Iwritecode Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 (edited) 17 minutes ago, greg775 said: I keep up on the city. I haven't been to a game in a few years but the last one I went to had an attendance of over 30,000. All those people I saw walking to the green line stop after the game must've been figments of my imagination... Edited October 21 by Iwritecode 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 28 minutes ago, greg775 said: Nobody in suburbia is taking the train downtown and then the El to get to a Cub game. Or 'hardly anybody.' Cub fans have been doing it for five decades. Sox fans absolutely will. Many take the Rock Island line that goes straight to the game. And honestly, that Metra line goes right by where the proposed stadium would be so there would likely be a stop added. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NO!!MARY!!! Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 21 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: I'd rather have a great team and shitty views of Chicago myself. There's a concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 hour ago, Iwritecode said: I haven't been to a game in a few years but the last one I went to had an attendance of over 30,000. All those people I saw walking to the green line stop after the game must've been figments of my imagination... If I happen to be heading home from downtown around game time I intentionally take the Orange Line as to avoid Sox crowds on the Red and Green. Sox fans take transit, news at 11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 1 hour ago, greg775 said: Many family members still live in Chicago and the suburbs. Also friends still live there. I keep up on the city. You guys tell me how many Sox fans from suburbia regularly take public transportation to the Sox games. That'd have to be a train from Lisle/Naperville let's say to downtown then play the El game. Not appealing in a day and age where people want their fun to happen Now and fast. And they don't want to add so much more time to their trip into Chicago. Someone hasn't driven in Chicagoland in a while, and it shows. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted October 21 Share Posted October 21 3 hours ago, greg775 said: Nobody in suburbia is taking the train downtown and then the El to get to a Cub game. Or 'hardly anybody.' Cub fans have been doing it for five decades. You are so, so wrong. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 6 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said: You are so, so wrong. Well if it's true u can take the train to the new site, if u are all right mabe the suburbans will board the train. However those trains don't run back to suburbia all nite do they? That would be annoying have to take an uber that far back home. Prolly 60 bucks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 (edited) I wish Reinsdorf and/or the ISFA would fund an architectural study for a new Comiskey near the site of the original park. Many of the errors made at GRate could be avoided. Red brick, arched windows and other elements from the original architecture could be employed. Home plate facing North. Beachers in LF (only without without a scoreboard behind them obstructing the view of downtown like the rendering of the 78). An upper deck in RF that would be lower and closer to the playing field. And of course, developing the adjacent area with some commercial and residential. No issues with parking or public transit. It's already there. Same goes for all the utilities - sanitary and public sewer. 3 phase power, etc. Soil is good - not part of a former river bed. Why try to pursue Related 78....a project that is far more expensive, entails much more financial risk and risk to the fan base? Why? Related keeps pushing and pushing. They just duked the sodfather to put a sand lot there and dragged Reinsdorf down to Springfield to look for free money. At the end of the day, there could be other options for a new stadium than the one (the 78) being shoved at us. And no, I am not talking about moving the team. I am talking about keeping them where they have been for over 100 years. Edited October 22 by tray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 Tray, it’s not happening. No matter how hard you wish on soxtalk dot com. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Grinder Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 On 10/20/2024 at 6:47 PM, Lip Man 1 said: I'd rather have a great team and shitty views of Chicago myself. My fan experience is quite simple. Just win the f****** game. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 (edited) 5 hours ago, greg775 said: Well if it's true u can take the train to the new site, if u are all right mabe the suburbans will board the train. However those trains don't run back to suburbia all nite do they? That would be annoying have to take an uber that far back home. Prolly 60 bucks. So the Rock Island line runs parallel to the site, so I would have to imagine that they'd build a direct stop at the 78 site if everything moves forward. Currently they have about one train per hour post 7pm (heading back to the burbs, last one leaves after midnight) and used to utilize an additional train 30 mins after conclusion of the game, but I'm not sure if that still happens. Edited October 22 by Sleepy Harold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleCoastBias Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 1 hour ago, tray said: I wish Reinsdorf and/or the ISFA would fund an architectural study for a new Comiskey near the site of the original park. Many of the errors made at GRate could be avoided. Red brick, arched windows and other elements from the original architecture could be employed. Home plate facing North. Beachers in LF (only without without a scoreboard behind them obstructing the view of downtown like the rendering of the 78). An upper deck in RF that would be lower and closer to the playing field. And of course, developing the adjacent area with some commercial and residential. No issues with parking or public transit. It's already there. Same goes for all the utilities - sanitary and public sewer. 3 phase power, etc. Soil is good - not part of a former river bed. Setting aside everything else that has transpired in this thread the last few days and just taking your suggestion at face value, an upper deck in RF in a stadium facing north would be an AWFUL idea. Who wants to get torched by the sun with absolutely no reprieve, even when it's setting and directly in your eyes? Philadelphia has that in an otherwise great park. They sell those seats because they have a winning program and can actually sell out, but they're the worst part of that park. