Sox looking at building in South Loop

[southsider2k5]

2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Obviously very possible, but I think his legacy immediately becomes leaving boatloads of wealth to generations of future Reinsdorfs and he will likely take the best deal financially and not someone aligned with views & approach.

Maybe if the offers were anywhere close that comes into play.  Honestly, my gut feeling is he already has the successor chosen as well as a plan for the sale.  Again, I could be 100% wrong, but it feels like my impression of the last 44 years.

[JoeC]

Who owns the land on and around the current ballpark (namely the parking lots)? All owned by the state?

[Lip Man 1]

30 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Maybe if the offers were anywhere close that comes into play.  Honestly, my gut feeling is he already has the successor chosen as well as a plan for the sale.  Again, I could be 100% wrong, but it feels like my impression of the last 44 years.

That's an interesting observation and it may be possible. I'm pretty sure he has things mapped out when he's gone and has already made some public statements to that effect (i.e. Sell the Sox, keep the Bulls) but I don't know about the successor part.

So much can change things in a year, or a month. From what little I've been told along these lines the thinking is it won't be a single individual but more likely a corporation.  

[Dick Allen]

15 minutes ago, JoeC said:

Who owns the land on and around the current ballpark (namely the parking lots)? All owned by the state?

Yes. There were rumors JR owned the land where the parking lots are located, but he doesn’t. He just gets 100% of the parking money.

[JoeC]

10 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Yes. There were rumors JR owned the land where the parking lots are located, but he doesn’t. He just gets 100% of the parking money.

I would imagine a large part of any stadium deal is that the state gets to sell off the (far larger tracts) of land to developers, or to cater to the suburbanites who are just looking to come to tailgate as their primary activity.

[Sleepy Harold]

4 hours ago, ron883 said:

Not new, but would like to see these 1967-1969 era jerseys more. I'm sick of the 1983 jerseys 

Make these entirely out of denim and I'm sold. Denim Night at GRate would be epic

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, JoeC said:

Who owns the land on and around the current ballpark (namely the parking lots)? All owned by the state?

I believe ISFA owns the lots. I see state troopers occasionally use Lot G during the offseason, but they mostly sit empty on non game days.

44 minutes ago, JoeC said:

I would imagine a large part of any stadium deal is that the state gets to sell off the (far larger tracts) of land to developers, or to cater to the suburbanites who are just looking to come to tailgate as their primary activity.

I saw mention that the Fire could use GRF if and when the Sox vacate. If that happens, I'd image lots B and D remain and the rest are sold to developers. It is still a usable ballpark that seems to be in good shape, I can't imagine it would simply be razed if the Sox move.

[tray]

12 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said:

Building at the 78 makes the most sense and I’m not sure how anyone could argue otherwise unless they value ease of parking & tailgating above all else.

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever  board public transportation in Chicago.

How does building at the 78 make the most sense ?  You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here. 

 

[Chicago White Sox]

9 minutes ago, tray said:

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever  board public transportation in Chicago.

How does building at the 78 make the most sense ?  You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here. 

 

It makes more sense because more people will want to go to the awesome new stadium in the awesome location filled with lots of stuff to do.  And the idea that Sox fans won’t use public transit is absurd.  Regardless, I can assure that Sox have thought through all this and don’t think it’s a problem.

[caulfield12]

Here's the response to Tray.

For once, be visionaries/leaders.  Set a trend instead of following them.

 

There is an unlikely tale about the brilliant Renaissance artist Michelangelo. He was asked about the difficulties that he must have encountered in sculpting his masterpiece David. But he replied with an unassuming and comical description of his creative process:

It is easy. You just chip away the stone that doesn’t look like David.

I have heard a similar anecdote about an unnamed artist asked about sculpting an elephant:

Just chip away everything that doesn’t look like an elephant.

[Chick Mercedes]

22 minutes ago, tray said:

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever  board public transportation in Chicago.

How does building at the 78 make the most sense ?  You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here. 

 

Sox fans hate buses and trains. That’s a shame. Place will be empty 

 

You’re right. We haven’t seen renderings yet, so obviously it’s going to be a fan-unfriendly dump. 

