When Do the Sox Talk About a New Stadium??

[jasonxctf]

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this... Guaranteed Rate is currently the 8th oldest stadium in MLB.

Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium, Oakland, Kauffman, Rogers Centre and then Guaranteed Rate.

Oakland is gone. Royals are talking about a $2 billion new stadium, which would then put Guaranteed Rate as 6th oldest. Back out Fenway and Wrigley due to "nostalgia" and now the park is 4th oldest. 

When do the Sox starting talking about a new stadium? Guessing they wait and see how the Bears situation plays out?

[Dick Allen]

8 minutes ago, jasonxctf said:

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this... Guaranteed Rate is currently the 8th oldest stadium in MLB.

Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium, Oakland, Kauffman, Rogers Centre and then Guaranteed Rate.

Oakland is gone. Royals are talking about a $2 billion new stadium, which would then put Guaranteed Rate as 6th oldest. Back out Fenway and Wrigley due to "nostalgia" and now the park is 4th oldest. 

When do the Sox starting talking about a new stadium? Guessing they wait and see how the Bears situation plays out?

I'm thinking they were thinking they were going to go on a several year run, and probably at least start whispering they need a new park probably by now. The last couple of years probably have wrecked that dream. They aren't getting a park unless JR wants to pay for it, and that will never happen.  He did pop for half the United Center.

[Sleepy Harold]

I don't think the current ownership group wants to deal with all that would go into a new stadium. I think they'd ideally like to make that the next buyer's problem. 

[ron883]

I feel like states and municipalities are more reluctant to cough up a bunch of cash for professional stadiums now a days, as they should be. I haven't been paying attention to the bears new stadium saga. I hope the state doesn't cough up a dime for that stadium, or for a future Sox stadium. 

[JoeC]

The one saving grace with GRF is that, since it started as a blank slate, it's one of the only ballparks that has consistently improved with its age.

That speaks more to the starting point than anything else, but you get the idea....

[Lip Man 1]

1 hour ago, jasonxctf said:

Curious to hear everyone's thoughts on this... Guaranteed Rate is currently the 8th oldest stadium in MLB.

Fenway, Wrigley, Dodger Stadium, Angel Stadium, Oakland, Kauffman, Rogers Centre and then Guaranteed Rate.

Oakland is gone. Royals are talking about a $2 billion new stadium, which would then put Guaranteed Rate as 6th oldest. Back out Fenway and Wrigley due to "nostalgia" and now the park is 4th oldest. 

When do the Sox starting talking about a new stadium? Guessing they wait and see how the Bears situation plays out?

Even the Sox wouldn't be so stupid as to start mentioning this now. Not with what has been happening on and off the field since basically 2007. 

[pcq]

They don't really need a new park do they. What they really need is a new team.

[The Grinder]

6 minutes ago, pcq said:

They don't really need a new park do they. What they really need is a new team.

I was stationed in Europe for a while where they maintian thier buildings for a long time, compare that with the disposable staduims and parks these days. Yr spot on we need a new team

[waltwilliams]

17 minutes ago, JoeC said:

The one saving grace with GRF is that, since it started as a blank slate, it's one of the only ballparks that has consistently improved with its age.

That speaks more to the starting point than anything else, but you get the idea....

Absolutely right ... the renovations done in 2003-2004 really helped make new Sox Park seem less generic.

It's now an attractive facility, especially inside -- well-maintained, great sightlines, etc.

This is by far the most accessible stadium in the city -- located in a central location in the region, near three (!) public transportation lines and two major expressways (Dan Ryan and LSD). It's got the best tailgating scene in the city. And then there's the fact that it's the same location as the old park -- so in essence the Sox have played at the same location for 113 years. There's a definite appeal to that.

There's nowhere else in the city/region that would work as well as their present stadium/location.

That said, it's definitely time for another major renovation -- they really need to overhaul the outfield/bleacher section (would love to see them get rid of the Tinkertoy ad space in the outfield).

