fathom Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Pal said: I see the media who covers the Sox are carrying serious water for the Sox today. All of them. My question for you is why shouldn’t they be excited? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Anyone, including myself, coming from the southside or Indiana is going to see their commute go up by 10-15 minutes. Guess what, this is still a huge net positive. Yep, there was always going to have to be a portion of the fan base that got the short end of the stick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirmin' for Yermin Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 11 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Anyone, including myself, coming from the southside or Indiana is going to see their commute go up by 10-15 minutes. Guess what, this is still a huge net positive. Worth it, my Michigan City compadre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2Jimmy0 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 1 hour ago, Pal said: I see the media who covers the Sox are carrying serious water for the Sox today. All of them. Huh? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 4 minutes ago, fathom said: Yep, there was always going to have to be a portion of the fan base that got the short end of the stick. And a lot of others who will lose that time in their commute. Also of note, I could actually easily take a train to the game, where I never could in the past. The electric line stops at Roosevelt and Michigan. The walk wouldn't be any longer than the walk from some of the Sox remote lots is currently. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Yup.. the increase in time to get to the new site isn't significant. I live near the new site and if I jump on an el or take an uber, I can get there door to door in 10 minutes or less most of the time. Here's another thing. I imagine a ton of Sox fans live along the orange line route. I had a paralegal who worked for me and she would go to like 10-15 games a year with her family and friends and roll like 25 deep each time. People like that are going to be able to easily jump on the train instead of being forced to drive. The only thing this park wont have is the tailgating, which essentially became popular because there was nothing else to do near the current park. If you gave Cub fans the choice of wrigleyville or tailgating, do you think they'd prefer tailgating? Last time I went to get drinks after a game I was just standing on the sidewalk outside of Turtles/Cork and it was pathetic. We ended up just taking an uber to Weathermark Tavern, which is kind of near the new site. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 57 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Anyone, including myself, coming from the southside or Indiana is going to see their commute go up by 10-15 minutes. Guess what, this is still a huge net positive. I'm walking distance from GRF and I'm freaking ecstatic! I'm not upset in the least that I'll have to hop on the L to go to games again. The positives outweigh everything else IMO. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 Some interesting comments from a top politician: https://chicago.suntimes.com/fran-spielman-show/2024/2/8/24066502/new-white-sox-stadium-the-78-related-midwest-state-funding-plan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 8 Share Posted February 8 55 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said: Yup.. the increase in time to get to the new site isn't significant. I live near the new site and if I jump on an el or take an uber, I can get there door to door in 10 minutes or less most of the time. Here's another thing. I imagine a ton of Sox fans live along the orange line route. I had a paralegal who worked for me and she would go to like 10-15 games a year with her family and friends and roll like 25 deep each time. People like that are going to be able to easily jump on the train instead of being forced to drive. The only thing this park wont have is the tailgating, which essentially became popular because there was nothing else to do near the current park. If you gave Cub fans the choice of wrigleyville or tailgating, do you think they'd prefer tailgating? Last time I went to get drinks after a game I was just standing on the sidewalk outside of Turtles/Cork and it was pathetic. We ended up just taking an uber to Weathermark Tavern, which is kind of near the new site. LMAO I have to say I’ll kinda miss just grabbing two tall boys at that state street Walgreens after work and drinking them at the edge of the parking lot before heading inside. Like drinking in an alley, it has its charms. But also everything else is better. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 8 Author Share Posted February 8 15 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: Some interesting comments from a top politician: https://chicago.suntimes.com/fran-spielman-show/2024/2/8/24066502/new-white-sox-stadium-the-78-related-midwest-state-funding-plan See, the scary $50 million is gone before a new stadium would be open. The Bears on the other end owe a fuckton more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoUEvenShift Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I haven't seen this posted yet, but for those worried about parking apparently they have a 4,000 car parking garage planned. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/sports/white-sox-stadium-plans-78-revealed-architect-renderings 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 8 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said: I haven't seen this posted yet, but for those worried about parking apparently they have a 4,000 car parking garage planned. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/sports/white-sox-stadium-plans-78-revealed-architect-renderings Yeah, I kind of had a hard time believing that they’d do this level of planning and forget that people in American cities drive cars. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 24 minutes ago, JoeC said: Yeah, I kind of had a hard time believing that they’d do this level of planning and forget that people in American cities drive cars. I just assumed there'd be some significant amount of parking associated with the businesses on site. I'd be driving in to use whatever hotel they build on the site for a few days and a hotel is going to require some amount of parking access. