ptatc Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 51 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/white-sox/ct-chicago-white-sox-ballpark-jerry-reinsdorf-20240118-dwt7p2n4gveyfd5cfgjd2xayea-story.html I disagree somewhat with the article. The new new stadium and a more accessible one will draw people. Just look at Wrigley over the years. It a very short sighted pendering to the click bait type of article. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 minutes ago, ptatc said: I disagree somewhat with the article. The new new stadium and a more accessible one will draw people. Just look at Wrigley over the years. It a very short sighted pendering to the click bait type of article. Which is worse because Jerry would have even less of a reason to build a competitive team than he does now. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 5 minutes ago, ptatc said: I disagree somewhat with the article. The new new stadium and a more accessible one will draw people. Just look at Wrigley over the years. It a very short sighted pendering to the click bait type of article. When new Comiskey opened in 1991 for the first three years before the labor impasse they drew extremely well but then as the column stated the "newness factor" wore off. Without putting a winning program on the field the exact same thing will happen when or if this new proposed stadium is ever built. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Just now, Lip Man 1 said: When new Comiskey opened in 1991 for the first three years before the labor impasse they drew extremely well but then as the column stated the "newness factor" wore off. Without putting a winning program on the field the exact same thing will happen when or if this new proposed stadium is ever built. This is true but I think the location not just the newness will draw more fans. This is why I disagree somewhat. I think they will get more casual fans at the new location. Of course more will show when any team wins and this is especially true for Sox fans. Even when the Sox won the world series and we're good for a few years, they had trouble competing with the scrubs for attendance. I think the location will help some. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 23 minutes ago, ptatc said: This is true but I think the location not just the newness will draw more fans. This is why I disagree somewhat. I think they will get more casual fans at the new location. Of course more will show when any team wins and this is especially true for Sox fans. Even when the Sox won the world series and we're good for a few years, they had trouble competing with the scrubs for attendance. I think the location will help some. There may be some truth to what you say, I can't disagree with that. The Cubs situation is very unique and runs counter to most of what makes sports, sports...it's about winning. That's because John McDonough (who grew up a Sox fan by the way) had the brilliant idea first started by William Wrigley to "promote" Wrigley Field instead of the team. "Have a great time in the sun regardless if the team is good or not..." Couple that with the timing of Superstation WGN which promoted the same idea nationally and the Cubs wound up literally getting 40% of their attendance for the year from outside Chicago and the Chicago area. Sox fans are more discrete when it comes to what is important to them by and large. That is winning first, second and third on the priority list. So the location could help some but long term that factor will play itself out of the team is bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 Having researched the history of this parcel as a river that moved was later used as a landfill, I had simply pointed out the obvious - that there will be major costs associated with excavating, filling and underpinning buildings and flat work there. Look at some of the historic pictures of the river there. Those costs could be prohibitive given the fact that the entire site was crossed North to South by the Chicago river and then filled in with who knows what. It could take years and millions of dollars to dig out the prior landfill, truck in solid fill, and drive pylons to support a stadium, a river wall, etc. once EPA approvals have been made and architectural and engineering plans have been approved. This seems like a no-go if the idea is to replace GRF by 2029. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: There may be some truth to what you say, I can't disagree with that. The Cubs situation is very unique and runs counter to most of what makes sports, sports...it's about winning. That's because John McDonough (who grew up a Sox fan by the way) had the brilliant idea first started by William Wrigley to "promote" Wrigley Field instead of the team. "Have a great time in the sun regardless if the team is good or not..." Couple that with the timing of Superstation WGN which promoted the same idea nationally and the Cubs wound up literally getting 40% of their attendance for the year from outside Chicago and the Chicago area. Sox fans are more discrete when it comes to what is important to them by and large. That is winning first, second and third on the priority list. So the location could help some but long term that factor will play itself out of the team is bad. Calling Sox fans discrete is an understatement. As we've seen though the team even under JR is up and down with success. Just 2 years ago they made the playoffs in consecutive years for the first time since WW2. How did that change the attendance? As I've said before with the scrubs in town, I'm not sure a new owner is going to come here and spend the team into debt every year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, tray said: Having researched the history of this parcel as a river that moved was later used as a landfill, I had simply pointed out the obvious - that there will be major costs associated with excavating, filling and underpinning buildings and flat work there. Look at some of the historic pictures of the river there. Those costs could be prohibitive given the fact that the entire site was crossed North to South by the Chicago river and then filled in with who knows what. It could take years and millions of dollars to dig out the prior landfill, truck in solid fill, and drive pylons to support a stadium, a river wall, etc. once EPA approvals have been made and architectural and engineering plans have been approved. This seems like a no-go if the idea is to replace GRF by 2029. I promise you if randos on a sports message board are thinking of this, this has been studied and understood for decades by all of the different people who have tried to revitalize this site since the 1960s. If it was completely unbuildable, or if it was so expensive/difficult that it wasn't economically feasible, no one would be talking about doing something there anymore. