I thought they faced it towards the projects because the wind would have been even worse for the upper deck.

 

I thought they face stadiums east so the sun isnt setting in the batters eyes

Yeah but they could have faced the park Northeast and probably gotten away with it with a view of the Skyline. The problem was with the old UD, it seemed like if the wind caught inside of that roof, it acted like a wind tunnel, which was never fun in April May or September.

Yep winodj...NE would have been fine. I just found this....

 

One of the subparagraphs of rule 1.04 of the Official Rules of Major League Baseball says that it is "desirable that the line from home base through the pitchers plate to second base shall run East-Northeast." Note that it doesn't say that it *has to* run that way, just that it is desirable. The reason for this is obvious: to reduce the problem of the sun being in players' - particularly the batter - eyes. Most pro ballparks do follow this directive, or come pretty close. The one current MLB park that doesn't even come close is (I'm sure you can figure out why they didn't bother to have the field face East-Northeast) the dreadful Metrodome in Minneapolis.

 

If you want to see the variance in the way the parks of the Majors point, go to this site, and then click on Facts & Figures and go to the Ballpark Orientations page: http://www.ballparks.com/baseball/index.htm . Note how many actually face southeast. The one that really bugs me is Enron, because the setting sun is blinding if you're sitting on the firstbase side.

Edited February 4, 200521 yr by Controlled Chaos

I thought they face stadiums east so the sun isnt setting in the batters eyes

but if they pointed it the same way as wrigley is, then it would have a skyline view to the firstbase side

I live in the north subs,so I would have loved it!

I like it in the city, eventually the cubs are going to have to abandon their s***hole of a field on addison st, and move to the northern burbs

I doubt they would move wrigley to the N. suburbs. They would probably move the team from the northside though.

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/cws/images..._lg_532x524.gif

The nostalgic selling point was that home plate of Old Comiskey is in the same spot as the Cell. The truth is that a SE orientation allowed them to make more use of the land they owned (OC) & less intrusion on the land they don't. If it had been NE then the Sox are likely looking at annexing all the property between 35th & 37th including the school.

 

Personally I think that would have been the better way to go. South of Pershing is worse than 33rd to 35th. That state had a responsibility to provide low income housing to the people that lived there. I accept that.

But I also believe the people living there would be better off north of the park. The Sox could have used all the space between 35th & Pershing for

the Park & Parking. No need for Lot G. The school could have been moved to where Lot C is now & the housing between 33rd & 35th.

 

With nothing but parking surrounding the Park it would be easily visible from the Ryan with the scoreboard facing the city. The scoreboard should have been designed so that when it "explodes" you can see the lights both in & out of the park. When people are driving along the Ryan they would be attracted to the lights from the board.

 

With Lots directly in front of the ballpark an OF gate could be added for

extra convenience for the fans. No more having to walk as far as home plate just to enter the park. Assuming the Lots would include some form of gentrification fans would have easy access from Wentworth or Pershing to the Lots with a nice theme park like setting that increases the feeling of being safe.

 

But again this alone is not going to get you an avg of 30K a night.

To do that you have to increase the size of your college enrollment

substantially. I've been through this more than once. Wrigley enjoys an area surrounded by more than 30K college students year round. That comes from De Paul, Northwestern, DeVry, Wright JC, & several other extension campuses. The Cell is next to IIT which has about 5K students 4 of the 6 months of the season. In the summer it drops to about 2K. That's a huge difference.

 

If you're going to build a new ballpark you need it to be in an area where there is a high concentration of college students. This is a no-brainer. Since politics put the Cell where it's at then politics should help bring students to that area. I don't if there is land available there but I would take what is available & use it to expand UIC. Expanding IIT is not an option because it's a private university. But building a UIC extension campus in the area would certainly help.

 

There is need for such extension. IIT's lowest enrollment are in those areas where it has the least experience: business, liberal arts, & non-engineering disciplines. A UIC extension could bolster those depts & possibly create a cross-degree program between the two schools. That's really beyond the scope of this discussion but it's easy to say that such an extension would easily double or triple the college enrollment around

the Cell. That would lead to a 30K avg a night.

where the hell is addison?

where the hell is addison?

Its around Rte 83 and the Ike.

 

Juggs: The old home plate is across 35th street in the parking lot, it's still there. You're right that the new park was indeed turned to fit the property, and IIRC the decison was made by the Illinois Authority, rather than the Sox. It would be cooler to see the sky line over the OF walls, but I hope the team plays well enough to focus our attention on the field.

Speaking for myself, I probably would to the same amount of summertime weekend games, because we usually do something downtown before or afterwards. But I would for sure go to a bunch of weekday games that I currently have no way of going to because it is logistically impossible.

"Logistically impossible"? Don't you have a car?