CWSpalehoseCWS Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 hours ago, Snopek said: Look, I’m 1000000% in favor of the South Loop move… …But… I don’t get why we keep trying to lump all Sox fans into the same category. Some fans would absolutely prefer to drive to games, park and tailgate. Some fans will absolutely not give a s%*# that there are more bars around the stadium. The complaining about the complaining and the telling people why they should like something is getting more annoying than the initial complaining. Like, who fucking cares? Different people want different things. Couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately it’s 2024 and every talking point must become an extreme black and white argument where the person who shouts the loudest is correct. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 4 hours ago, Tnetennba said: Did fans tailgate at Old Comiskey? It’s a newer Comiskey II phenomenon, yes? Mccuddy’s was before my time, but old timers still lament its loss. Seems fans adjusted to what was available to them pre game. They will adjust to whatever the new park has to offer. It’s not a hard concept. Parking was an enormous issue. Private parking lots scattered down 35th St., Shields etc, with guys (open packing) waving to get people in and taking cash only. Other fans would park on surrounding streets causing many issues throughout the neighborhood. Tailgating has been a great and growing phenomenon since Comiskey opened. My guess is that the 78 concept will be rejected, at least in its current form (where the site appears to be overcrowded and over-developed with questionable vehicular access including for the surrounding business and residential (or whatever those objects are). I hope equal effort and exposure be given to another alternative, but not likely with Related pimping this plan and getting so much media coverage right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 1 minute ago, tray said: Parking was an enormous issue. Private parking lots scattered down 35th St., Shields etc, with guys (open packing) waving to get people in and taking cash only. Other fans would park on surrounding streets causing many issues throughout the neighborhood. Tailgating has been a great and growing phenomenon since Comiskey opened. My guess is that the 78 concept will be rejected, at least in its current form (where the site appears to be overcrowded and over-developed with questionable vehicular access including for the surrounding business and residential (or whatever those objects are). I hope equal effort and exposure be given to another alternative, but not likely with Related pimping this plan and getting so much media coverage right now. Just out of curiosity, how many games did you go to last year? Or the year before? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 If the Sox could recreate something like the neighborhood around Yankee Stadium that would be amazing. Not so much "tail gating" as just a massive bar and vendor scene centered around the park. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurtCG Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: If the Sox could recreate something like the neighborhood around Yankee Stadium that would be amazing. Not so much "tail gating" as just a massive bar and vendor scene centered around the park. So basically Wrigleyville South? Do the Sox have that kind of cache? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 Just now, LittleHurtCG said: So basically Wrigleyville South? Do the Sox have that kind of cache? Vibe is a bit different in the Bronx but yea similar. I'm not sure the Sox have that kind of cache but it wouldn't hurt to try and build it up organically, slowly, over time. Having that public transit close is key, as people will still be around on days the games aren't and will stop and grab a beer or something on the way somewhere else and talk to their bartender about the team or whatever. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 I would guess the CTU pension fund will be hit up pretty aggressively for this project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleHurtCG Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 16 minutes ago, bmags said: I would guess the CTU pension fund will be hit up pretty aggressively for this project. I'm getting my popcorn ready for when JR has to go down to City Hall and explain why the City giving him hundreds of millions of dollars is a good deal for the average Chicago resident. The CTU has Brandon Johnson in their back pocket and the people who elected BJ are not the type to favor government handouts to billioniares. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted February 9 Share Posted February 9 2 hours ago, LittleHurtCG said: So basically Wrigleyville South? Do the Sox have that kind of cache? We won't know unless they try. Which they've never tried to do. Wrigleyville wasn't always the destination it is now. Same could be said for the South Loop. Moving a few miles north really is an opportunity for the White Sox to reinvent themselves in this city. I truly believe that if the Sox do it right, people will come, die hard fans and tourists alike. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 hour ago, Tnetennba said: We won't know unless they try. Which they've never tried to do. Wrigleyville wasn't always the destination it is now. Same could be said for the South Loop. Moving a few miles north really is an opportunity for the White Sox to reinvent themselves in this city. I truly believe that if the Sox do it right, people will come, die hard fans and tourists alike. I would hate to hear the word Wrigley south of Madison St. Bridgeport is a big yawn where teams go to die. The new location changes everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 3 hours ago, LittleHurtCG said: I'm getting my popcorn ready for when JR has to go down to City Hall and explain why the City giving him hundreds of millions of dollars is a good deal for the average Chicago resident. The CTU has Brandon Johnson in their back pocket and the people who elected BJ are not the type to favor government handouts to billioniares. The CTU pension fund is not a government handout, it is the investment vehicle for all the funds the teachers pay into. Pensions invest in a variety of places including real estate, and was already being recruited to invest in the Lincoln Yards project. Your popcorn won't be paired with something very interesting, basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) On 1/17/2024 at 8:58 PM, KennyPowers said: This is Related Midwest pivoting after they lost the casino bid. A stadium makes sense for their entertainment district. https://www.78chicago.com/entertainment-district Exactly. This is the second or third development proposed/hyped by Related for that site. GRF allows Sox fans to experience most of the park as long as they do not have 500 level seats, and most do not. It looks like there are 3-4 levels on one side and what looks like restaurants or private boxes in the outfield, No brick and ivy, palladian arches or any other classic baseball stadium architecture - that for an original mlb franchise that has been at another location for over 100 years. I suppose the design of cold steel and glass was necessitated to fit into surrounding building architecture - so OK, Mies van der Rohe on baseball steroids. Modernism / minimalism but I suspect that many baseball fans prefer more traditional parks. Would tourists rather go to that cold steel and glass place than Wrigley? No.. I hear the company that makes Windex likes it though. Edited February 10 by tray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Look at Ray Ray Run Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 11 hours ago, Snopek said: Look, I’m 1000000% in favor of the South Loop move… …But… I don’t get why we keep trying to lump all Sox fans into the same category. Some fans would absolutely prefer to drive to games, park and tailgate. Some fans will absolutely not give a s%*# that there are more bars around the stadium. The complaining about the complaining and the telling people why they should like something is getting more annoying than the initial complaining. Like, who fucking cares? Different people want different things. Wait, they're banning driving to games? