Sox looking at building in South Loop

[nrockway]

On 8/30/2024 at 7:58 PM, Texsox said:

We should remember that all sorts of incentives are given to "greedy mega developers" every day by local, regional, state, and federal governments. It all happens under the banner of economic development. 

With the revenue structure in baseball these stadiums are really just TV studios for an unscripted reality show. 

I think public investment in sports is generally a good one. We just never actually get anything in return. Foot the bill, reap none of the profits. 

Which is to say, I wish the public perspective on this was “yeah we’ll pay for it but we’re keeping all the revenue”. That clashes with the billionaire governor’s sense of right and wrong though, limiting the exploitive power of the billionaire and empowering the public. Fundamentally sport is a public good, a public good that prints money and doesn’t belong in the hands of the private sector. 

[Iwritecode]

16 hours ago, greg775 said:

Is there any space for parking at the new park's location? Where actually is the park? For instance let's say you were driving from northeast naperville to the new park? How do u get there? Would there be much traffic?

 

Information found here

[DFAthewave69420]

On 8/30/2024 at 6:33 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

The Sox and Related Midwest have constructed a temporary baseball diamond at The 78 where they want to build a new ballpark.  This won't magically get them public funding, but I have to say that I like that view of the skyline from there.  If the Sox want to privately finance a new stadium there, I'm all for it.  

https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/08/30/the78-white-sox-stadium-related-midwest

I have a direct source to this project.  There are numerous construction obstacles people do not know about that are in the way of breaking ground.  Long ways away from coming about but it could happen. 

[Dick Allen]

People who will be driving to games won't know what hit them on Roosevelt and Clark if this gets built.

[Tnetennba]

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

People who will be driving to games won't know what hit them on Roosevelt and Clark if this gets built.

The Cubs seem to do just fine without massive parking lots by Wrigley. It seems as if there are feasible alternatives to driving to a baseball game, even in our own city...

[Dick Allen]

11 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

The Cubs seem to do just fine without massive parking lots by Wrigley. It seems as if there are feasible alternatives to driving to a baseball game, even in our own city...

Cubs fan are used to it. They have never had parking around Wrigley. It will be a complaint just like the current upper deck which is no higher than any other upper deck of parks built the last 50 or 60 years. Fans were shocked, and it's still an issue. Parking and traffic by the park, something the Dan Ryan has offset pretty well, will be a big issue. I'm with the hope JR builds it with his money crowd. 

[Dick Allen]

11 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

The Cubs seem to do just fine without massive parking lots by Wrigley. It seems as if there are feasible alternatives to driving to a baseball game, even in our own city...

Cubs fan are used to it. They have never had parking around Wrigley. It will be a complaint just like the current upper deck which is no higher than any other upper deck of parks built the last 50 or 60 years. Fans were shocked, and it's still an issue. Parking and traffic by the park, something the Dan Ryan has offset pretty well, will be a big issue. I'm with the hope JR builds it with his money crowd. 

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Cubs fan are used to it. They have never had parking around Wrigley. It will be a complaint just like the current upper deck which is no higher than any other upper deck of parks built the last 50 or 60 years. Fans were shocked, and it's still an issue. Parking and traffic by the park, something the Dan Ryan has offset pretty well, will be a big issue. I'm with the hope JR builds it with his money crowd. 

The idea that Cub fans can figure out public transit, but Sox fans can't, continues to be absurd.

[NO!!MARY!!!]

On 9/4/2024 at 12:06 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

Now that you mention it, even if Jerry goes ahead with building a stadium with private funding, my concern is that he'll mess up the design just like he did with New Comiskey.  He reportedly had an active role in the design of the current park - rejected a Camden Yards-like design, pushed the upper deck even higher to get another row of luxury boxes below it, etc.  The park quickly ended up looking stale and generic and the ISFA had to spend millions to fix some of the mistakes after only about 10 years.  

Somehow, he'd find a way to squeeze any charm and character out of a new ballpark if given another chance at a new park.  You just know he would because that's what he does with anything related to the White Sox.  

I’m of the opinion that he could build the most throwbackiest park in all of sports and it will be criticized and condemned. For proof, look how the Rate is still treated even after repeated improvements.

They could build an exact replica of old Comiskey minus the posts and the reaction will be “why did they replicate such a charmless, soulless factory?” 

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

The idea that Cub fans can figure out public transit, but Sox fans can't, continues to be absurd.