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 5 minutes ago, tray said: Having researched the history of this parcel as a river that moved was later used as a landfill, I had simply pointed out the obvious - that there will be major costs associated with excavating, filling and underpinning buildings and flat work there. Look at some of the historic pictures of the river there. Those costs could be prohibitive given the fact that the entire site was crossed North to South by the Chicago river and then filled in with who knows what. It could take years and millions of dollars to dig out the prior landfill, truck in solid fill, and drive pylons to support a stadium, a river wall, etc. once EPA approvals have been made and architectural and engineering plans have been approved. This seems like a no-go if the idea is to replace GRF by 2029. The building a support structure if needed it a good point. That would increase the build time if that is the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 8 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: That's because John McDonough (who grew up a Sox fan by the way) had the brilliant idea first started by William Wrigley to "promote" Wrigley Field instead of the team. The location has to be adjacent to Burnham Harbor somewhere with great views of the Lakefront if the Sox want to accomplish something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 8 minutes ago, tray said: Having researched the history of this parcel as a river that moved was later used as a landfill, I had simply pointed out the obvious - that there will be major costs associated with excavating, filling and underpinning buildings and flat work there. Look at some of the historic pictures of the river there. Those costs could be prohibitive given the fact that the entire site was crossed North to South by the Chicago river and then filled in with who knows what. It could take years and millions of dollars to dig out the prior landfill, truck in solid fill, and drive pylons to support a stadium, a river wall, etc. once EPA approvals have been made and architectural and engineering plans have been approved. This seems like a no-go if the idea is to replace GRF by 2029. What type of engineer are you tray? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I promise you if randos on a sports message board are thinking of this, this has been studied and understood for decades by all of the different people who have tried to revitalize this site since the 1960s. If it was completely unbuildable, or if it was so expensive/difficult that it wasn't economically feasible, no one would be talking about doing something there anymore. There are major reasons the site has not been developed since the river was moved....in 1929. The reason this rando brought it up here because no one else did. Time and costs for developing this site would be major considerations for the Sox if they want to make a move by 2029. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 minutes ago, ron883 said: What type of engineer are you tray? Builder who has been involved with land development, including sites in Chicago that had numerous soil issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I promise you if randos on a sports message board are thinking of this, this has been studied and understood for decades by all of the different people who have tried to revitalize this site since the 1960s. If it was completely unbuildable, or if it was so expensive/difficult that it wasn't economically feasible, no one would be talking about doing something there anymore. Nothing there is alarming from an environmental standpoint. Building on fill material next to a river won't take a stroke of engineering genius like he is describing. It's nothing that unusual. Soldier Field is built on fill material. That entire area used to be part of Lake Michigan. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3713.html Edited January 19 by ron883 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, ron883 said: Nothing there is alarming from an environmental standpoint. Building on fill material next to a river won't take a stroke of engineering genius like he is describing. It's nothing that unusual. Soldier Field is built on fill material. That entire area used to be part of Lake Michigan. http://www.encyclopedia.chicagohistory.org/pages/3713.html The reality is a large portion of what we consider downtown Chicago is built on fill, much of it from the Chicago fire and various destruction of undesirable neighborhoods in the 19th century. It hasn't stopped massive skyscrapers from going up on these places along areas like LSD and Michigan Ave. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleCoastBias Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: The reality is a large portion of what we consider downtown Chicago is built on fill, much of it from the Chicago fire and various destruction of undesirable neighborhoods in the 19th century. It hasn't stopped massive skyscrapers from going up on these places along areas like LSD and Michigan Ave. Coming from someone living in Boston, the entire city is built on fill. Fenway Park is in the Back Bay neighborhood - because that area was literally the back of the bay, underwater. The entire commercial district of Boston used to be water. This is achievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 27 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I promise you if randos on a sports message board are thinking of this, this has been studied and understood for decades by all of the different people who have tried to revitalize this site since the 1960s. If it was completely unbuildable, or if it was so expensive/difficult that it wasn't economically feasible, no one would be talking about doing something there anymore. Funny that the parcel north of Roosevelt and the parcel east of Clark were both completely viable. Ping Tom park and Chinatown Square to the south were both built on the same former rail yards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 13 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: The reality is a large portion of what we consider downtown Chicago is built on fill, much of it from the Chicago fire and various destruction of undesirable neighborhoods in the 19th century. It hasn't stopped