Soldier Field & Our History of Stadiums - Days of the Old - What do you think?

by user All~In~Chicago

My Piece: "The Glory Days at Old Soldier"

                  Give me my Old Stadiums Back!    ...........

Stadium History: In September 2003, the new and improved Soldier Field kicked off. The Chicago Bears began requesting a new stadium in the late 1990's when other modern state of the art stadiums were being built in other cities. The Bears had a rich tradition of playing football at Soldier Field, the NFL's oldest stadium. Several options on where a new stadium should be built were discussed, but the Bears decided to move nowhere. The Bears decided to build a new stadium on the same site of their current home, Soldier Field. Because of its historical presence in Chicago, the Bears decided to leave the historic colonnades for which Soldier Field is best known. The rest of the stadium would be completely demolished and a new stadium would be built inside the exterior shell.

In order for a new stadium to be built, the Bears had to play the 2002 NFL season at Memorial Stadium in Champaign, IL. At the conclusion of the 2001 season, demolition and construction on the new stadium began. The Bears new stadium continues to carry the name Soldier Field. The stadium has around 66,000 blue seats in several tiers, improved seating, better sightlines, an enlarged concourse, two 96-foot-by-23-foot video-boards, 8,000 club seats, and 133 luxury suites. To preserve Soldier Field, the classic colonnades remain intact as a lasting monument to Soldier Field's glorious past, and a 250-foot granite-wall sculpture still serves as a memorial to the men and women who served in the armed forces. Fans also are able to walk among the colonnades and the horseshoe promenade. The Chicago Bears played their first game at Soldier Field II on September 29, 2003.

So the question remains to be asked upon. Do we actually miss the glory days at the historic stadiums? With more and more teams building new stadiums in different cities around the country, it seems to me sometimes younger fans forget or never knew what it was like to walk out of the hall into the stadium and see what made this sport a sport. From baseball to basketball and football, we have seen them destroyed, made over and forgotten about. With all the technology in ballparks today it’s great, don’t get me wrong; but it is just not the same. New ballparks and stadiums are turning into amusement parks. There’s so much to do not to mention trying to catch a couple of innings of the ballgame.

As I continue writing this article I am going to be interviewing individuals from two of my favorite sports stadiums; Busch Stadium and Soldier Field. I know a few friends that have been going to game here before I was born, for that matter before my dad was born. I want to learn what it was truly like before the commercialized hype of the “man” and his attempt to give our sports the Midas touch make over.

====Tell me what you think====
New vs. the old...what's your thoughts?

Check here to take a virtual tour of Soldier Fields Historical trip thru change. [1]

Date

Fri 06/23/06, 5:59 pm EST

Madproof9Red-Shirting

1260 days ago

Score 2

It depends on the both the new and the old stadium. New stadiums are more geared toward the rich people, the companies who buy seats to take customers weather they like the sport or not. The old stadiums were built for the true fans. McNichols was a dump, but a great stadium for the true fan. The University of Denver's old hockey stadium was a converted airplane hanger, where the "Bleacher Creatures" dripped beer through the floor of the second deck onto the fans down below, and no one seemed to care. Now it's a nice, sponsered arena where the true atmosphere is gone. Out of all the new stadiums I've been too (not including baseball, which has started to make great new stadiums), only one really appeals to me as a "true fan," not one of the rich people who go to games becuase they have free seats. The Pepsi Center; it's a great stadium. It's a great stadium with a great atmosphere, friendly to both the rich people (club/suite level), and the true fans (upper decks). Compare that with another stadium that opened the same year, The Staples Center, which sucks. It's nice for the rich people on the lower and club levels, but the upper deck is not friendly towards the fans at all, and it's the upper deck fans that truly support the team. It's boring, and doesn't provide a good atmosphere. I think that most old stadiums should be kept for as long as possible, because the history is some of the most exciting parts of going to a game.

Permalink | Reply

Alex HolowczakHall of Famer

1260 days ago

Score 2

In cricket, the old stadia are still used. Lord's has been around since 1750-odd, and is still the best ground in the world. Most cricket grounds have had the same home since the 19th century. Football (soccer) stadia in England is similar, most have stayed the same for about a century, unless they were bombed, as happened in some cases. I think it helps as the old grounds have history, and you get a sense of it as you walk out to play. It's like walking out at St Andrews, with 600 years of golf in the fairways, it's a special feeling to be a part of. According to one of Tony Bruno's rants on Madden 2005, the Black Hole, the Pro Player, the Dog Pound all held the atmosphere even if they were ricketty old stadia. Elder stadia captured that better than the newer stadia. There is outrage in England if an old stadium is demolished, so more often than not, it remains. But the franchise way of sport makes the aim more towards making money (hence, a bigger stadium), rather than the club way in England.

Permalink | Reply

ChristofMVP

1260 days ago

Score 1

Outstanding idea for an opinion! Can't wait for the additional sections that are to come.

Permalink | Reply

All~In~ChicagoVarsity

1259 days ago

Score 2

Good stuff guys...appreciate it. I wasn't planning on going into stadiums in England like you described Alex, but I like what I see and might have to incorporate some information. Thanks!

Permalink | Reply

BarkingclamVarsity

1259 days ago

Score 1

I think it depends - sometimes, like in the case of Fenway Park, the park is in a terrible state, but renovations are able to make the place look like new. Other times, like with the Houston Astrodome, it's good to have lost a terrible place to play ball even with all the history you're losing. And besides, aren't places like Minute Maid Park, the new Busch Stadium and Qwest Field better then the places they replaced? And besides, history or not, keeping an old stadium and losing the team is much worse then demolishing it and losing the history - just ask fans of the Montreal Expos or the Brooklyn Dodgers.

Permalink | Reply