2 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

If they ever build a retro style park in the footprint of Old Comiskey, the immediate reaction of pretty much everyone will be “retro parks are dead. The White Sox goof it up once again. Why did they abandon a perfectly good and serviceable park across the street for this outdated white elephant?”

Going to have to disagree here, unless they built an exact copy of the bland Comiskey 2 then you might be on to something.

22 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

If they ever build a retro style park in the footprint of Old Comiskey, the immediate reaction of pretty much everyone will be “retro parks are dead. The White Sox goof it up once again. Why did they abandon a perfectly good and serviceable park across the street for this outdated white elephant?”

Maybe die-hard Cubs fans who will hate the Sox no matter what would say that, but otherwise I seriously doubt it.   Retro parks are here to stay.    Many of the most popular ones that were built are now over 20 to 30 years old and no one is even hinting about replacing them.  They'll be here for at least another 20 or 30 years is my guess.  The only retro-era parks that didn't last are Globe Life Park (because an open-air stadium was problematic in the intense Texas heat) and Turner Field (because the Braves wanted to build an entertainment district).  The only other one I can think of that I'd call a flop is the Marlins stadium in Miami.  

Bland, generic ballparks that lack character aren't making a comeback. Now, if the Sox built a new retro style on the site of Old Comiskey AND they continued to surround the area with nothing but parking lots, then they'll be wasting their money IMO and they'll garner criticism and still have trouble drawing fans unless they're winning pennants every few years in perpetuity.

And don't get me wrong, when I go to Sox games and sit in the lower deck, I find the place very enjoyable and don't go around thinking how much it sucks.  But nonetheless, it's still seen as a boring, forgettable park by many, many people....and not just by jerk Cub fans who have it in for us.  

Edited August 1, 2025Aug 1 by 77 Hitmen

In other stadium news, it looks like the price tag for the new A's stadium in Vegas has soared to over $2B.  Plus the 2nd article raises questions about whether the park will ever be completed.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/fisher-says-cost-for-the-las-vegas-as-ballpark-has-risen-above-2-billion

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/jul/02/athletics-las-vegas-stadium-john-fisher-mlb-debacle

On 7/31/2025 at 4:25 PM, Sleepy Harold said:

Going to have to disagree here, unless they built an exact copy of the bland Comiskey 2 then you might be on to something.

I remember when parking lots were a big deal but now they suck. The Sox play in the wonderfully bland anonymous Generica Park which is the best match in baseball. 

10 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

In other stadium news, it looks like the price tag for the new A's stadium in Vegas has soared to over $2B.  Plus the 2nd article raises questions about whether the park will ever be completed.

https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/fisher-says-cost-for-the-las-vegas-as-ballpark-has-risen-above-2-billion

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2025/jul/02/athletics-las-vegas-stadium-john-fisher-mlb-debacle

Cancel that roof!

On 8/1/2025 at 11:09 AM, 77 Hitmen said:

Maybe die-hard Cubs fans who will hate the Sox no matter what would say that, but otherwise I seriously doubt it.   Retro parks are here to stay.    Many of the most popular ones that were built are now over 20 to 30 years old and no one is even hinting about replacing them.  They'll be here for at least another 20 or 30 years is my guess.  The only retro-era parks that didn't last are Globe Life Park (because an open-air stadium was problematic in the intense Texas heat) and Turner Field (because the Braves wanted to build an entertainment district).  The only other one I can think of that I'd call a flop is the Marlins stadium in Miami.  

Bland, generic ballparks that lack character aren't making a comeback. Now, if the Sox built a new retro style on the site of Old Comiskey AND they continued to surround the area with nothing but parking lots, then they'll be wasting their money IMO and they'll garner criticism and still have trouble drawing fans unless they're winning pennants every few years in perpetuity.

And don't get me wrong, when I go to Sox games and sit in the lower deck, I find the place very enjoyable and don't go around thinking how much it sucks.  But nonetheless, it's still seen as a boring, forgettable park by many, many people....and not just by jerk Cub fans who have it in for us.  

Retro parks that are built are here to stay, that doesn't mean new ones will be built. 

Marlins Park is very much not retro, it was supposed to usher in the postmodern era. 

13 hours ago, soxfan18 said:

Retro parks that are built are here to stay, that doesn't mean new ones will be built. 