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 hours ago, fathom said: My question for you is why shouldn’t they be excited? Honestly amazing hearing and reading some of these takes. Especially with the proposed project in it's entirety, the population density within a mile of the ball park is going to go up 2-3 times. The location is great, they're going to be in the heart of sky scrapers closeish to the lake and and on the river. Some people were crying about no roof? Why would you want a roof to block the view? It's one of the coolest parts of the proposal. I actually didn't hate CF either because it looked open to people across the way at restaurants or condos (whatever it was) and walking by in some parts it looked like. Obviously these designs more conceptual, but the entire thing is organization changing. And while I don't like Jerry as much as the next guy as an owner. This is in his wheel house, and it really could be a win for the city with the major development in that area which they've wanted to develop forever. Only reason I'm hesitant to believe anything is going to actually happen (even though it feels like this is literally the ONLY plan and they seem pretty far along honestly) is because we're Sox fans and we really can't have nice things usually. 6 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Virtually every good idea that is depicted in that conceptual 78 drawing can be bested by a new park at the site of the original Comiskey park. I have mentioned some of those. There are enormous practical and financial advantages of building across the street on 35th Street. As far as any plan that substantially diminishes the enormous parking lot capacity and the revenue generated from it, that would be a large gamble. Tailgating? Sox and Bear fans have loved tailgating for generations. Why pay a premium for drinks and beer inside the park or at a restaurant or bar prior to game ? It is a blast to meet up friends in the park lots, grill your own food and enjoy your own drinks. The 78 plan eliminates that entirely. Hanging at bars late night after weekday games is a Wrigleyville thing. The Sox fan base that attend night games is largely different. Many of us live in far West/SW even NW suburbs or NW Indiana, and bring our sons/daughters to games in cars. Most of us will never sacrifice security for our families to ride mass transit into the City. I don't care how much is spent on armed security and who pays for it. And if we arrive early we have to take everyone into a bar or restaurant ( adding to the cost of the outing) or wait in long lines at the gate? The depiction of this 78 plan is understandably devoid of detail, including scale/dimensions, parking, pedestrian and vehicular access routes and specificity regarding the use/scale of surrounding buildings. While GRF has many things that are lacking, it does have a few attributes that are often taken for granted and if replaced, should be considered in any new plan. One that I like is the ability of everyone to seek shelter from rain under the stands in wide corridors. Also, one can walk all around the stadium or hang out at a very large outfield concourse where there is a large food court and many rest rooms (although never enough men's rooms). Any development company can requisition impressive artistic renderings which are often out of scale and contain unrealistic details in an effort to woo banks, financiers, potential tenants, etc. to buy in. This would not be the first one that this Related development company and their predecessors have done over the last few decades. I'm not buying in. Having said that, I'm not entirely against Area 78 primarily because, as noted in this thread, many, mostly younger Sox fans would welcome it. Trust me....I get it.. out with the old, in with the new. I just think it is the wrong way to go, just like did when JR, Einhorn and Savarise approved a ridiculous looking new park covered with awful brown dryvit , a steep upper deck, powder blue seats, and white erector set metal truss work. I hated it. Based on my own professional and life experiences, and my history as a Sox fan, I am more inclined to stop and think about every possible alternative rather than jumping aboard any proposal let alone one made by an overly aggressive development company under artificial deadlines and veiled threats about moving team. Often patience yields some of life's best rewards. I can envision a great new Sox park on the site of the original Comiskey...one that incorporates the best ideas of the original Comiskey and Wrigley fields and avoids most of the mistakes caused by greed, oversight, and failure to incorporate good ideas by architects and the fan base. Instead what I see here is old rectangular shaped vacant lot with any number of inherent issues with a new stadium shoehorned in while maximizing the remaining space for mainly unRelated commercial development. 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 If the Sox are using the ISFA as funding authority I would suggest JR needs to step up and pay off the GRF loan. Otherwise we don't want to hear about it and he should be embarrassed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Our grandchildren are going to enjoy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 hour ago, tray said: Virtually every good idea that is depicted in that conceptual 78 drawing can be bested by a new park at the site of the original Comiskey park. I have mentioned some of those. There are enormous practical and financial advantages of building across the street on 35th Street. As far as any plan that substantially diminishes the enormous parking lot capacity and the revenue generated from it, that would be a large gamble. Tailgating? Sox and Bear fans have loved tailgating for generations. Why pay a premium for drinks and beer inside the park or at a restaurant or bar prior to game ? It is a blast to meet up friends in the park lots, grill your own food and enjoy your own drinks. The 78 plan eliminates that entirely. Hanging at bars late night after weekday games is a Wrigleyville thing. The Sox fan base