There's also room for development around the stadium. Before he died, Jim Thompson talked about how he wanted to build a hotel on the property, perhaps in the area where the old ballpark was. But that idea was nixed by JR, who also nixed Thompson's request to share profits for the "Bacardi in the Park" restaurant that the state/taxpayers built for the team back in 2011: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160825/bridgeport/sweetheart-deal-on-ballpark-naming-rights-nothing-new-for-white-sox/

 

[Balta1701]

Just in general, it is somewhat surprising that the beat reporters haven’t written anything in the offseason about moves towards either a new park or a major renovation. If we can see it’s about time to talk about it then so can they, there is an expiring lease and the dates are known. My guess is that this would have happened unless the team itself wanted no articles about that to appear.

[caulfield12]

This reminds me of how here in China the government just decided to stop publishing the horrific youth unemployment numbers.

Of course, that brought even more attention to the problem...not less.

Not really much of a solution.

(Ignoring it and one day the problem will go away...unless you're Japan lol.)

[Texsox]

Build a dome. In the suburbs. 

[Balta1701]

1 minute ago, Texsox said:

Build a dome. In the suburbs. 

I see no reason why the White Sox need a dome in the current climate state. 

I see every plausible reason why the Bears should do precisely that.

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, Balta1701 said:

I see no reason why the White Sox need a dome in the current climate state. 

I see every plausible reason why the Bears should do precisely that.

They don't need a new stadium. If JR is footing even part of the bill having a venue that could be used year round could be appealing. Attendance in April would be better. 

The Bears definitely need a dome. 

I'm not a fan of multipurpose stadiums but maybe someone could design one that doesn't suck for football. 

[Quin]

1 hour ago, waltwilliams said:

Absolutely right ... the renovations done in 2003-2004 really helped make new Sox Park seem less generic.

It's now an attractive facility, especially inside -- well-maintained, great sightlines, etc.

This is by far the most accessible stadium in the city -- located in a central location in the region, near three (!) public transportation lines and two major expressways (Dan Ryan and LSD). It's got the best tailgating scene in the city. And then there's the fact that it's the same location as the old park -- so in essence the Sox have played at the same location for 113 years. There's a definite appeal to that.

There's nowhere else in the city/region that would work as well as their present stadium/location.

That said, it's definitely time for another major renovation -- they really need to overhaul the outfield/bleacher section (would love to see them get rid of the Tinkertoy ad space in the outfield).

There's also room for development around the stadium. Before he died, Jim Thompson talked about how he wanted to build a hotel on the property, perhaps in the area where the old ballpark was. But that idea was nixed by JR, who also nixed Thompson's request to share profits for the "Bacardi in the Park" restaurant that the state/taxpayers built for the team back in 2011: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160825/bridgeport/sweetheart-deal-on-ballpark-naming-rights-nothing-new-for-white-sox/

 

Granted I haven't been to The Cell in a while, but like you say, after renovations it decidedly felt great.

Also driving from Kankakee and back was easy.

The Sox really shouldn't be talking about this until they need one. And when that time comes, they should just build it where Comiskey Park was.

[ptatc]

2 minutes ago, Texsox said:

They don't need a new stadium. If JR is footing even part of the bill having a venue that could be used year round could be appealing. Attendance in April would be better. 

The Bears definitely need a dome. 

I'm not a fan of multipurpose stadiums but maybe someone could design one that doesn't suck for football. 

I would prefer the Bears don't get a dome. However for practicality and financial reason, I understand why they will. 

[pcq]

1 hour ago, waltwilliams said:

Absolutely right ... the renovations done in 2003-2004 really helped make new Sox Park seem less generic.

It's now an attractive facility, especially inside -- well-maintained, great sightlines, etc.

This is by far the most accessible stadium in the city -- located in a central location in the region, near three (!) public transportation lines and two major expressways (Dan Ryan and LSD). It's got the best tailgating scene in the city. And then there's the fact that it's the same location as the old park -- so in essence the Sox have played at the same location for 113 years. There's a definite appeal to that.

There's nowhere else in the city/region that would work as well as their present stadium/location.

That said, it's definitely time for another major renovation -- they really need to overhaul the outfield/bleacher section (would love to see them get rid of the Tinkertoy ad space in the outfield).

