Sox looking at building in South Loop

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

He's been in that same situation for many years. It hasn't changed him.

Didn't you just say he did exactly this with the UC by financing 98% of it?

[Texsox]

46 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Infrastructure. I have no problem with that. Anything else, they already have taken the state for a ride.

And that's fair. 

If a company is going to generate $1 in tax revenue, are you willing to accept less to have them in your tax district versus moving? 

In the real world a town will give an incentive to a company. After the incentive is over they move then the town gives an incentive to the next company. 

That's the game that economic development agencies are in. Compete for businesses in your area. 

In the slim chance the team moves, would you buy the new team a ?️

[Balta1701]

35 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Depends. Not the whole bill though. This is private property, If it were state or city owned land, for sure Besides if this is such a great deal for the state, it's even better for JR. Let him show us all the money it will make. . It seems hard for me to believe that haven't done tests yet. They have owned the property for some time, an d I would think purchasing the property may be grounds for testing it first.

The whole "Environmental remediation" bill? Or the whole ballpark bill.

I believe you have a strong case for the state (small s so including all governments) absorbing a large portion of the environmental costs and nearly all the risks of cost overruns for the environmental issues in an urban renewal sense, because that's a lot of money and risk for any developer to deal with and if the state doesn't step in and deal with that, this site may well be undeveloped for another 60 years. 

I very much agree that with the potential economic benefits of developing this site, if the White Sox are going to buy the land and develop the whole property, they should pay a large portion of the ballpark expenses. But first of all...bringing this site up to code is a cost that almost certainly should be born by the state because the White Sox likely had very little to do with this becoming polluted and abandoned. 

Furthermore, the state is justified in paying at least a portion of the initial development costs - not a majority, but a minority portion. Why? Because it is to the state's benefit to have this site developed long-term. Leaving this land outside the tax base for the next 50 years is not an exaggeration - it's already been that way for more than 60. Bringing this land back into the tax base, even if it is 30 years from now, is a good thing for the city. Developing this site supports the land values around this site, and supports the city as a whole. These are all good things for the city and for taxpayers, and it justifies some portion of additional taxpayer support of the ballpark. Not a majority, a partnership though, with either assistance developing the site or appropriate tax benefits. 

Unlike true frauds like the Foxconn "plant" in Wisconsin or even New Comiskey, public subsidies here is likely to actually lead to development and to an overall improvement of the city and state. That's a big benefit of having the White Sox involved - the chances of the White Sox deciding that they don't need to play baseball in the USA are quite low, the chances of the White Sox deciding to stop playing baseball if the commercial office market space shrinks is low. This is a benefit to the city of working with this specific industry type on developing the location, the city is going to get the ballpark developed if they come to an agreement, the White Sox won't back out and decide that they are ok playing in a small ballpark overseas for the next 30 years. The White Sox anchor this site and that ensures the site is actually developed, improving the city, improving the tax base long term, and removing a blighted spot that is a negative for the city.

There is a solid justification for some public funds here, for both remediation and for making sure the site gets developed. It does not pay for a full ballpark, but support well beyond "only paying for infrastructure" is well justified as a public good.

[Texsox]

@Balta1701 well said. 

To add a comment usually the companies that leave behind the environmental mess are bankrupt. 

 

[Tnetennba]

17 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The whole "Environmental remediation" bill? Or the whole ballpark bill.

I believe you have a strong case for the state (small s so including all governments) absorbing a large portion of the environmental costs and nearly all the risks of cost overruns for the environmental issues in an urban renewal sense, because that's a lot of money and risk for any developer to deal with and if the state doesn't step in and deal with that, this site may well be undeveloped for another 60 years. 

I very much agree that with the potential economic benefits of developing this site, if the White Sox are going to buy the land and develop the whole property, they should pay a large portion of the ballpark expenses. But first of all...bringing this site up to code is a cost that almost certainly should be born by the state because the White Sox likely had very little to do with this becoming polluted and abandoned. 

Furthermore, the state is justified in paying at least a portion of the initial development costs - not a majority, but a minority portion. Why? Because it is to the state's benefit to have this site developed long-term. Leaving this land outside the tax base for the next 50 years is not an exaggeration - it's already been that way for more than 60. Bringing this land back into the tax base, even if it is 30 years from now, is a good thing for the city. Developing this site supports the land values around this site, and supports the city as a whole. These are all good things for the city and for taxpayers, and it justifies some portion of additional taxpayer support of the ballpark. Not a majority, a partnership though, with either assistance developing the site or appropriate tax benefits. 

