Sox looking at building in South Loop

[Sleepy Harold]

55 minutes ago, Sarava said:

I've long thought the Chicago suburbs are one of the most untapped fertile sports grounds in this country. All of our 'local' professional teams are deep in the city, which makes going to a game a large ordeal for most suburban fans. Particularly during the week. This all screams Arlington Park to me. The land is big enough for 2 stadiums, plus all the hotels, restaurants, bars, parking, etc. They can get the state to pitch in for infrastructure of one location. There's already a metra station there...

The Sox would be going so far away from their base I don't see how Arlington makes any sense for them. Would obviously have to shed any "Southside" persona/vibe/branding as well.

[fathom]

1 hour ago, Sleepy Harold said:

The Sox would be going so far away from their base I don't see how Arlington makes any sense for them. Would obviously have to shed any "Southside" persona/vibe/branding as well.

Give me Naperville or Tinley Park!!

[caulfield12]

6 minutes ago, fathom said:

Give me Naperville or Tinley Park!!

Village of Bedford Park

[77 Hitmen]

 

5 hours ago, WBWSF said:

I can't help but wonder  if the South Loop stadium doesn't happen. Will  one of the suburbs try to build a stadium for the White Sox.?  Rosemont wanted to build a stadium for the Cubs. I know that the Mayor of Rosemont is a White Sox fan and I know enough about Rosemont  to know that  they would build a stadium without alot of  trouble.

4 hours ago, Sarava said:

I've long thought the Chicago suburbs are one of the most untapped fertile sports grounds in this country. All of our 'local' professional teams are deep in the city, which makes going to a game a large ordeal for most suburban fans. Particularly during the week. This all screams Arlington Park to me. The land is big enough for 2 stadiums, plus all the hotels, restaurants, bars, parking, etc. They can get the state to pitch in for infrastructure of one location. There's already a metra station there...

Good God, just say NO to any idea of the Sox moving out to the suburbs.  That would be a total disaster and IMO , the team dodged a bullet when their site in Addison got rejected 30+ years ago.   And I say this as a suburbanite who loves the suburbs.

One of the big problems with GRF is that it's a ballpark surrounded by a sea of parking lots with nothing to do around it.  The solution to that isn't to move them to some suburb surrounded by parking lots and strip malls.  The last 30 years have shown a trend of MLB teams successfully moving closer to downtown near some night life.  The Braves are the only ones that did the opposite, but Chicago is NOT Atlanta (one of the most sprawled cities in America) plus the Braves have a big entertainment district around Truist Park.    

12 hours ago, fathom said:

The sad thing is I agree with him that the franchise needs to move away from 35th.  It has a horrible reputation for so many people in the suburbs.

 

3 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Also don’t give a rats ass about the feelings of White Flight suburbanites when it comes to attending White Sox games. The two most noted acts of criminal violence at Comiskey Park II, the fat flab gun shooter and criminal Ligue family, neither sentenced to even a second in jail, were criminals who slithered in from the suburbs. There is less crime in Bridgeport than there is in Wrigleyville or 2024 Downtown. Pearl clutching suburbanites are as safe or safer driving to and from 35th and Shields than they will be trying to trek down to Clark and Roosevelt.

I disagree that the problem with the current park is that suburbanites think the area is too dangerous.  That may have been true 30 years ago, but not today.  In fact, I think a lot of their fans ARE suburbanites who love being able to drive to the park because it's close to 2 expressways and is surrounded by parking lots.  

No, the problem is that people just aren't interested in making their way down to Bridgeport to see a game because there's really nothing else to do there.  That may have been fine a few decades ago, but times have changed and these days more and more people want something to do before and after a game. 

Edited February 28 by 77 Hitmen

[soxfan18]

Arlington would be a disaster. The Suburb Sox would ideally need to be in/around Oak Brook, accessible to 294, 290, 88, 55, & 355.  