Edited January 31 by Chick Mercedes

[Balta1701]

2 hours ago, Chick Mercedes said:

Why was Jerry able to do this, and not Kevin Warren? This question is not being asked, but for Bears fans, inquiring minds want to know. This has the potential to upend the new Bears Chief

This is a valid question, but it is probably worth thinking that a modern domed football stadium has a much larger footprint than a modern baseball stadium. Google Maps estimates this area to be about 1000 feet across - wide enough for a baseball stadium but it's gonna get sorta packed when you start putting stuff in alongside. Soldier Field itself would fit in here, but it would be tight along the edges, and a modern football stadium is something that typically spreads out as you add more seats. They also host larger crowds, but much more infrequently, which makes the match for land in the middle of the city more difficult - larger parking demands, but stuff that sits unused most of the time.

A good, domed, modern football stadium that sits in the suburbs but on a highway and with some transit access is much more sensible than a football stadium in a spot like this. A baseball stadium brings in way more people total and will drive way more local business to the area.

[southsider2k5]

13 minutes ago, Chick Mercedes said:

Sox fans hate buses and trains. That’s a shame. Place will be empty 

 

You’re right. We haven’t seen renderings yet, so obviously it’s going to be a fan-unfriendly dump. 

Apparently only Cub fans can handle public transit.

[ron883]

50 minutes ago, tray said:

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever  board public transportation in Chicago.

How does building at the 78 make the most sense ?  You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here. 

 

Keep killing the environment, jackass

[JoeC]

2 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

I believe ISFA owns the lots. I see state troopers occasionally use Lot G during the offseason, but they mostly sit empty on non game days.

I saw mention that the Fire could use GRF if and when the Sox vacate. If that happens, I'd image lots B and D remain and the rest are sold to developers. It is still a usable ballpark that seems to be in good shape, I can't imagine it would simply be razed if the Sox move.

Ah i forgot about the Fire bit.

[GREEDY]

This is the ultimate Jerry carrot dangle

[Rowand44]

2 hours ago, tray said:

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever  board public transportation in Chicago.

How does building at the 78 make the most sense ?  You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here. 

 

Stop trying to speak for “Sox fans.”  Quite literally every other Sox fan in this thread is telling you you’re wrong so hey maybe you’re fuckin wrong.

[soxfan18]

5 hours ago, Chick Mercedes said:

Why was Jerry able to do this, and not Kevin Warren? This question is not being asked, but for Bears fans, inquiring minds want to know. This has the potential to upend the new Bears Chief

 

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

This is a valid question, but it is probably worth thinking that a modern domed football stadium has a much larger footprint than a modern baseball stadium. Google Maps estimates this area to be about 1000 feet across - wide enough for a baseball stadium but it's gonna get sorta packed when you start putting stuff in alongside. Soldier Field itself would fit in here, but it would be tight along the edges, and a modern football stadium is something that typically spreads out as you add more seats. They also host larger crowds, but much more infrequently, which makes the match for land in the middle of the city more difficult - larger parking demands, but stuff that sits unused most of the time.

A good, domed, modern football stadium that sits in the suburbs but on a highway and with some transit access is much more sensible than a football stadium in a spot like this. A baseball stadium brings in way more people total and will drive way more local business to the area.

My hunch is Related approached the Sox with these points very much at the forefront. A ballpark will drive over 2 million visitors annually to the site. That's far more than the ~700,000 who would attend Bears games. 

And of those 2+ million, there's far more unique visitors who are more likely to spend time/money elsewhere in the development, vs. the average Bears attendee who is more likely to be a repeat visitor (STHs make up 60-70% of Bears ticket sales) with a regular tailgating routine. 

EDIT: The other thing I forgot to mention is the Bears want to be in the suburbs. Their season ticket base is primarily out there and they want to replicate the Dallas or New England model of owning all the parking & business in the area. The 78, as big as it is, wouldn't allow for the expansive parking they need. 

Edited January 31 by soxfan18

[pcq]

11 hours ago, Jake said:

With regard to public funding, I am generally very skeptical of giving these rich guys handouts. So far we haven't heard anything too egregious about the proposed 78 deal so we'll see on that.