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 7 hours ago, greg775 said: Well if it's true u can take the train to the new site, if u are all right mabe the suburbans will board the train. However those trains don't run back to suburbia all nite do they? That would be annoying have to take an uber that far back home. Prolly 60 bucks. The 78 is roughly 2.5 miles straight north of GRF. The same Metra line that stops on 35th runs parallel to the parcel of land being discussed. Clark & Roosevelt is also much closer to Union Station, Ogilvie, and the Metra Electric and South Shore lines. Not to mention the same CTA lines that stop on 35th also stop at State & Roosevelt, with the addition of the Orange Line. And the Clark, State, Archer, Roosevelt, 16th/18th, #146, King Drive, and Cottage Grove bus routes all servicing the same 2-3 block area. For someone who claims to keep up with the city, you sure don't seem to understand the basic geography of the city and how much more accessible the 78 would be versus Armour Square park... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 Related dragged Jerry down to Springfield to beg for money. Sure Sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 (edited) Yes Kyle, I think the 78 plan is a joke and I don't mind explaining and advancing my opinion, even in the face of opposing views. Meanwhile...Don't assume MOST Sox fans from SW suburbs will put their families on mass transit. Some will, many others probably won't based on security and other practical concerns. That is going to potentially decrease attendance....substantially. If you are young and single, or have not attended many games, you may not understand that. IMO, the rendering of the 78 stadium is an architectural/ballpark design joke. And who designed it? Related employees? That mainly metal and glass stadium is supposed to compete for revenue with the historic Wrigley field? LOL. The garish 4 story lit up Sox logo? LOL. The gratuitous pinwheels? The scoreboard obstructing views of downtown? The 78 plan to build commercial hi rises surrounding that park diminishes the opportunity to even consider incompatible architecture. That is why the 78 stadium rendering looks like an office building. 78 is only a bit more than 2 miles from Armor Park (and has similar views of downtown) so what is the major reason one would consider abandoning the White Sox home for over 100 years? I'm asking. Is it worth abandoning Armour Park, all the surrounding land, the infrastructure, and indeed all the history the White Sox have had with their fans on 35th street? Never forget, the 78 started as an idea by a developer who experienced multiple failed attempts at reaching some agreement to get an anchor tenant (including Amazon). Now, the ISFA, Chicago and Illinois taxpayers, and Sox ownership (current or future), should tell Related to stick it. Sox fans should not allow themselves to be sold down the river by some greedy real estate people...and we know their type. Edited October 22 by tray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 4 minutes ago, tray said: Yes Kyle, I think the 78 plan is a joke and I don't mind explaining and advancing my opinion, even in the face of opposing views. Meanwhile...Don't assume MOST Sox fans from SW suburbs will put their families on mass transit. Some will, many others probably won't based on security and other practical concerns. That is going to potentially decrease attendance....substantially. If you are young and single, or have not attended many games, you may not understand that. IMO, the rendering of the 78 stadium is an architectural/ballpark design joke. And who designed it? Related employees? That mainly metal and glass stadium is supposed to compete for revenue with the historic Wrigley field? LOL. The garish 4 story lit up Sox logo? LOL. The gratuitous pinwheels? The scoreboard obstructing views of downtown? The 78 plane to build commercial hi rises surround that park diminishes the opportunity to even consider incompatible architecture. That is why the 78 stadium rendering looks like an office building. 78 is only a bit more than 2 miles from Armor Park (and has similar views of downtown) so what is the major reason one would consider abandoning the White Sox home for over 100 years? I'm asking. Is it worth abandoning Armour Park, all the surrounding land, the infrastructure, and indeed all the history the White Sox have had with their fans on 35th street? Never forget, the 78 started as an idea by a developer who experienced multiple failed attempts at reaching some agreement to get an anchor tenant (including Amazon). Now, the ISFA, Chicago and Illinois taxpayers, and Sox ownership (current or future), should tell Related to stick it. Sox fans should not allow themselves to be sold down the river by some greedy real estate people...and I know their type. Yes 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 Psst, Jerry is a greedy real estate person... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 Armour Square park. Armour with a u. But a Martha's Vineyard resident wouldn't necessarily know that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrittBurnsFan Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 1 hour ago, tray said: Yes Kyle, I think the 78 plan is a joke and I don't mind explaining and advancing my opinion, even in the face of opposing views. Meanwhile...Don't assume MOST Sox fans from SW suburbs will put their families on mass transit. Some will, many others probably won't based on security and other practical concerns. That is going to potentially decrease attendance....substantially. If you are young and single, or have not attended many games, you may not understand that. IMO, the rendering of the 78 stadium is an architectural/ballpark design joke. And who designed it? Related employees? That mainly metal and glass stadium is supposed to compete for revenue with the historic Wrigley field? LOL. The garish 4 story lit up Sox logo? LOL. The gratuitous pinwheels? The scoreboard obstructing views of downtown? The 78 plan to build commercial hi rises surrounding that park diminishes the opportunity to even consider incompatible architecture. That is why the 78 stadium rendering looks like an office building. 