Arlington will be fine for the Bears, with their STHs concentrated in the NW suburbs and fewer games. 

[Sleepy Harold]

1 hour ago, fathom said:

Give me Naperville or Tinley Park!!

Selfishly I wouldn't mind TP, that old mental hospital site is just sitting there looking spooky.

[fathom]

42 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

Selfishly I wouldn't mind TP, that old mental hospital site is just sitting there looking spooky.

Hog Wild Stadium

[Bob Sacamano]

49 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

Selfishly I wouldn't mind TP, that old mental hospital site is just sitting there looking spooky.

Literally walking distance from my condo haha

Edit: not that I will be there too much longer 

Edited February 28 by Bob Sacamano

[Lip Man 1]

Just wanted to put this out there. Mainstream media stories came out yesterday that the Chicago Red Stars of the women's pro soccer league said they now want to get a stadium built for them. One of the quotes in the story way "women deserve a seat at the table..."

[nitetrain8601]

16 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Just wanted to put this out there. Mainstream media stories came out yesterday that the Chicago Red Stars of the women's pro soccer league said they now want to get a stadium built for them. One of the quotes in the story way "women deserve a seat at the table..."

I don't think it will happen. They don't draw enough in Bridgeview. That stadium in Bridgeview is pretty nice overall. At best, they'll have to share a stadium. If they drew heavy, then yes, they would most definitely have a seat at the table. 

[southsider2k5]

15 minutes ago, nitetrain8601 said:

I don't think it will happen. They don't draw enough in Bridgeview. That stadium in Bridgeview is pretty nice overall. At best, they'll have to share a stadium. If they drew heavy, then yes, they would most definitely have a seat at the table. 

Can I interest you in a slightly used baseball stadium with plenty of parking?

[waltwilliams]

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

Good God, just say NO to any idea of the Sox moving out to the suburbs.  That would be a total disaster and IMO , the team dodged a bullet when their site in Addison got rejected 30+ years ago.   And I say this as a suburbanite who loves the suburbs.

One of the big problems with GRF is that it's a ballpark surrounded by a sea of parking lots with nothing to do around it.  The solution to that isn't to move them to some suburb surrounded by parking lots and strip malls.  The last 30 years have shown a trend of MLB teams successfully moving closer to downtown near some night life.  The Braves are the only ones that did the opposite, but Chicago is NOT Atlanta (one of the most sprawled cities in America) plus the Braves have a big entertainment district around Truist Park.    

 

I disagree that the problem with the current park is that suburbanites think the area is too dangerous.  That may have been true 30 years ago, but not today.  In fact, I think a lot of their fans ARE suburbanites who love being able to drive to the park because it's close to 2 expressways and is surrounded by parking lots.  

No, the problem is that people just aren't interested in making their way down to Bridgeport to see a game because there's really nothing else to do there.  That may have been fine a few decades ago, but times have changed and these days more and more people want something to do before and after a game. 

The real problem is that the team has been horrible for the past 15 years. At their current location, the Sox were the first team in the city to draw 2 million (in 1983 and 1984). And during the years of promise during and after the World Series championship from 2005 to 2011, they were averaging 2.5 million, which is reasonable for a team in the smallest of the two-team towns (not counting the Bay Area). 

People will continue to make their way to South Armour Square as long as the team is good. This is true of most teams, especially in the AL Central. If the team sucks, fans won't go -- if the team is good, especially for a number of years, then the fans will go.

 

[Dick Allen]

53 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Can I interest you in a slightly used baseball stadium with plenty of parking?

Cant make money and compete there. Maybe if the White Sox effort fails, Related will recruit them. I heard the U of I thing that is supposed to break ground at the 78 wants out really bad. I wonder if Related is at the point where they rue the day they bought it.

[Tnetennba]

6 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

The real problem is that the team has been horrible for the past 15 years. At their current location, the Sox were the first team in the city to draw 2 million (in 1983 and 1984). And during the years of promise during and after the World Series championship from 2005 to 2011, they were averaging 2.5 million, which is reasonable for a team in the smallest of the two-team towns (not counting the Bay Area). 