Unlike true frauds like the Foxconn "plant" in Wisconsin or even New Comiskey, public subsidies here is likely to actually lead to development and to an overall improvement of the city and state. That's a big benefit of having the White Sox involved - the chances of the White Sox deciding that they don't need to play baseball in the USA are quite low, the chances of the White Sox deciding to stop playing baseball if the commercial office market space shrinks is low. This is a benefit to the city of working with this specific industry type on developing the location, the city is going to get the ballpark developed if they come to an agreement, the White Sox won't back out and decide that they are ok playing in a small ballpark overseas for the next 30 years. The White Sox anchor this site and that ensures the site is actually developed, improving the city, improving the tax base long term, and removing a blighted spot that is a negative for the city.

There is a solid justification for some public funds here, for both remediation and for making sure the site gets developed. It does not pay for a full ballpark, but support well beyond "only paying for infrastructure" is well justified as a public good.

Well said. 

The city and state likely has a vested interest in seeing this massive plot of prime real estate developed into something, anything other than the empty wasteland it has been for 40+ years. Unlike the sweetheart deal of Comiskey II that benefitted very few outside of JR himself, the city actually gets something out of aiding in the construction of a new park. Anchoring this development with a tenant that won't be going anywhere for a few decades at minimum seems ideal.

[Dick Allen]

26 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The whole "Environmental remediation" bill? Or the whole ballpark bill.

I believe you have a strong case for the state (small s so including all governments) absorbing a large portion of the environmental costs and nearly all the risks of cost overruns for the environmental issues in an urban renewal sense, because that's a lot of money and risk for any developer to deal with and if the state doesn't step in and deal with that, this site may well be undeveloped for another 60 years. 

I very much agree that with the potential economic benefits of developing this site, if the White Sox are going to buy the land and develop the whole property, they should pay a large portion of the ballpark expenses. But first of all...bringing this site up to code is a cost that almost certainly should be born by the state because the White Sox likely had very little to do with this becoming polluted and abandoned. 

Furthermore, the state is justified in paying at least a portion of the initial development costs - not a majority, but a minority portion. Why? Because it is to the state's benefit to have this site developed long-term. Leaving this land outside the tax base for the next 50 years is not an exaggeration - it's already been that way for more than 60. Bringing this land back into the tax base, even if it is 30 years from now, is a good thing for the city. Developing this site supports the land values around this site, and supports the city as a whole. These are all good things for the city and for taxpayers, and it justifies some portion of additional taxpayer support of the ballpark. Not a majority, a partnership though, with either assistance developing the site or appropriate tax benefits. 

Unlike true frauds like the Foxconn "plant" in Wisconsin or even New Comiskey, public subsidies here is likely to actually lead to development and to an overall improvement of the city and state. That's a big benefit of having the White Sox involved - the chances of the White Sox deciding that they don't need to play baseball in the USA are quite low, the chances of the White Sox deciding to stop playing baseball if the commercial office market space shrinks is low. This is a benefit to the city of working with this specific industry type on developing the location, the city is going to get the ballpark developed if they come to an agreement, the White Sox won't back out and decide that they are ok playing in a small ballpark overseas for the next 30 years. The White Sox anchor this site and that ensures the site is actually developed, improving the city, improving the tax base long term, and removing a blighted spot that is a negative for the city.

There is a solid justification for some public funds here, for both remediation and for making sure the site gets developed. It does not pay for a full ballpark, but support well beyond "only paying for infrastructure" is well justified as a public good.

You’re talking best case scenario, and that never happens when government is involved. The only people this would work out for are the current owners of the land who have owned it for many years, have had big plans, and still have no shovel in the ground, and JR. I can tell you, if the White Sox get a sweetheart deal whoever the mayor is and whoever the governor is at the time will never get my vote again. Do you even know there is a big problem with the soil?  I have read one issue is there are no water lines nearby which will be expensive to get.

There are other things the state and city can spend money out that will be more fruitful in the future. The stadium the built the White Sox and the Soldier Field rehab have been only benefited the teams owners.