massive skyscrapers from going up on these places along areas like LSD and Michigan Ave. Most of Steeterville and east Randolph sit on landfill. Last i checked the high-rises haven't fallen over yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 54 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: I promise you if randos on a sports message board are thinking of this, this has been studied and understood for decades by all of the different people who have tried to revitalize this site since the 1960s. If it was completely unbuildable, or if it was so expensive/difficult that it wasn't economically feasible, no one would be talking about doing something there anymore. I do think it's a contributing factor to why there hasn't been actual revitalization of that site, and it probably involves the fact that it will take some taxpayer support to do the remediation and renovation. You probably have had successive builders think "I can get the mayor to pay for this" and then you wind up with nothing happening because owners aren't always perfect at coming through with funds and the city isn't going to pay any part of it unless they're sure the development will be completed. The city doesn't want to pay to remediate the site and then have a developer start building then go bankrupt half way through. This might well make it that a sports stadium would be ideal for that site. A high rise complex developer or business developer has some risk. If you have an ideal plan with a reputable developer, all your funding lined up, and then the 2008 collapse happens, you can do everything right and still have your plan fall apart. On the other hand, if the city is partnering with a sports team to remediate and then build on the location, the sports team isn't likely to go bankrupt in the next 3-4 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 This has me tremendously excited. As excited as I've been since the start of the Covid year season. So, tell me, it seems like the perfect storm to get a half private, half public stadium built in an awesome setting -- why is it just now being talked about? Is this really viable? It sounds too good to be true, honestly. The Sox playing in an intimate, modern stadium in a neighborhood well served by transit with plenty of room for organic growth around the new park? Get it done! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 16 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: I do think it's a contributing factor to why there hasn't been actual revitalization of that site, and it probably involves the fact that it will take some taxpayer support to do the remediation and renovation. You probably have had successive builders think "I can get the mayor to pay for this" and then you wind up with nothing happening because owners aren't always perfect at coming through with funds and the city isn't going to pay any part of it unless they're sure the development will be completed. The city doesn't want to pay to remediate the site and then have a developer start building then go bankrupt half way through. This might well make it that a sports stadium would be ideal for that site. A high rise complex developer or business developer has some risk. If you have an ideal plan with a reputable developer, all your funding lined up, and then the 2008 collapse happens, you can do everything right and still have your plan fall apart. On the other hand, if the city is partnering with a sports team to remediate and then build on the location, the sports team isn't likely to go bankrupt in the next 3-4 years. In a weird sort of way I think the size of it is actually the thing working most against it. If it were a smaller area, there wouldn't be the grandioseness of each set of plans that comes up for this site. It's kind of like the old post office. Instead of just coming up with something, everyone is coming up with this insanely big plans, which by their nature are the hardest to get to the finish line. It was the same with Block 37 for decades as well. I think in a lot of ways a ballpark and village might be one of the easiest things to get over the finish line compared to something more complex plans of the last couple of decades. Hell I have walked past this site a million times when i worked in this area and thought how great it would have been as a ballpark vs a casino, or a highrise, or even an empty lot. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 51 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said: Coming from someone living in Boston, the entire city is built on fill. Fenway Park is in the Back Bay neighborhood - because that area was literally the back of the bay, underwater. The entire commercial district of Boston used to be water. This is achievable. It is the same with NYC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almagest Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 On 1/18/2024 at 2:36 PM, Texsox said: As an out of town Sox fan I love the idea that they would have a nice new stadium without expense. It's great for the team. I pay very little Illinois tax. Same. Build the most extravagant and awesome stadium possible so my yearly visits in the summer have something to really enjoy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 1 hour ago, ptatc said: This is true but I think the location not just the newness will draw more fans. This is why I disagree somewhat. I think they will get more casual fans at the new location. Of course more will show when any team wins and this is especially true for Sox fans. Even when the Sox won the world series and we're good for a few years, they had trouble competing with the scrubs for attendance. I think the location will help some. I agree, they will get many more northersiders and suburbanites who refuse to travel to 35th street plus a lot more out of towners to see a game as long as it’s real gem, something they see on TV and say to themselves, I want to see a game there. Whatever they build they have to do their homework and avoid the mistakes that were made in Comiskey II. Edited January 19 by The Mighty Mite Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 20 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: It is the same with NYC. Same with Seattle. Almost all of downtown used to be tidelands and they chopped like 150 feet off the "Denny Hill climb" and trucked all that dirt down to the bay in order to fill it in. Unless they are building a tunnel under the new stadium, I'd expect modern engineering to have no difficulties working around any fill issues under it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.