People will continue to make their way to South Armour Square as long as the team is good. This is true of most teams, especially in the AL Central. If the team sucks, fans won't go -- if the team is good, especially for a number of years, then the fans will go.

 

Which is what made JR's statements about not being able to survive at the current location disingenuous from the start. If he cared to put a winning product on the field regularly, hired competent baseball ops people, and did not meddle (cough cough TLR), they could easily average 2.5+ million fans year on end. Moving 2 miles north might draw more tourists and casual fans, but the reason they don't draw well on 35th street has way more to do with the team and those in charge than location.

[Balta1701]

12 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Which is what made JR's statements about not being able to survive at the current location disingenuous from the start. If he cared to put a winning product on the field regularly, hired competent baseball ops people, and did not meddle (cough cough TLR), they could easily average 2.5+ million fans year on end. Moving 2 miles north might draw more tourists and casual fans, but the reason they don't draw well on 35th street has way more to do with the team and those in charge than location.

Having been elsewhere around the league, the US Cellular Field Ballpark experience really doesn't measure up to other spots.

Some of that is the neighborhood and lack of things to do around the park. Some of that is the lack of walkable options or good transit options. A good amount of that is the park structure, the upper deck is legitimately still not pleasant, even if chopping 10 rows away from it helped somewhat. There is nothing visually that interesting about it, it's too cookie cutter. 

This is absolutely a factor in how it draws.

[waltwilliams]

5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Having been elsewhere around the league, the US Cellular Field Ballpark experience really doesn't measure up to other spots.

Some of that is the neighborhood and lack of things to do around the park. Some of that is the lack of walkable options or good transit options. A good amount of that is the park structure, the upper deck is legitimately still not pleasant, even if chopping 10 rows away from it helped somewhat. There is nothing visually that interesting about it, it's too cookie cutter. 

This is absolutely a factor in how it draws.

Yeah, but have you ever been to Dodger Stadium? There is literally nothing except parking lots around Chavez Ravine, and the downtown LA  area that is close to Dodger Stadium is pretty sketchy. Yet they lead both leagues in attendance year after year. Or Yankee Stadium -- the South Bronx is better now than it was 30 years (like a South Side stadium we all know and love), but would you want to hang out there after a game? Nope. Yet they are the top AL draw year after year. Citi Field in Queens, same thing. Yet the second team in NYC still consistently draws over 2.5 million.

Sox Park may have its issues (the terrible initial suburban design of the park before the 2003 remodeling, of course, being the main problem). But it's still the best stadium for transit in the city by far, what with two L lines and a Metra station near it, and an expressway literally adjacent to it. 

 

[Kyyle23]

3 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

Yeah, but have you ever been to Dodger Stadium? There is literally nothing except parking lots around Chavez Ravine, and the downtown LA  area that is close to Dodger Stadium is pretty sketchy. Yet they lead both leagues in attendance year after year. Or Yankee Stadium -- the South Bronx is better now than it was 30 years (like a South Side stadium we all know and love), but would you want to hang out there after a game? Nope. Yet they are the top AL draw year after year. Citi Field in Queens, same thing. Yet the second team in NYC still consistently draws over 2.5 million.

Sox Park may have its issues (the terrible initial suburban design of the park before the 2003 remodeling, of course, being the main problem). But it's still the best stadium for transit in the city by far, what with two L lines and a Metra station near it, and an expressway literally adjacent to it. 

 

They lead the league in attendance because they spend on their team and they are really good and have been for a long time.  The Sox have not done this and are terrible.  

