Chicagoist: Which Ballpark is Better?

dino78

Fri, 02 May 2008 14:35:41 -0600

I like the troughs. They save time and they're better for the environment. Which I know is a foreign concept to people whose chief concern for a ballpark is its parking.

Shannon

Fri, 02 May 2008 12:23:58 -0600

i dub this poll flamebait. no good comes out of these things.

Slaphappy

Fri, 02 May 2008 11:40:19 -0600

I've said it before here, I think the Jumbotron is lame as hell. Everyone at the Cell just watches the giant TV instead of the game. There's more cheering when some stupid ass animation comes on the screen telling people to make noise than when the Sox hit a double. It's retarded. That's not to say Wrigley is without flaws. Hell, if you're sitting under the upper deck, every fly ball looks like a home run. That sucks, but then again, that's also why I don't buy tickets for those sections. I understand why people wouldn't want to pee in a trough, but on the other hand, don't be such a pussy about it. Bottom line, when the ivy is in full bloom, Wrigley Field is beautiful. To me, the Cell has no personality and no style.

Registered Guest

Fri, 02 May 2008 10:09:35 -0600

I'll admit I've never been to one of those record 20+ inning games, just the regular 9 (one that went to 14 though, I believe) and I've never once been to the bathrooms in Wrigley. Cut back on the beer, boys, and watch the game. We can eliminate the bathroom issue AND the drunken Cubs fan image!

Hugh G Rection

Fri, 02 May 2008 10:05:53 -0600

"the consensus has been among most Chicagoans that Wrigley Field was the better ballpark" Dumb. More popular? Sure. Wrigley Field allows a great number of regional transplants to root for the home team while maintaining loyalty to their Tigers, Indians, etc. Further, by shunning Comiskey they can drink close to home and avoid venturing to a part of town that makes them uncomfortable. The north side park is surrounded by bars. Any honest comparison would highlight this as the key difference (among fans) between the two stadiums. Plop US Cellular at Clark and Addison and the place sells out every game and is instantly "the" place to go. The park-as-landmark argument is tired insofar as the overwhelming majority of teams play in newer stadiums. Nicer parks than Wrigley have been razed and being a survivor doesn't confer beauty or importance. Comiskey is a fine place to watch a game if you want to root for the Sox or, god forbid, the team they are playing against. More people should give it a try.

dino78

Fri, 02 May 2008 09:59:58 -0600

Those who like the Cell better, do you prefer the UC to the old Chicago Stadium too? Because I certainly don't. I'd take a wooden seat in the old overhanging balcony over a plush seat in the airplane hanger any day.

joecrede

Fri, 02 May 2008 09:59:36 -0600

Levy runs the food in the Cell's suites & Stadium Club, but general concessions are run by Sportservice. The real problem with Wrigley's food is the products. If the Cubs sign a marketing contract with Hebrew National or whatever those dogs are called, there's nothing Levy can do to make it taste like a good hot dog. Give me my Bests Kosher any day!

Benjy Lipsman

Fri, 02 May 2008 09:20:04 -0600

Levy may do the food service at both parks, but because Wrigley is old, it just doesn't have the space to put in enough prep areas and food concessions to offer the variety and quality The Cell can offer.

house215

Fri, 02 May 2008 09:15:24 -0600

Yankee Stadium has history. Wrigley Field is just old. US Cellular is better. Hell, they have won more Championships at US Cellular than they have at Wrigley.

Slaphappy

Fri, 02 May 2008 09:13:25 -0600

I'd rather go to an old park than a new park any day of the week.

ackack

Fri, 02 May 2008 08:59:43 -0600

Actually I think the Cell will keep outranking Wrigley for the next decade or so. 1. Reinsdorf gives tickets away to kids. He gives kids something to do (go for a Sunday game - the kids running the bases is pure joy). This is the first generation that has grown up at the Cell and they know it's fun. 2. World Series. It was fun, it brought people to the park and they had a good time. 3. Levy may cater both parks - but you get what you pay for. I have never understood why Wrigley didn't upgrade their food and bathrooms.

vorare

Fri, 02 May 2008 08:39:27 -0600

The "crappy food" comments are particularly humorous given that the same company (Levy) has been handling food service at both stadiums for several years now. If the food sucks at Wrigley, it sucks at The Cell too.

SAMiller

Fri, 02 May 2008 08:36:20 -0600

the consensus has been among most Chicagoans that Wrigley Field was the better ballpark Your consensus must not include anyone outside of Wrigleyville.

BlueFairlane

Thu, 01 May 2008 19:55:26 -0600

Most of the complaints I've heard about the Cell over the years have been that it's cold, it's got no history, it's just a big, boring modern park. But then, I've often wondered if people were saying the same thing about Wrigley in 1916. I wonder if people will wax nostalgic about grand old U.S. Cellular (or whatever they're calling it) in 2058. I didn't really get into baseball until I moved to Chicago, and I picked my team based on two factors: my experience on the el with drunk fans, and the parks. For instance, drunk Cubs fans reminded me of everybody I hated in college, whereas drunk Sox fans reminded me of people I'm related to. As for the parks, while historic and quaint, Wrigley is kind of an uncomfortable dump. (Unlike Fenway, which I love). The Cell is a nice place to watch ball. So count me a Sox guy.