Edited January 23 by Dick Allen

[caulfield12]

28 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

The whole "Environmental remediation" bill? Or the whole ballpark bill.

I believe you have a strong case for the state (small s so including all governments) absorbing a large portion of the environmental costs and nearly all the risks of cost overruns for the environmental issues in an urban renewal sense, because that's a lot of money and risk for any developer to deal with and if the state doesn't step in and deal with that, this site may well be undeveloped for another 60 years. 

I very much agree that with the potential economic benefits of developing this site, if the White Sox are going to buy the land and develop the whole property, they should pay a large portion of the ballpark expenses. But first of all...bringing this site up to code is a cost that almost certainly should be born by the state because the White Sox likely had very little to do with this becoming polluted and abandoned. 

Furthermore, the state is justified in paying at least a portion of the initial development costs - not a majority, but a minority portion. Why? Because it is to the state's benefit to have this site developed long-term. Leaving this land outside the tax base for the next 50 years is not an exaggeration - it's already been that way for more than 60. Bringing this land back into the tax base, even if it is 30 years from now, is a good thing for the city. Developing this site supports the land values around this site, and supports the city as a whole. These are all good things for the city and for taxpayers, and it justifies some portion of additional taxpayer support of the ballpark. Not a majority, a partnership though, with either assistance developing the site or appropriate tax benefits. 

Unlike true frauds like the Foxconn "plant" in Wisconsin or even New Comiskey, public subsidies here is likely to actually lead to development and to an overall improvement of the city and state. That's a big benefit of having the White Sox involved - the chances of the White Sox deciding that they don't need to play baseball in the USA are quite low, the chances of the White Sox deciding to stop playing baseball if the commercial office market space shrinks is low. This is a benefit to the city of working with this specific industry type on developing the location, the city is going to get the ballpark developed if they come to an agreement, the White Sox won't back out and decide that they are ok playing in a small ballpark overseas for the next 30 years. The White Sox anchor this site and that ensures the site is actually developed, improving the city, improving the tax base long term, and removing a blighted spot that is a negative for the city.

There is a solid justification for some public funds here, for both remediation and for making sure the site gets developed. It does not pay for a full ballpark, but support well beyond "only paying for infrastructure" is well justified as a public good.

Well...with Foxconn, not only relocate to another country, but be subject to China/Taiwan/US global trade war  politics and technology embargoes.

If you watched the glass company documentary...imposing Chinese labor practice and policy on US workers was a terrible idea from the get go.

 

All that that said...Mexico City might not be more than a decade or two away for MLB.  Or the incorporation of a Japanese/Korean division. 

 

Nevertheless...pretty safe bet they are anchored there at least 25-30 years.

 

[pcq]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

The whole "Environmental remediation" bill? Or the whole ballpark bill.

I believe you have a strong case for the state (small s so including all governments) absorbing a large portion of the environmental costs and nearly all the risks of cost overruns for the environmental issues in an urban renewal sense, because that's a lot of money and risk for any developer to deal with and if the state doesn't step in and deal with that, this site may well be undeveloped for another 60 years. 

I very much agree that with the potential economic benefits of developing this site, if the White Sox are going to buy the land and develop the whole property, they should pay a large portion of the ballpark expenses. But first of all...bringing this site up to code is a cost that almost certainly should be born by the state because the White Sox likely had very little to do with this becoming polluted and abandoned. 

Furthermore, the state is justified in paying at least a portion of the initial development costs - not a majority, but a minority portion. Why? Because it is to the state's benefit to have this site developed long-term. Leaving this land outside the tax base for the next 50 years is not an exaggeration - it's already been that way for more than 60. Bringing this land back into the tax base, even if it is 30 years from now, is a good thing for the city. Developing this site supports the land values around this site, and supports the city as a whole. These are all good things for the city and for taxpayers, and it justifies some portion of additional taxpayer support of the ballpark. Not a majority, a partnership though, with either assistance developing the site or appropriate tax benefits. 

Unlike true frauds like the Foxconn "plant" in Wisconsin or even New Comiskey, public subsidies here is likely to actually lead to development and to an overall improvement of the city and state. That's a big benefit of having the White Sox involved - the chances of the White Sox deciding that they don't need to play baseball in the USA are quite low, the chances of the White Sox deciding to stop playing baseball if the commercial office market space shrinks is low. This is a benefit to the city of working with this specific industry type on developing the location, the city is going to get the ballpark developed if they come to an agreement, the White Sox won't back out and decide that they are ok playing in a small ballpark overseas for the next 30 years. The White Sox anchor this site and that ensures the site is actually developed, improving the city, improving the tax base long term, and removing a blighted spot that is a negative for the city.