that attend night games is largely different. Many of us live in far West/SW even NW suburbs or NW Indiana, and bring our sons/daughters to games in cars. Most of us will never sacrifice security for our families to ride mass transit into the City. I don't care how much is spent on armed security and who pays for it. And if we arrive early we have to take everyone into a bar or restaurant ( adding to the cost of the outing) or wait in long lines at the gate? The depiction of this 78 plan is understandably devoid of detail, including scale/dimensions, parking, pedestrian and vehicular access routes and specificity regarding the use/scale of surrounding buildings. While GRF has many things that are lacking, it does have a few attributes that are often taken for granted and if replaced, should be considered in any new plan. One that I like is the ability of everyone to seek shelter from rain under the stands in wide corridors. Also, one can walk all around the stadium or hang out at a very large outfield concourse where there is a large food court and many rest rooms (although never enough men's rooms). Any development company can requisition impressive artistic renderings which are often out of scale and contain unrealistic details in an effort to woo banks, financiers, potential tenants, etc. to buy in. This would not be the first one that this Related development company and their predecessors have done over the last few decades. I'm not buying in. Having said that, I'm not entirely against Area 78 primarily because, as noted in this thread, many, mostly younger Sox fans would welcome it. Trust me....I get it.. out with the old, in with the new. I just think it is the wrong way to go, just like did when JR, Einhorn and Savarise approved a ridiculous looking new park covered with awful brown dryvit , a steep upper deck, powder blue seats, and white erector set metal truss work. I hated it. Based on my own professional and life experiences, and my history as a Sox fan, I am more inclined to stop and think about every possible alternative rather than jumping aboard any proposal let alone one made by an overly aggressive development company under artificial deadlines and veiled threats about moving team. Often patience yields some of life's best rewards. I can envision a great new Sox park on the site of the original Comiskey...one that incorporates the best ideas of the original Comiskey and Wrigley fields and avoids most of the mistakes caused by greed, oversight, and failure to incorporate good ideas by architects and the fan base. Instead what I see here is old rectangular shaped vacant lot with any number of inherent issues with a new stadium shoehorned in while maximizing the remaining space for mainly unRelated commercial development. If you have a shitty org run by your drinking buddies a new park isn't going to fix anything. GRF is fine but the new plan sounds exciting. Let's see where it goes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoUEvenShift Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) I saw this writeup and thought it was worth sharing. Lots of stuff I didn't know about Related Reality, what has already been secured in terms of funding, and most importantly why it makes sense financially for the Sox to do this. Edited February 9 by DoUEvenShift 3 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Just for the “lost revenue with no parking lot stuff”… 1) Jerry may still own those lots for the proposed Chicago fire stadium. 2) I encourage you to look at the Braces Holdings earnings reports. Their Battery Park mixed use development is on track to earn $60M in revenue against maybe $10M in costs. What did someone say, Sox have like 7k lots? If they filled every spot every home game at $20 a pop that’s only like $11M before paying any staff/maintenance. The reason many of us believe this will happen is because it will make people money. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 13 hours ago, DoUEvenShift said: I haven't seen this posted yet, but for those worried about parking apparently they have a 4,000 car parking garage planned. https://www.chicagobusiness.com/sports/white-sox-stadium-plans-78-revealed-architect-renderings What Would @tray Say (WWtS)? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) 11 hours ago, pcq said: Our grandchildren are going to enjoy it. Not sure if you are just being sarcastic and think it won’t happen or will be delayed but it doesn’t take that long to build a stadium these days. Globe Life Field was built in less than 30 months and has a retractable roof. https://www.mlb.com/rangers/ballpark/facts-figures#:~:text=The official groundbreaking for Globe,in less than 30 months. Quote The official groundbreaking for Globe Life Field took place on September 28, 2017 with construction being completed in less than 30 months. Edited February 9 by WhiteSox2023 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baseball_gal_aly Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 It seems like the majority of Sox fans are excited about this possibility, but there is a part of the fanbase that will always complain about everything. Whining and stomping around about parking at a stadium that hasn't been built and throwing fits about the thought of maybe using public transportation is wild. Let's see what happens if and when the stadium is built before throwing our hands in the air and saying the team just move to Nashville. Sorry, I'm being hyperbolic. But I swear some people would complain about the taxes if they were given a million dollars. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 (edited) The one thing 35th is never going to provide is the best view of downtown and a way to incorporate a water/boat entry to the park. Just feels pointless to keep pushing for a successful project at the site connected with one of the bigger baseball stadium failures in the last 30 years or so. I'm not even sure which stadium to rank as second worst since 1990. If it's any...it's the Tropicana, which would have ended up as the cursed site of the White Sox had they actually moved there. They would already be gone from that market, too, had JR retained control of the team. Edited February 9 by caulfield12 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.