This

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

Cubs fan are used to it. They have never had parking around Wrigley. It will be a complaint just like the current upper deck which is no higher than any other upper deck of parks built the last 50 or 60 years. Fans were shocked, and it's still an issue. Parking and traffic by the park, something the Dan Ryan has offset pretty well, will be a big issue. I'm with the hope JR builds it with his money crowd. 

https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/cubs/documents/maps/Wrigley_Field_Parking_Map.pdf

The Cubs have parking, it's just not blocks and blocks of empty wasteland surrounding the ballpark. The White Sox parking model is so outdated, and there are ways to accommodate drivers without razing whole neighborhoods. There is ample parking just across the river from the 78, it's not like satellite parking is an impossibility in this town...

[ewokpelts]

19 hours ago, nrockway said:

I think public investment in sports is generally a good one. We just never actually get anything in return. Foot the bill, reap none of the profits. 

Which is to say, I wish the public perspective on this was “yeah we’ll pay for it but we’re keeping all the revenue”. That clashes with the billionaire governor’s sense of right and wrong though, limiting the exploitive power of the billionaire and empowering the public. Fundamentally sport is a public good, a public good that prints money and doesn’t belong in the hands of the private sector. 

hi jerry

[ewokpelts]

On 9/4/2024 at 11:06 AM, 77 Hitmen said:

Now that you mention it, even if Jerry goes ahead with building a stadium with private funding, my concern is that he'll mess up the design just like he did with New Comiskey.  He reportedly had an active role in the design of the current park - rejected a Camden Yards-like design, pushed the upper deck even higher to get another row of luxury boxes below it, etc.  The park quickly ended up looking stale and generic and the ISFA had to spend millions to fix some of the mistakes after only about 10 years.  

Somehow, he'd find a way to squeeze any charm and character out of a new ballpark if given another chance at a new park.  You just know he would because that's what he does with anything related to the White Sox.  

the oriole park thing is a myth. the sox COULDN'T build a stadium below grade(street level). the city of Chicago refused to add infrastructure costs to their budget. and the state already slashed the budget earlier. the sox were told to build at street level, which is why the upper deck seems higher.

 

the united center was private property and a smaller footprint. and they were building on mostly parking lots. that's why the UC seating bowl goes below grade.

[ewokpelts]

On 8/30/2024 at 11:25 PM, Rusty said:

I still believe all of this is a ruse to get the state to renew the insanely favorable GRF lease terms exactly as currently written.  Maybe even try to twist their arm into a couple more concessions.  

it would be in the best interest to renew as is if you're the sox. low rent, state covers most of the maintenance, sox get reimbursed when they pay for stuff, renovations and additions are built in to the contract, ect.

i've advocated they push to extend the lease, and use naming rights money to fund the next wave of improvements. the GR deal ends in 2029/2030 and pays about 2.3 million a year.  the marlins get 10 million a year from loan depot. i think a 15 year deal at $10 million a year coupled with a 15 year lease extension is very doable.

[ewokpelts]

On 8/30/2024 at 11:53 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

That's true.  The KC Chiefs got their stadium renovations voted down and they've won 3 Super Bowls in the last 5 years.  But, just like the way he runs his baseball team, Jerry thinks it's still 1991.  He's totally out of touch on both.   

Jerry and the Wirtz family have apparently managed to come up with $7B in private financing to redevelop the parking lots around the UC.   But he can only come up with $200M toward the 78 ballpark development?  

And yeah, Rusty may have a point about this being a ruse for getting a new, long-term sweetheart deal at GRF.  That's certainly possible.

The united center partnership is swimming in money. And investors remember how much money they made bankrolling the initial Contruction 30 years ago.

[ewokpelts]

21 hours ago, greg775 said:

Yeah, I can't see the Sox ever leaving that area of 35th and Shields. Maybe they'll build another one at the site of old Comiskey only make it look like Camden Yards. Then the current stadium gets blasted for parking. Just do what they did last time again.

what's this obsession with oriole park?

[ewokpelts]

21 hours ago, greg775 said:

Is there any space for parking at the new park's location? Where actually is the park? For instance let's say you were driving from northeast naperville to the new park? How do u get there? Would there be much traffic?

you think jerry cares?

[ewokpelts]

4 hours ago, DFAthewave69420 said:

I have a direct source to this project.  There are numerous construction obstacles people do not know about that are in the way of breaking ground.  Long ways away from coming about but it could happen. 

which is why a publicly financed stadium is their plan. things move quickly when the government gets involved.  