There is a solid justification for some public funds here, for both remediation and for making sure the site gets developed. It does not pay for a full ballpark, but support well beyond "only paying for infrastructure" is well justified as a public good.

Sludgedump Park would be a fitting name. I have mixed feelings about the whole project because the current park is more than adequate. This project could easily take ten years when you consider all of the political and financial minutia. Best things would be the Target on the corner and walking to the games from downtown. Jerry used to say you cannot spend 50 cents when you are hiding a dollar. Jerry will not be around to throw out the first pitch. He will likely have retired to Puerto Vallarta by then.

[Texsox]

2 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

Infrastructure. I have no problem with that. Anything else, they already have taken the state for a ride.

I don't disagree with you and why I've come to dislike any breaks. Ultimately it hurts the business that have been around a long time.

The issue always comes back to  if the team moved, would you give incentives to a different team to move to Chicago or an expansion team? If you are going to give it to them, why not the business that has already being in town? 

Folks say no and just churn over businesses. 

[caulfield12]

56 minutes ago, Texsox said:

I don't disagree with you and why I've come to dislike any breaks. Ultimately it hurts the business that have been around a long time.

The issue always comes back to  if the team moved, would you give incentives to a different team to move to Chicago or an expansion team? If you are going to give it to them, why not the business that has already being in town? 

Folks say no and just churn over businesses. 

Because politicians simply love to brag about "bringing in new businesses/generating economic growth."

 

In the same way, they don't really spend enough time taking care of the existing customers...80% of effort is spent chasing the 20% of "new business."   White Sox fans have been gouged to death in multiple ways the last couple of years, and they keep dumping ticket rises knowing their most loyal fans are the ones who will have the hardest time quitting/leaving because of the emotional connection.

[AJ'S Cousin]

I think they move a little further south. Nashville seems like a good idea and then we'd get an expansion team and owners that actually give a s%*# about the team. I'm really tired of the way JR  does things. Getz has as much business being a GM as I do. we alsways bottom feed and scrap the bottom of the barrel for pitching. We can't give Eloy away, everyone knows we want to get rid of Cease because in 2 years he's gone so they won't give us what he's worth. i've already opted out of White Sox Text messages offfer ten game ticket packges, 20 game packages etc. Attended 1 game last year under duress and had no choice. this year it'll take a gun to my head to get me to go to a game. 

Edited January 24 by AJ'S Cousin

[AJ'S Cousin]

On 1/17/2024 at 7:37 PM, CentralChamps21 said:

I think it works. They could even keep some of the GRF parking and run a shuttle.

they won't need shuttle buses because under the same onwership and field and Front Office nobodies going to the games

[Balta1701]

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

You’re talking best case scenario, and that never happens when government is involved. The only people this would work out for are the current owners of the land who have owned it for many years, have had big plans, and still have no shovel in the ground, and JR. I can tell you, if the White Sox get a sweetheart deal whoever the mayor is and whoever the governor is at the time will never get my vote again. Do you even know there is a big problem with the soil?  I have read one issue is there are no water lines nearby which will be expensive to get.

There are other things the state and city can spend money out that will be more fruitful in the future. The stadium the built the White Sox and the Soldier Field rehab have been only benefited the teams owners.

First of all, I would like you to tell me how I’m being too optimistic. I’m pretty sure I’m the one describing the environmental rehab issues and costs - this is why the state must be involved.

Secondly, the state spends money on lots of things. Eventually, whether with the White Sox or not, the state is going to have to spend money on this site. No developer anywhere will expect to be on the hook for previous environmental damage, if the state expects them to pay that, the site will never be developed. And importantly, failing to develop this site is spending money - on police, maintenance of the site, no tax revenue from here, and lower land values and fewer businesses in the area. This spot is currently generating zero sales tax. It is a strong benefit to the state to find a tenant here who can develop and anchor this property, and in the current market for office space that will be super tough. Getting this developed now is an investment, one that will pay off if the right business is out there, but which has significant costs and revenue losses every year where it isn’t done.