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 3 minutes ago, tray said: Exactly. This is the second or third development proposed/hyped by Related for that site. GRF allows Sox fans to experience most of the park as long as they do not have 500 level seats, and most do not. It looks like there are 3-4 levels on one side and what looks like restaurants or private boxes in the outfield, No brick and ivy, palladian arches or any other classic baseball stadium architecture - that for an original mlb franchise that has been at another location for over 100 years. I suppose the design of cold steel and glass was necessitated to fit into surrounding building architecture - so OK, Mies van der Rohe on baseball steroids. Modernism / minimalism but I suspect that many baseball fans prefer more traditional parks. Would tourists would rather go to that cold steel and glass place than Wrigley? No.. I hear the company that makes Windex likes it though. Literally zero real white Sox fans want bricks and ivy in their ballpark. None. No white Sox fan would ever suggest it. You can count this as an accusation because the very notion is offensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 minute ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said: Wait, they're banning driving to games? Literally no on-site parking for a South Loop location that has not been safe to walk especially at night. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Literally zero real white Sox fans want bricks and ivy in their ballpark. None. No white Sox fan would ever suggest it. You can count this as an accusation because the very notion is offensive. Absurd. It's a baseball park, not an office building. Edited February 10 by tray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 2 minutes ago, tray said: Literally no on-site parking for a South Loop location that has not been safe to walk especially at night. Literally a 4000 car garage? How many Cubbie colored cars do you own, Cub fan? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
South Side Hit Men Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 1 minute ago, tray said: Exactly. This is the second or third development proposed/hyped by Related for that site. GRF allows Sox fans to experience most of the park as long as they do not have 500 level seats, and most do not. It looks like there are 3-4 levels on one side and what looks like restaurants or private boxes in the outfield, No brick and ivy, palladian arches or any other classic baseball stadium architecture - that for an original mlb franchise that has been at another location for over 100 years. I suppose the design of cold steel and glass was necessitated to fit into surrounding building architecture - so OK, Mies van der Rohe on baseball steroids. Modernism / minimalism but I suspect but many baseball fans prefer more traditional parks. Would tourists would rather go to that cold steel and glass place than Wrigley? No.. I hear the company that makes Windex likes it though. What if they build a Wrigley Field replica and plop it into Ukrainian Village to trick DC into paying for it. Chicago declares eminent domain to connect Jerry’s UC and Sox properties. All land between Division, Ashland, the Eisenhower and Western. Hand CTU currently within the parcel new land elsewhere, perhaps Logan Square. Jerry might crack $200M payroll if the stars align. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 9 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Literally zero real white Sox fans want bricks and ivy in their ballpark. None. No white Sox fan would ever suggest it. You can count this as an accusation because the very notion is offensive. While Tray is in lunar orbit on this one, Comiskey had it's brick facade before Wrigley and Bill Veeck planted Wrigley's Ivy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 11 minutes ago, tray said: Literally no on-site parking for a South Loop location that has not been safe to walk especially at night. Worse than the area around the park now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: While Tray is in lunar orbit on this one, Comiskey had it's brick facade before Wrigley and Bill Veeck planted Wrigley's Ivy. And it’s theirs. Keep that crappy plant out of my ballpark. Not negotiable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: And it’s theirs. Keep that crappy plant out of my ballpark. Not negotiable. It's not realistic anyway. It's 2024. Brick building is way more expensive then traditional ones these day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: It's not realistic anyway. It's 2024. Brick building is way more expensive then traditional ones these day. I’m not going to be angry about a brick facade, San Francisco has one and they’re excellent. I won’t mind a few arches somewhere, PNC park has some on its outside. But no one really cares about this part, they care more about those parks integrating with the cities and the surrounding neighborhood. That along with the wonderful in park experiences and views are why those are excellent parks. None of those things would make the Rate a tolerable experience even if there was a ton of them. No one is coming to a white sox game to see 1920s architecture, that’s available elsewhere. People will come to the Sox park if it is an excellent park to go to. And no ivy for gods sake. You ought as well put a basket on the fence and proclaim it’s an original idea. White Sox fans should not even type that out, “we need more ivy in the next white Sox park” is a sentence that offends me, no white Sox fan would ever think that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted February 10 Author Share Posted February 10 1 minute ago, Balta1701 said: I’m not going to be angry about a brick facade, San Francisco has one and they’re excellent. I won’t mind a few arches somewhere, PNC park has some on its outside. But no one really cares about this part, they care more about those parks integrating with the cities and the surrounding neighborhood. That along with the wonderful in park experiences and views are why those are excellent parks. None of those things would make the Rate a tolerable experience even if there was a ton of them. No one is coming to a white sox game to see 1920s architecture, that’s available elsewhere. People will come to the Sox park if it is an excellent park to go to. And no ivy for gods sake. You ought as well put a basket on the fence and proclaim it’s an original idea. White Sox fans should not even type that out, “we need more ivy in the next white Sox park” is a sentence that offends me, no white Sox fan would ever think that. You could have just quit with "No one is going to a White Sox game" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 10 Share Posted February 10 3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: You could have just quit with "No one is going to a White Sox game" “If you build it, they will come.” 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.