But as a general thought...I'm not a fan of unilateral disarmament either. I don't need the Sox to be the one team who ends up with a shitty ballpark because they didn't get public help. The Sox can be the team who got a shitty ballpark with public help (joking, maybe)

Public help will be infrastructure and pollution remediation. Many of us will be at the cemetery when The 78 opens. 

[WhiteSox2023]

3 hours ago, tray said:

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever  board public transportation in Chicago.

How does building at the 78 make the most sense ?  You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here. 

 

So you don’t think that a new park accessible by three different color/route CTA trains rather than just one, along with two Metra stations via boat taxi would not perhaps increase the number of Sox fans that would commute to the new ballpark location?

Also, what is a picture of the 78 site right now supposed to show anyone?  What a barren undeveloped site looks like before the work is done?

You have been proven wrong on this topic so many times with each post that you have made on it from the beginning.  First, you said it was never going to happen due to soil and foundation issues, yet multiple news articles came out adding some serious steam to this being a real possibility.  There are also rumors that JR is much further along with this plan than you would apparently want to believe.  The mayor has commented on it.  Manfred has commented on it.

Now you have changed your tune again to saying a ballpark in the location just doesn’t make any sense to happen for your own weak and biased reasons (parking and tailgating).

Read the tea leaves for cripes sake.  Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Edited January 31 by WhiteSox2023

[Lip Man 1]

4 minutes ago, soxfan18 said:

 

My hunch is Related approached the Sox with these points very much at the forefront. A ballpark will drive over 2 million visitors annually to the site. That's far more than the ~700,000 who would attend Bears games. 

And of those 2+ million, there's far more unique visitors who are more likely to spend time/money elsewhere in the development, vs. the average Bears attendee who is more likely to be a repeat visitor (STHs make up 60-70% of Bears ticket sales) with a regular tailgating routine. 

Normally I'd say you are right, I mean it makes sense logically but I remember seeing a book that came out basically examining the premise that these new sports stadiums increase business, bring in millions of dollars in income, visitors et al.

The book basically said that notion was a farce and usually doesn't happen...so I don't know what to think along the lines you comment on.   

[soxfan18]

 

12 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Normally I'd say you are right, I mean it makes sense logically but I remember seeing a book that came out basically examining the premise that these new sports stadiums increase business, bring in millions of dollars in income, visitors et al.

The book basically said that notion was a farce and usually doesn't happen...so I don't know what to think along the lines you comment on.   

Ah yes, the mysterious book that came out. ?

Look at The Battery in Atlanta, Ballpark Village in STL, Xfinity Live in Philly...are those districts not successful? 

[Balta1701]

47 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Normally I'd say you are right, I mean it makes sense logically but I remember seeing a book that came out basically examining the premise that these new sports stadiums increase business, bring in millions of dollars in income, visitors et al.

The book basically said that notion was a farce and usually doesn't happen...so I don't know what to think along the lines you comment on.   

They do to some extent, but in most cases it doesn't offset what is spent building it, so government buying the whole thing is a bad investment.

That remains true at this site, but this site has something else different from almost all these cases - this is a truly blighted, undeveloped property right at the heart of the city. The benefits here of turning this into something as opposed to a negative on the city, and the long term benefits of making this land developed and back in the tax base, when it's currently not generating anything at all, should be significantly higher than the funds you make by building a new ballpark on the outskirts of a city. This has some serious additional benefits as an urban renewal project.

I can think of very few ballpark projects that statement applies to - maybe Pittsburgh, Cleveland since they're right downtown and walkable, but even then the land wasn't just blighted like this spot is, for Pittsburgh there were buildings on the site that eventually led into the parking lots for the old stadium. Here there is nothing and realistically no prospect of anything unless something major is put there to drive the development project.

[Sleepy Harold]

4 hours ago, tray said:

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever  board public transportation in Chicago.

How does building at the 78 make the most sense ?  You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here. 

 

You keep saying this and it's simply just not true. I've taken public transportation numerous times to games (both L and Metra) and especially coming from the south burbs the Metra is more often than not packed with fans going to the same place. 

[Tnetennba]

Funny that if I’m headed back to my neighborhood from downtown in the late afternoon before a Sox game I go out of my way to avoid the Red Line because it’s always jammed with Sox fans, gasp, taking public transit to a Sox game. Funny how evidence works.