Third, are you really ready to discuss soil quality issues with a geologist? Yes, they will be trucking in fill to this site because the land level Is too low and they have to ensure stability next to the river. While a problem for a ballpark, this would be a bigger problem for office or apartment development as high rises increase the pressure on the soil, while low intensity development isn’t going to have enough money available to justify rebuilding the site. All The issues with water you mention are also true for any type of development, and they are likely to prevent any other type of developer from salvaging this property for decades just as they have for the last 60. These reasons are why a ballpark on this land makes good sense, and why government support is well justified.

Lets imagine a worst case scenario, they plan this and the infrastructure issues then our worse than expected.

First, that would affect any business going into this spot, so in both cases public money would be required to fix the issues.

Second, how many developers can survive multi year project delays? If I was building an office tower, I have revenue projections to meet - a multi year delay may bankrupt me. 

The single worst thing that could happen here for the state is they spend hundreds of millions of dollars on infrastructure and cleanup and the developer loses their funding because of delays, so the state will have spent their money with no benefit. This however is almost impossible for the white Sox, because if site issues delay the project for years, they just play a couple extra seasons on 35th street. From a public perspective, that is amazing insurance for the site - my main tenant and developer will not go bankrupt if there are delays!

There are always details to be worked out. A real estate business has a right to turn a profit on their investment. I will not begrudge the Reinsdorf group turning a substantial profit if they pull this project off. A project that makes them money and makes the city a better place is a true win for everyone. Hell put a hotel there and I will stay in it. But it also should be a good deal for the city - in the long run the benefits they get in taxes and development should be able to win out, on the 20 or 30 year horizon. That’s how much money the city should put in - this is an investment to grow the city and its tax base long term. If Reinsdorf can pull that off, then he has done something great for the city while also making money, and my version of capitalism likes that type of partnership.

[dohnut]

Honestly, I don’t understand the “I don’t want my tax dollars going towards a ballpark” thing.

A baseball stadium is something tangible. You drive past it on your way to work everyday. You pop in and catch a game and have a churro every so often. You see it on TV.

If there were only 600 politicians in Illinois making $100k per year, I’d rather my money go towards a $2.1B stadium than 35 years of their salaries.

But, that’s just me.

[caulfield12]

36 minutes ago, AJ'S Cousin said:

I think they move a little further south. Nashville seems like a good idea and then we'd get an expansion team and owners that actually give a s%*# about the team. I'm really tired of the way JR  does things. Getz has as much business being a GM as I do. we alsways bottom feed and scrap the bottom of the barrel for pitching. We can't give Eloy away, everyone knows we want to get rid of Cease because in 2 years he's gone so they won't give us what he's worth. i've already opted out of White Sox Text messages offfer ten game ticket packges, 20 game packages etc. Attended 1 game last year under duress and had no choice. this year it'll take a gun to my head to get me to go to a game. 

Gun in the gut...

[ron883]

3 hours ago, pcq said:

Sludgedump Park would be a fitting name. I have mixed feelings about the whole project because the current park is more than adequate. This project could easily take ten years when you consider all of the political and financial minutia. Best things would be the Target on the corner and walking to the games from downtown. Jerry used to say you cannot spend 50 cents when you are hiding a dollar. Jerry will not be around to throw out the first pitch. He will likely have retired to Puerto Vallarta by then.

Jerry strikes me as more of an Acapulco guy.

[Balta1701]

18 minutes ago, dohnut said:

Honestly, I don’t understand the “I don’t want my tax dollars going towards a ballpark” thing.

A baseball stadium is something tangible. You drive past it on your way to work everyday. You pop in and catch a game and have a churro every so often. You see it on TV.

If there were only 600 politicians in Illinois making $100k per year, I’d rather my money go towards a $2.1B stadium than 35 years of their salaries.

But, that’s just me.

Because it’s going to the owners pocket.

I get complaints about the Rate. It is poorly designed and a huge handout to Reinsdorf. The deal is terrible and he got it with no real benefit to the city because the city was scared to lose the team for pride reasons. Do not do deals like that. I would rather they move to Nashville than do that again.

Here, the city gets something valuable, this is an urban renewal project. Not just a handout. This makes the city better.

[greg775]

There's no way in hell our Sox are moving downtown. Book it. It's a stupid move bucking all trends regarding inner cities. You move to the suburbs or another city in another state.