[Iwritecode]

5 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

Yeah, but have you ever been to Dodger Stadium? There is literally nothing except parking lots around Chavez Ravine, and the downtown LA  area that is close to Dodger Stadium is pretty sketchy. Yet they lead both leagues in attendance year after year. Or Yankee Stadium -- the South Bronx is better now than it was 30 years (like a South Side stadium we all know and love), but would you want to hang out there after a game? Nope. Yet they are the top AL draw year after year. Citi Field in Queens, same thing. Yet the second team in NYC still consistently draws over 2.5 million.

You can have a good team and crappy stadium or a crappy team and a good stadium and still draw well either way.

But you can't have both be crappy and expect to have good attendance.

Edited February 28 by Iwritecode

[77 Hitmen]

2 hours ago, waltwilliams said:

The real problem is that the team has been horrible for the past 15 years. At their current location, the Sox were the first team in the city to draw 2 million (in 1983 and 1984). And during the years of promise during and after the World Series championship from 2005 to 2011, they were averaging 2.5 million, which is reasonable for a team in the smallest of the two-team towns (not counting the Bay Area). 

People will continue to make their way to South Armour Square as long as the team is good. This is true of most teams, especially in the AL Central. If the team sucks, fans won't go -- if the team is good, especially for a number of years, then the fans will go.

 

Well, I agree that the current location is certainly better than any suburban option.  It would be as if they took one of the main negatives about the GRF location and then moved the team out to some suburban oasis where it would be much worse. 

If the South Loop effort dies, then their best option is to stay at 35th St and push for another round of renovations IMO.  It has great transit options as you said.   Arlington Heights, Naperville, or Tinley Park would be a terrible place for them to relocate to although they are all wonderful places to live.

 

1 hour ago, waltwilliams said:

Yeah, but have you ever been to Dodger Stadium? There is literally nothing except parking lots around Chavez Ravine, and the downtown LA  area that is close to Dodger Stadium is pretty sketchy. Yet they lead both leagues in attendance year after year. Or Yankee Stadium -- the South Bronx is better now than it was 30 years (like a South Side stadium we all know and love), but would you want to hang out there after a game? Nope. Yet they are the top AL draw year after year. Citi Field in Queens, same thing. Yet the second team in NYC still consistently draws over 2.5 million.

Sox Park may have its issues (the terrible initial suburban design of the park before the 2003 remodeling, of course, being the main problem). But it's still the best stadium for transit in the city by far, what with two L lines and a Metra station near it, and an expressway literally adjacent to it. 

 

The NY and LA metro area populations are about double the size of Chicago metro and can easily support 2 teams in all four major American sports.

As far as the Mets go, Cohen is planning to spend $8B to develop parking lots around Citi Field.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-mets-owner-steve-cohen-announces-8b-plan-to-develop-area-around-citi-field-in-queens/4840197/

Edited February 28 by 77 Hitmen

[NO!!MARY!!!]

4 hours ago, waltwilliams said:

The real problem is that the team has been horrible for the past 15 years. At their current location, the Sox were the first team in the city to draw 2 million (in 1983 and 1984). And during the years of promise during and after the World Series championship from 2005 to 2011, they were averaging 2.5 million, which is reasonable for a team in the smallest of the two-team towns (not counting the Bay Area). 

People will continue to make their way to South Armour Square as long as the team is good. This is true of most teams, especially in the AL Central. If the team sucks, fans won't go -- if the team is good, especially for a number of years, then the fans will go.

 

Will they though? Attendance peaked in 2006 and declined, to the point where they were in 1st place through nearly all of 2012 before pulling their mini-1964 Phillies, and they failed to draw 2 million. 

Edited February 28 by NO!!MARY!!!

[southsider2k5]

3 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Well, I agree that the current location is certainly better than any suburban option.  It would be as if they took one of the main negatives about the GRF location and then moved the team out to some suburban oasis where it would be much worse. 

If the South Loop effort dies, then their best option is to stay at 35th St and push for another round of renovations IMO.  It has great transit options as you said.   Arlington Heights, Naperville, or Tinley Park would be a terrible place for them to relocate to although they are all wonderful places to live.