78 is only a bit more than 2 miles from Armor Park (and has similar views of downtown) so what is the major reason one would consider abandoning the White Sox home for over 100 years? I'm asking. Is it worth abandoning Armour Park, all the surrounding land, the infrastructure, and indeed all the history the White Sox have had with their fans on 35th street? Never forget, the 78 started as an idea by a developer who experienced multiple failed attempts at reaching some agreement to get an anchor tenant (including Amazon). Now, the ISFA, Chicago and Illinois taxpayers, and Sox ownership (current or future), should tell Related to stick it. Sox fans should not allow themselves to be sold down the river by some greedy real estate people...and we know their type. Sad but real...the ONLY emotional/business connection that many White Sox fans have to the Bridgeport neighorborhood is the ballpark. That is it. I wonder what the percentage is of people attending a ballgame at the Rate who spend a dollar outside of the parking lot/ballpark? I love walking down to Grandstand and supporting that business. But even for me that is the extent of me "bringing business" to the neighborhood. I personally hope the 78 gets built...outside of going to White Sox games my favorite ballpark to visit is in San Diego! My first reaction to the renderings of the proposed ballpark made me think it could be like that! Padres games (as well as before and after the games) are fun (although they also have a fun team to watch). Just my opinion...once Comiskey was torn down my deeply emotional connection to the area was changed...Comiskey still pops up in my dreams occasionally! Not trying to dump on the neighborhood...I would love to live in a community like that and would feel safe there and proud of it. Just thinking that the 78 represents an opportunity for the White Sox to own baseball in Chicago as the thing to do...if they do it right! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 10 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Psst, Jerry is a greedy real estate person... This. The guy has made almost all his money on real estate deals. The GRF deal completely fleeced the state and taxpayers but…from a business perspective, it was pure genius. He’s trying to do it again. Hint…so are the Bears. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 8 hours ago, tray said: I wish Reinsdorf and/or the ISFA would fund an architectural study for a new Comiskey near the site of the original park. Many of the errors made at GRate could be avoided. Red brick, arched windows and other elements from the original architecture could be employed. Home plate facing North. Beachers in LF (only without without a scoreboard behind them obstructing the view of downtown like the rendering of the 78). An upper deck in RF that would be lower and closer to the playing field. And of course, developing the adjacent area with some commercial and residential. No issues with parking or public transit. It's already there. Same goes for all the utilities - sanitary and public sewer. 3 phase power, etc. Soil is good - not part of a former river bed. Why try to pursue Related 78....a project that is far more expensive, entails much more financial risk and risk to the fan base? Why? Related keeps pushing and pushing. They just duked the sodfather to put a sand lot there and dragged Reinsdorf down to Springfield to look for free money. At the end of the day, there could be other options for a new stadium than the one (the 78) being shoved at us. And no, I am not talking about moving the team. I am talking about keeping them where they have been for over 100 years. Red brick is too expensive. Not in the budget. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 On any given weekend Cubs game, there are busses lined up on Irving Park road waiting to take fans back to the suburbs. If suburban Cubs fans can handle taking their kids on a bus full of other fans to Wrigley and walking a few blocks, there is no reason Sox fans can't do the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 23 hours ago, Iwritecode said: I haven't been to a game in a few years but the last one I went to had an attendance of over 30,000. All those people I saw walking to the green line stop after the game must've been figments of my imagination... The CTA is night and day since COVID. Ridership has plummeted and the increase in violent crime is statistically significant. There is a well-researched positive correlation between ridership and crime. The system would probably be fine if people decided to ride it again, yet you have to convince people that it's safe and they should ride. A Catch-22 situation. People talk about Chicago today like we should be making a comparison between 2024 and 1990. The city is markedly different now than it was in 2015. I'm the sort of person who traditionally would ride CTA all night, that is no longer the case. I'm taking a cab if I'm out after a certain hour. I frankly won't even stay downtown after a certain hour. By the way, I like the CTA, I applied to be an intern there once upon a time. They are in trouble. They want to be real estate developers now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 Look at all of that delicious parking right across the river that could easily be contracted for games. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 22 Share Posted October 22 1 hour ago, BrittBurnsFan said: Sad but real...the ONLY emotional/business connection that many White Sox fans have to the Bridgeport neighorborhood is the ballpark. That is it. I wonder what the percentage is of people attending a ballgame at the Rate who spend a dollar outside of the parking lot/ballpark? I love walking down to Grandstand and supporting that business. But even for me that is the extent of me "bringing business" to the neighborhood. Aside from parking, I don't think I or my family ever spent a dollar in that area outside of the ballpark. I went to that on-site bar they opened once. I knew of nothing to do there, you get off the highway, follow the signs, park, give Reinsdorf the parking fee, then leave. You eat somewhere else and you don't spend time there afterwards, or beforehand unless you bring stuff with to tailgate. Our normal setup growing up was to stop at the McDonalds at the Skyway oasis for dinner and met dad there coming out of the city. When I lived in Pittsburgh, I took the bus in, had dinner before every game, took photos on the bridge, usually stopped at the bar across the street, might have stopped at a bar or shop on the way home. Spent probably $100 more every time and was happy to do so. 4 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.