There's also room for development around the stadium. Before he died, Jim Thompson talked about how he wanted to build a hotel on the property, perhaps in the area where the old ballpark was. But that idea was nixed by JR, who also nixed Thompson's request to share profits for the "Bacardi in the Park" restaurant that the state/taxpayers built for the team back in 2011: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160825/bridgeport/sweetheart-deal-on-ballpark-naming-rights-nothing-new-for-white-sox/

 

The highway and public trans access is superb. Anywhere else would be a downgrade. Read a rumor that Bridgeport is becoming a hip place to live. It is well kept up. JR never took an interest in developing the area to my knowledge. 

[Balta1701]

3 minutes ago, Texsox said:

They don't need a new stadium. If JR is footing even part of the bill having a venue that could be used year round could be appealing. Attendance in April would be better. 

The Bears definitely need a dome. 

I'm not a fan of multipurpose stadiums but maybe someone could design one that doesn't suck for football. 

Bah, there’s 81 games at that park a year and often a spring training game or an exhibition. The cost of a roof is an extra hundred million, several hundred million if you want it to open. There is no good reason for a Chicago baseball team to pay for that.

Attendance in April will never be great because it’s the school year. You always get one or two rotten days, but you get that almost everywhere.

[Texsox]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

I would prefer the Bears don't get a dome. However for practicality and financial reason, I understand why they will. 

X2

Not playing at Soldier Field seems sacrilegious. 

[Texsox]

Just now, Balta1701 said:

Bah, there’s 81 games at that park a year and often a spring training game or an exhibition. The cost of a roof is an extra hundred million, several hundred million if you want it to open. There is no good reason for a Chicago baseball team to pay for that.

Attendance in April will never be great because it’s the school year. You always get one or two rotten days, but you get that almost everywhere.

Concerts? Events? Why have the stadium sitting for most of the year? 

[Balta1701]

5 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Concerts? Events? Why have the stadium sitting for most of the year? 

How many concert tours want a baseball stadium sized venue in the winter? And they’re not after the kind of facility you can find at any of the other concert venues that already hold 20 or 30k? Not enough to pay for a retractable roof. You need larger than a basketball stadium but not large enough for a football stadium. Especially if the Bears build the kind of facility they should.

[wegner]

"STADIUM?!??!!!"

Edited August 18, 2023 by wegner

[ron883]

36 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

This reminds me of how here in China the government just decided to stop publishing the horrific youth unemployment numbers.

Of course, that brought even more attention to the problem...not less.

Not really much of a solution.

(Ignoring it and one day the problem will go away...unless you're Japan lol.)

And that was the last time caulfield was seen on Soxtalk

[nitetrain8601]

1 hour ago, waltwilliams said:

Absolutely right ... the renovations done in 2003-2004 really helped make new Sox Park seem less generic.

It's now an attractive facility, especially inside -- well-maintained, great sightlines, etc.

This is by far the most accessible stadium in the city -- located in a central location in the region, near three (!) public transportation lines and two major expressways (Dan Ryan and LSD). It's got the best tailgating scene in the city. And then there's the fact that it's the same location as the old park -- so in essence the Sox have played at the same location for 113 years. There's a definite appeal to that.

There's nowhere else in the city/region that would work as well as their present stadium/location.

That said, it's definitely time for another major renovation -- they really need to overhaul the outfield/bleacher section (would love to see them get rid of the Tinkertoy ad space in the outfield).

There's also room for development around the stadium. Before he died, Jim Thompson talked about how he wanted to build a hotel on the property, perhaps in the area where the old ballpark was. But that idea was nixed by JR, who also nixed Thompson's request to share profits for the "Bacardi in the Park" restaurant that the state/taxpayers built for the team back in 2011: https://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20160825/bridgeport/sweetheart-deal-on-ballpark-naming-rights-nothing-new-for-white-sox/

 

I disagree. There are other accessible places such as The 78 in South Loop which would be more central if anything. 

[Quin]

12 minutes ago, ron883 said:

And that was the last time caulfield was seen on Soxtalk

Soxtalk.com is now blocked in China