Marlins Park is very much not retro, it was supposed to usher in the postmodern era. 

Good point.  I suppose the term "retro park" is thrown around too loosely.  Not every new ballpark going forward is going to be a time warp back to the 1920s, but since Camden Yards, most teams have tried to build in some unique character into their ballpark (some with better success than others) and/or the area around the ballpark.   No one is building bland, generic-looking baseball-only stadiums surrounded not much but parking lots anymore.

Interesting fact about all these post-Camden ballparks:  many are now in the 25-30 year old range and while many are getting major renovations ($400M in renovations for Camden Yards!), no one is even hinting about getting rid of them.  To put that amount of time into perspective, the old 70s era stadiums they replaced only lasted about 30 years before they became horribly obsolete and were torn down.  

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Good point.  I suppose the term "retro park" is thrown around too loosely.  Not every new ballpark going forward is going to be a time warp back to the 1920s, but since Camden Yards, most teams have tried to build in some unique character into their ballpark (some with better success than others) and/or the area around the ballpark.   No one is building bland, generic-looking baseball-only stadiums surrounded not much but parking lots anymore.

Interesting fact about all these post-Camden ballparks:  many are now in the 25-30 year old range and while many are getting major renovations ($400M in renovations for Camden Yards!), no one is even hinting about getting rid of them.  To put that amount of time into perspective, the old 70s era stadiums they replaced only lasted about 30 years before they became horribly obsolete and were torn down.  

Texas second stadium didn't last long at all...but especially Philly Cincy Pittsburgh St.Louis, the cookie cutter round stadiums with AstroTurf.

Astrodome and Kingdome. Braves' stadium after the Olympics.

The Rate doesn't get much love from the media but the lower bowl is great.

1 hour ago, Falstaff said:

The Rate doesn't get much love from the media but the lower bowl is great.

that's what everyone says, too. Most people who go there seem to like it, then they read some website and then they're like "actually it's my second worst"

1 hour ago, Falstaff said:

The Rate doesn't get much love from the media but the lower bowl is great.

To me, the only unattractive part of Sox Park after the renovations done from 2003 to 2005 is the outfield signage supported by the Tinkertoy structures, flanking the main scoreboard. If they tore those down and replaced them with literally anything else, that would be an improvement.

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Texas second stadium didn't last long at all...but especially Philly Cincy Pittsburgh St.Louis, the cookie cutter round stadiums with AstroTurf.

Astrodome and Kingdome. Braves' stadium after the Olympics.

Three Rivers only lasted 30 years.  PNC Park is currently in its 25th season and is still considered by many to be one of the best in baseball.  The Pirates averaged 30k a night there the 3 years they made the playoffs about a decade ago.

The "Ballpark at Arlington" in Texas didn't last long even though it was a "retro park" because the Rangers decided they couldn't continue with an open air stadium in the intense heat they get there in the summer.  I don't know why they didn't build a retractable roof park in the first place in 1994.

It sounds like the issue with Turner Field is that the Braves wanted to have a place with enough land around it to build a baseball village, which they didn't have at Turner.  The sure have made a killing on that baseball village.

I think Comerica is actually the awful park people think Grate is. I don't know a single Tiger fan, and I'm from Michigan so I know plenty, that think much about Comerica other than how it frames the city in photos. They built it for photos, not for people to enjoy good views of baseball.

45 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Three Rivers only lasted 30 years.  PNC Park is currently in its 25th season and is still considered by many to be one of the best in baseball.  The Pirates averaged 30k a night there the 3 years they made the playoffs about a decade ago.

The "Ballpark at Arlington" in Texas didn't last long even though it was a "retro park" because the Rangers decided they couldn't continue with an open air stadium in the intense heat they get there in the summer.  I don't know why they didn't build a retractable roof park in the first place in 1994.

It sounds like the issue with Turner Field is that the Braves wanted to have a place with enough land around it to build a baseball village, which they didn't have at Turner.  The sure have made a killing on that baseball village.

The Ballpark would have worked if the office building in LF didn't block the outward airflow.  It was so incredibly stuffy in there, and it is 100 degrees all of the time.

58 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I think Comerica is actually the awful park people think Grate is. I don't know a single Tiger fan, and I'm from Michigan so I know plenty, that think much about Comerica other than how it frames the city in photos. They built it for photos, not for people to enjoy good views of baseball.