[caulfield12]

3 minutes ago, greg775 said:

There's no way in hell our Sox are moving downtown. Book it. It's a stupid move bucking all trends regarding inner cities. You move to the suburbs or another city in another state.

Kansas City?????

Las Vegas project?

[dohnut]

1 hour ago, Balta1701 said:

Because it’s going to the owners pocket.

I get complaints about the Rate. It is poorly designed and a huge handout to Reinsdorf. The deal is terrible and he got it with no real benefit to the city because the city was scared to lose the team for pride reasons. Do not do deals like that. I would rather they move to Nashville than do that again.

Here, the city gets something valuable, this is an urban renewal project. Not just a handout. This makes the city better.

Agreed - it’d be a huge win for the city. I really hope it gets done ?

[Dick Allen]

7 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

Because it’s going to the owners pocket.

I get complaints about the Rate. It is poorly designed and a huge handout to Reinsdorf. The deal is terrible and he got it with no real benefit to the city because the city was scared to lose the team for pride reasons. Do not do deals like that. I would rather they move to Nashville than do that again.

Here, the city gets something valuable, this is an urban renewal project. Not just a handout. This makes the city better.

Id rather they spend all these suddenly available PUBLIC funds on fixing up areas where people already live. Maybe even building some grocery stores in areas where they have none, rather than building another area where people who already live in nice areas may move. Maybe if there is some left over, they can use it to try an lower the crime rates including murders, carjackings and armed robberies throughout the city.

Edited January 24 by Dick Allen

[Kyyle23]

8 hours ago, greg775 said:

There's no way in hell our Sox are moving downtown. Book it. It's a stupid move bucking all trends regarding inner cities. You move to the suburbs or another city in another state.

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-parks-from-oldest-to-newest

I don’t believe most of the last 10 stadiums built in the MLB support your theory, but the last two were out of their respective cities 

(Newest)

Globe Life (Texas Rangers)

Truist park (Atlanta Braves)

Loan Depot Park (Miami Marlins)

Target Field (Minnesota Twins)

Yankee Stadium (duh)

Citi Field (Mets)

Nationals Park (Nationals)

New Busch Stadium (Cardinals)

Citizens Bank Park(Phillies)

Petco Park (San Diego)

 

if I am not mistaken, all but the last two are right smack dab in their cities 

 

 

 

[Dick Allen]

30 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-parks-from-oldest-to-newest

I don’t believe most of the last 10 stadiums built in the MLB support your theory, but the last two were out of their respective cities 

(Newest)

Globe Life (Texas Rangers)

trust park (Atlanta Braves)

Loan Depot Park (Miami Marlins)

Target Field (Minnesota Twins)

Yankee Stadium (duh)

Citi Field (Mets)

Nationals Park (Nationals)

New Busch Stadium (Cardinals)

Citizens Bank Park(Phillies)

Petco Park (San Diego)

 

if I am not mistaken, all but the last two are right smack dab in their cities 

 

 

 

The easiest place to build a new park is usually in the parking lot of the one it's replacing.

[hogan873]

8 hours ago, greg775 said:

There's no way in hell our Sox are moving downtown. Book it. It's a stupid move bucking all trends regarding inner cities. You move to the suburbs or another city in another state.

Quite a few stadiums built in the last 10-15 years or so have been built in cities.  The 78 is a great spot for a ballpark with plenty of room.  Moving there would not be stupid at all.  It would be one of the best things the Sox have done in a long time.  Granted, that bar is low, but they have a chance to have one of the best, if not the best, ballparks in MLB with easily the best background.

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, Kyyle23 said:

https://www.mlb.com/news/mlb-parks-from-oldest-to-newest

I don’t believe most of the last 10 stadiums built in the MLB support your theory, but the last two were out of their respective cities 

(Newest)

Globe Life (Texas Rangers)

trust park (Atlanta Braves)

Loan Depot Park (Miami Marlins)

Target Field (Minnesota Twins)

Yankee Stadium (duh)

Citi Field (Mets)

Nationals Park (Nationals)

New Busch Stadium (Cardinals)

Citizens Bank Park(Phillies)

Petco Park (San Diego)

 

if I am not mistaken, all but the last two are right smack dab in their cities 

 

 

 

Aka Truist Park