[ewokpelts]

2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

People who will be driving to games won't know what hit them on Roosevelt and Clark if this gets built.

roosevelt and the ryan will make terminator 2 look like house party 2.

[ewokpelts]

28 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

This

https://mktg.mlbstatic.com/cubs/documents/maps/Wrigley_Field_Parking_Map.pdf

The Cubs have parking, it's just not blocks and blocks of empty wasteland surrounding the ballpark. The White Sox parking model is so outdated, and there are ways to accommodate drivers without razing whole neighborhoods. There is ample parking just across the river from the 78, it's not like satellite parking is an impossibility in this town...

private lots were selling parking for pearl jam at wrigley for $200 last week. and that area was jam packed with traffic before, during, and after the show. the sox model may be "outdated" but wrigley is ancient.

[greg775]

2 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

I’m of the opinion that he could build the most throwbackiest park in all of sports and it will be criticized and condemned. For proof, look how the Rate is still treated even after repeated improvements.

They could build an exact replica of old Comiskey minus the posts and the reaction will be “why did they replicate such a charmless, soulless factory?” 

The parking issue is huge. People don't want to mess with public transportation after night games. They want to drive away and don't want to walk 2 miles to their vehicles.

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, greg775 said:

The parking issue is huge. People don't want to mess with public transportation after night games. They want to drive away and don't want to walk 2 miles to their vehicles.

Which is exactly why Wrigley Field is empty nightly.

[Tnetennba]

2 hours ago, ewokpelts said:

private lots were selling parking for pearl jam at wrigley for $200 last week. and that area was jam packed with traffic before, during, and after the show. the sox model may be "outdated" but wrigley is ancient.

Gasp. It's almost as if all of the cars are the problem. Imagine that. 

I deal with plenty of Sox traffic as a Bridgeport resident, I have zero sympathy for people who choose to drive.

[Hamhock]

I don't quite understand why anyone is concerned about specific parking logistics at this point, but I get the feeling when I read certain comments that people think they will somehow change/stop this project going forward if they "win" an argument here.

Like, I get it - if one finds something unacceptable about the whole concept, that opinion is a completely valid opinion to hold; it's just not going to make any difference in the end. It's a site development proposal... if the money is there in the end (whether Jerry's or whomever's), the new stadium at The 78 will get built. If it's not there, it won't get built. 

Parking garages (which take up far less surface area than lots) will be constructed beneath/around many of the other proposed buildings in the development plot to provide a certain amount of parking. As for the rest: 

• There will be an entire new neighborhood constructed, with housing catering to a younger demographic with disposable income. They will be within a walkable distance to the new stadium. This nearby new population can potentially 1:1 replace a present-day graying, exurban one. In other words, the club doesn't have a problem with parking - certain fans might, and they can be replaced with other fans that won't need parking at all.
• and of course there will be public transportation nearby, as well as potential ferry access, etc. Lots of ways to get there.

[Quin]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Which is exactly why Wrigley Field is empty nightly.

Yankees Stadium famously is a ghost town.

[Dick Allen]

40 minutes ago, Hamhock said:

I don't quite understand why anyone is concerned about specific parking logistics at this point, but I get the feeling when I read certain comments that people think they will somehow change/stop this project going forward if they "win" an argument here.

Like, I get it - if one finds something unacceptable about the whole concept, that opinion is a completely valid opinion to hold; it's just not going to make any difference in the end. It's a site development proposal... if the money is there in the end (whether Jerry's or whomever's), the new stadium at The 78 will get built. If it's not there, it won't get built. 

Parking garages (which take up far less surface area than lots) will be constructed beneath/around many of the other proposed buildings in the development plot to provide a certain amount of parking. As for the rest: 

• There will be an entire new neighborhood constructed, with housing catering to a younger demographic with disposable income. They will be within a walkable distance to the new stadium. This nearby new population can potentially 1:1 replace a present-day graying, exurban one. In other words, the club doesn't have a problem with parking - certain fans might, and they can be replaced with other fans that won't need parking at all.
• and of course there will be public transportation nearby, as well as potential ferry access, etc. Lots of ways to get there.

I’m not worried about it because I won’t drive there. I am just pointing out if that park gets built, the traffic around there and lack of parking will be the new Comiskey Park II upper deck.