 

The NY and LA metro area populations are about double the size of Chicago metro and can easily support 2 teams in all four major American sports.

As far as the Mets go, Cohen is planning to spend $8B to develop parking lots around Citi Field.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-mets-owner-steve-cohen-announces-8b-plan-to-develop-area-around-citi-field-in-queens/4840197/

Honestly the best place in the US to start another team would be the NY/NJ market. Even if you divided it up by 3 or even 4 teams it would still be bigger than pretty much any other team market.

[Dick Allen]

If they had to pick between the Sox and Bears, good chance the Bears win. A dome could bring Super Bowls, Final Fours etc. That’s new money, not just local money being spent  elsewhere.

[fathom]

Spiegs on the radio today said he has connected sources that say Sox and Bears are working closely.  They didn’t rule out Sox and Bears having a location in Arlington Heights.   Won’t happen I’m sure, but it was entertaining hearing Parkins get upset about it.

[Eminor3rd]

On on hand:

1. It IS a bad stadium. It had the unfortunate timing of being designed and built just a few years before the entire paradigm for ballparks shifted. I'm not sure how much blame I'm willing to lay on them for not being the visionaries that actually made the paradigm shift. Pre-1994 was very different than post-1994, as far as how the game was marketed to and consumed by fans. Given the precedents we observe around the league since it was built, I think you can make a compelling objective case that the White Sox are due for a new facility.

However:

2. The fact that it is a bad stadium has next to NOTHING to do with how "competitive" the Sox have been or can be, both on the field or as a business in general. It is easily accessible for the overwhelming majority of anyone who would want to get to it. Every time the Sox have randomly stumbled into being successful, even for the fleetingly brief amounts of time they've managed it, their attendance and media coverage have grown quickly to the levels you would expect. If the honeymoon period after the 2005 Series didn't last as long as it should have, it was pretty clearly correlated with the swift slide back into their typical cycle failure, defined not just by a lack of direction but the stupefyingly frustrating process of shooting themselves in the foot in ways so obvious that every fan can see it coming like a slow-motion car accident. Jerry Reinsdorf and his all-time crew of clowns have reaped precisely what they have sown, and that is a record of incompetence so reliably consistent that it is not an exaggeration to suggest that a random number generator would have led to more success.

It is both true that (1) any new ownership group would consider a new facility to be a crucial part of its strategy upon purchasing the team and that (2) the reason that a new facility would be so "necessary" has way more to do with the Reinsdorf's bumbling mismanagement of the franchise than it has to do with any of the stadium's weaknesses. In the counterfactual world where the White Sox were as successful as even an average team since 1992, GRF would probably not be named GRF, would have been renovated substantially more than it has to date, and could 30 years down the road to building a reputation as a beloved community landmark like, I don't know, Wrigley Field.

Edited February 29 by Eminor3rd

[Tnetennba]

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Having been elsewhere around the league, the US Cellular Field Ballpark experience really doesn't measure up to other spots.

Some of that is the neighborhood and lack of things to do around the park. Some of that is the lack of walkable options or good transit options. A good amount of that is the park structure, the upper deck is legitimately still not pleasant, even if chopping 10 rows away from it helped somewhat. There is nothing visually that interesting about it, it's too cookie cutter. 

This is absolutely a factor in how it draws.

Ballpark experiences as we know them are a newer phenomenon, and yes it is a major factor in how fans consume the game now, but its not as if the Sox haven't drawn well on 35th street in the past. GRF has its issues, but we'll never know if a park experience would work because they've never tried. Another feather in JR's bad owner cap. My point is that Sox fans show up when the team is good. Being consistently good is something JR has never had as a top priority. A shiny new ballpark near downtown won't solve all of their attendance issues if they don't win. I'm pro South Loop park and believe it can be a shot in the arm for the future health of the franchise, but ultimately its lipstick on a pig if ownership continues to operate the way they have for the past 40+ years.