My biggest complaint with Comerica is how shallow the lower bowl is. As soon as one person stands up, the entire f'ing bowl needs to stand up. It's really annoying.

The fact that it's one of the centerpieces of a revitalized downtown entertainment district is a big source of pride - not just for the pictures, but also for the city itself.

42 minutes ago, JoeC said:

My biggest complaint with Comerica is how shallow the lower bowl is. As soon as one person stands up, the entire f'ing bowl needs to stand up. It's really annoying.

The fact that it's one of the centerpieces of a revitalized downtown entertainment district is a big source of pride - not just for the pictures, but also for the city itself.

Comerica was the result of trying to do TOO much.  They tried to combine retro with a literal circus.  I wasn't a fan at all.

2 hours ago, waltwilliams said:

To me, the only unattractive part of Sox Park after the renovations done from 2003 to 2005 is the outfield signage supported by the Tinkertoy structures, flanking the main scoreboard. If they tore those down and replaced them with literally anything else, that would be an improvement.

Aside from the pinwheels atop the scoreboard that has to be one of the blandest, most generic views looking out toward the outfield in MLB.   The giant billboards for Stanley and Ford (plus a 3rd one not pictured) that look like something I'd drive past on the Stevenson on the way to the park doesn't help.

3 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Three Rivers only lasted 30 years.  PNC Park is currently in its 25th season and is still considered by many to be one of the best in baseball.  The Pirates averaged 30k a night there the 3 years they made the playoffs about a decade ago.

The "Ballpark at Arlington" in Texas didn't last long even though it was a "retro park" because the Rangers decided they couldn't continue with an open air stadium in the intense heat they get there in the summer.  I don't know why they didn't build a retractable roof park in the first place in 1994.

It sounds like the issue with Turner Field is that the Braves wanted to have a place with enough land around it to build a baseball village, which they didn't have at Turner.  The sure have made a killing on that baseball village.

And to be honest the downtown area always had a bad reputation...whether it was racism, homelessness, the Olympics bomber, that location kind of was jinxed compared to the "safer/comfortable" suburbs.

It would be interesting to see the subtle and not so subtle shifts in the racial composition of Braves' fans across the two parks.

Plus all the complaints about spoiled Braves' fans not showing up even in the post season when they were on that run of consecutive appearances. Which tied into complaints about Paragraph 1 and ease of access at night from the suburbs.

Edited August 5, 2025Aug 5 by caulfield12

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Aside from the pinwheels atop the scoreboard that has to be one of the blandest, most generic views looking out toward the outfield in MLB.   The giant billboards for Stanley and Ford (plus a 3rd one not pictured) that look like something I'd drive past on the Stevenson on the way to the park doesn't help.

There isn’t a whole lot to look at behind those towering signs, which is half the problem. If the stadium were oriented properly, you might get a great view of the skyline when you walk the OF concourse. 

13 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

There isn’t a whole lot to look at behind those towering signs, which is half the problem. If the stadium were oriented properly, you might get a great view of the skyline when you walk the OF concourse. 

Sure. Far off in the distance 

2 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

Sure. Far off in the distance 

Fair point.  Here's the view from one of the ballpark ramps.  The skyline wouldn't be as close up as in MLB parks in other cities, but it's still a decent view.  I never thought this one issue was make-or-break for the current ballpark anyway, but it's just one of many things that take away potential character from the stadium and make it feel more generic.....and those things really add up.  

 

On 8/1/2025 at 11:09 AM, 77 Hitmen said:

Maybe die-hard Cubs fans who will hate the Sox no matter what would say that, but otherwise I seriously doubt it.   Retro parks are here to stay.    Many of the most popular ones that were built are now over 20 to 30 years old and no one is even hinting about replacing them.  They'll be here for at least another 20 or 30 years is my guess.  The only retro-era parks that didn't last are Globe Life Park (because an open-air stadium was problematic in the intense Texas heat) and Turner Field (because the Braves wanted to build an entertainment district).  The only other one I can think of that I'd call a flop is the Marlins stadium in Miami.  

Bland, generic ballparks that lack character aren't making a comeback. Now, if the Sox built a new retro style on the site of Old Comiskey AND they continued to surround the area with nothing but parking lots, then they'll be wasting their money IMO and they'll garner criticism and still have trouble drawing fans unless they're winning pennants every few years in perpetuity.

