rankings I just Google MLB ballpark rankings.

 

To each their own on other parks' aesthetics, of course.  But that warehouse building at Petco is a real turn of the century historic landmark building that was already there.  And the Padres have turned into a functional part of the stadium with party suites, a bar, and a team store.  This doesn't strike me as phony quirkiness, but that's just my opinion.

I Googled MLB ballpark rankings right now.....I don't think Sox fans are going to like the results.  Almost all have the park very near the bottom of the 28 parks (excluding Oakland and Tampa Bay).  I found only one so far that ranked it at 21, but that appears to be an outlier.  It ranks Rate Field ahead of Truist Park.

Edited August 13 by 77 Hitmen