billymax85

Thu, 01 May 2008 18:44:54 -0600

Why was The Cell's higher national ranking surprising, Benjy? I have yet to come across anyone who likes Wrigley better who lives outside of the Chicago area. Everyone I've talked to (from outside Chicago) who's been to both ballparks thinks Wrigley is uncomfortable, has crappy food and doesn't like the ambience - and most of the guys have something to say about whizzing in a trough. Long story short - I don't think the SI poll results are surprising at all.

magilla gorilla

Thu, 01 May 2008 18:38:29 -0600

also, the 3 points dino makes in regards to comiskey are all very good ones. especially the terrible decision to not allow a better atmosphere around the park in the hopes people will blow their money inside

magilla gorilla

Thu, 01 May 2008 18:35:35 -0600

comiskey kicks wrigley's ass. everyone knows this. that being said, if i'd never been to either park, i'd go to wrigley like the tourists. otherwise, comiskey's a better place to watch baseball

fed up

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:57:31 -0600

I agree Comisky could have been so much better, but it is clean and the sightlines are good the food is good the kids area is great, parking is close. Wrigley is History and is great for the first inning then if you go to the bathroom piss is overflowing the concourse is to narrow the food so so lots of obstructed view seats, Its got more charm but the Cell is much nicer

dino78

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:40:03 -0600

Let's see... Sox Park has better food, good views of the field and is cleaner. Oh, and better parking, but if I go there I park a few blocks away and walk, because getting out of that parking lot is generally a nightmare. Wrigley has generally better views, more history and is quieter (i.e. there isn't a loud scoreboard distorting the pace of the game). Both are easily accessible on public transit, so that's a tie. Both are way too expensive, especially given that pretty much every other market has cheap seats under $10. I prefer Wrigley, but hey, I'm a cub fan. Sox park is a nice place to watch a game, though, save for the following mistakes: 1. Reinsdorf willfully missed the boat on the retro craze and pretty much built the same park he wanted to build in addison. There were people who offered him better designs and he didn't care. The changes in recent years are nice, though. 2. What a missed opportunity to have a skyline view, facing the park southeast instead of northeast. The official Sox Pr line in 91 was that the park is designed as it is so that people are as close to their parking as possible. So that's what you lost for your great parking, sox fans. 3. There could be atmosphere around the park, i.e. mcuddy's, but the sox don't want it because it would dip into their pockets.

Chris F

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:19:56 -0600

OK, Albany- I agree that the parking situation around Wrigley is ridiculous, which is why I don't drive there. There's this place in your neighborhood, at Kimball and Lawrence, called a "Brown Line station"- they have a big shiny car that will take you within several blocks of Wrigley Field for a smallish fee... but you're a Sox fan, so, you probably don't go there much. As a Cubs fan, I don't go to the Cell much, but I did for that fiasco of an abortive game on Monday. I will say that our view of the game was pretty good, but I can't endorse the food as heartily as SI, based on the Tuesday testimony of my gastrointestinal tract. Plus, I gotta say that the conventional wisdom that Sox fans are much more interested in the sport than their northside counterparts wasn't really borne out. There's all kinds of goofball shenanigans afoot in Wrigley at every game, but the Cell wasn't far behind. It WAS a rainy Monday afternoon game in April, but THAT was a crowd to make Lee Elia go on a rant.

AlbanyParkist

Thu, 01 May 2008 17:05:01 -0600

The Cell is a modern Ballpark. I've heard Cubs fans go on and on about the nostalgia of Wrigley. That's all well and good, but it's a functional space, not a museum. Having troughs to pee in is archaic, I really don't need to see several dozen drunk's penises (penii?) just to relieve myself. The parking is ridiculous. I'm sorry, the gouging Wrigleyvillians who want you to pay them 30, 40, 50 bucks to park in their garage or lawn or what have you is just nonsense. Come to the 21st century and build a parking garage or something. The Cell is great for families. The security there is damn responsive. They learned their lesson hard after the LeGui knuckleheads ran on the field. Last game I went to a guy was getting drunk and loud. Security boxed him in and gave him a clear message, quiet down or get out. Everytime I've been at Wrigley it's either ridiculous drunken tomfoolery or suits on their blackberries getting in some rays. Didn't have a good family feel at all. It's a pretty ballpark, but not a comfortable, accessible or engaging one.

frp

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:47:17 -0600

There's a team on the Southside? Only 13 minutes after the first comment for someone to break bad on the White Sox. Somewhere I read the following, and I quote (seriously, not my words), "Drunk cubs fans on the train spilling their rum and coke all over the place. Douches." As for which park is "better"? Hard to choose. I like the old-world stling of Wrigley...they ivy, the old brick. And, Comiskey (it will always be Comiskey to me), is a good place to actually watch the game...the suites are very nice, and the food is good. Toss up.

Double A

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:20:25 -0600

There's a team on the Southside?

matty

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:09:32 -0600

I like the cell more but wrigley is truly an experience.

El Thirdrail

Thu, 01 May 2008 16:07:59 -0600

Growing up a Sox fan, I hated to see the Old Comiskey come down. But the improvements to the Cell actually do make it quite nice. I'd have to agree with the placements in the SI article. Wrigley is a great place to watch a ball game, but it's expensive, hard to park around and get to, and parts of it could use a little rehab.