And don't get me wrong, when I go to Sox games and sit in the lower deck, I find the place very enjoyable and don't go around thinking how much it sucks.  But nonetheless, it's still seen as a boring, forgettable park by many, many people....and not just by jerk Cub fans who have it in for us.  

I say this out of die hard cynicism, of course. Earlier in the thread I pointed out that old Comiskey never got the “Sacred Cathedral of the Holy Game” treatment during its lifetime and was trashed when it wasn’t being ignored. Also “new” Comiskey wasn’t trashed until Camden Yards came around, at least that’s my memory. I admit I could be wrong. The park was designed with Royals Stadium in mind, yet somehow that park escaped the constant criticisms of the second Comiskey. 
 

Also, there is the shadow of Wrigley Field looming large. They’ll never escape that. They could build the retro-iest ballpark in history and I truly believe we will hear, in Chicago and elsewhere “the White Sox *sneer* offer the phony retro atmosphere that Wrigley actually has (if you ignore the towering scoreboards and mostly-new bricks).”

Edited August 6, 2025Aug 6 by NO!!MARY!!!

17 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Fair point.  Here's the view from one of the ballpark ramps.  The skyline wouldn't be as close up as in MLB parks in other cities, but it's still a decent view.  I never thought this one issue was make-or-break for the current ballpark anyway, but it's just one of many things that take away potential character from the stadium and make it feel more generic.....and those things really add up.  

 

It’s just that telescopic camera views of downtown have fooled people into thinking that downtown would be practically on top of the place. 

11 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

I say this out of die hard cynicism, of course. Earlier in the thread I pointed out that old Comiskey never got the “Sacred Cathedral of the Holy Game” treatment during its lifetime and was trashed when it wasn’t being ignored. Also “new” Comiskey wasn’t trashed until Camden Yards came around, at least that’s my memory. I admit I could be wrong. The park was designed with Royals Stadium in mind, yet somehow that park escaped the constant criticisms of the second Comiskey. 
 

Also, there is the shadow of Wrigley Field looming large. They’ll never escape that. They could build retro-iest ballpark in history and I truly believe we will hear, in Chicago and elsewhere “the White Sox *sneer* offer the phony retro atmosphere that Wrigley actually has (if you ignore the towering scoreboards and mostly-new bricks).”

Here's the thing, if you have been around MLB parks, the ones that stand out, are the ones that have something extra about them.  Whether that is a retro design (BAL, etc), the skyline as a part of the view from home plate, some extra special activity or feature within the stadium or stadium complex (such as the KC waterfall, the Domes that open and close (TOR, HOU, TEX) the rockwall in ANA, the train in HOU, roller coaster in DET), unique designs such as water in play for HRs (Cincy SF, PIT), an entertainment district around the park (ATL, CUB, BOS), monument park in NYY, or even the history around the park (CUB/BOS/LAD) there is something that stands out about pretty much all of these parks ranked in front of Sox Park. 

Sox Park's biggest draws seem to be sightlines and adequate parking.  It's ranked low because there is nothing exciting or unique about it.  It ranks low because it is the Wal-Mart "great value" brand of stadiums.  It has all of your basic ingredients, but there is absolutely nothing special about the park or game day experience.

16 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

There isn’t a whole lot to look at behind those towering signs, which is half the problem. If the stadium were oriented properly, you might get a great view of the skyline when you walk the OF concourse. 

Looking out toward the outfield in most other ballparks, you either get an impressive city view or at least there's an elegant asymmetry to the stadium itself.  Rate Field has neither.  

The following website provides good views for all the MLB ballparks for a quick comparison.  There are others that aren't very remarkable.  So, I take back suggesting Rate Field is the blandest, but it's definitely up there.  I'm not impressed with Chase Field.  The view there is better when the roof and giant OF panels are open, but that's almost never the case in AZ's heat.  Yankee Stadium looks pretty generic and the scope of the ads are much, much worse than at Rate Field.  

https://ballparkratings.com/ballpark-type/major-league/
https://ballparkratings.com/ranking-and-rating-all-30-mlb-ballparks-2024-edition/

Edited August 6, 2025Aug 6 by 77 Hitmen