Sox looking at building in South Loop

[WhiteSox2023]

18 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

Gotta hand it to him, very committed to the bit

Oh, you didn’t know?  @tray is a Sox fan ambassador.  The White Sox pay him to speak for all Sox fans.

[Tnetennba]

9 minutes ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Oh, you didn’t know?  @tray is a Sox fan ambassador.  The White Sox pay him to speak for all Sox fans.

Not just Sox fans, but all Southsiders!

[LittleHurtCG]

24 minutes ago, ptatc said:

Depends on the demographic. People with kids and us old people, no. Younger ones without kids, yes. 

Yep. The current setup at GRF is very kid friendly. Pretty easy to park and head right into the stadium. A stadium in the south loop is going to awesome for the younger crowd. Not so much of a draw for suburban families and old timers. 

[Chicago White Sox]

47 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

People don’t want to go out after games is a new one to me lmao

What’s fascinating to me is that every argument of his against the move is immediately disproven by the existence of the Cubs.

[Kyyle23]

6 minutes ago, LittleHurtCG said:

Yep. The current setup at GRF is very kid friendly. Pretty easy to park and head right into the stadium. A stadium in the south loop is going to awesome for the younger crowd. Not so much of a draw for suburban families and old timers. 

As a suburban family man I wholly disagree that a brand new park is not so much of a draw because people party afterwards lol.  

[Kyyle23]

Just now, Chicago White Sox said:

What’s fascinating to me is that every argument of his against the move is immediately disproven by the existence of the Cubs.

Exactly.  That area is hopping at all times

[Balta1701]

1 hour ago, LittleHurtCG said:

Yep. The current setup at GRF is very kid friendly. Pretty easy to park and head right into the stadium. A stadium in the south loop is going to awesome for the younger crowd. Not so much of a draw for suburban families and old timers. 

FWIW, 13 year old me would have loved over the summer having my mother take us on the train up to the city, meet dad there, then come back on the train after the game with probably both me and my brother falling asleep.

[Ducksnort]

3 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

FWIW, 13 year old me would have loved over the summer having my mother take us on the train up to the city, meet dad there, then come back on the train after the game with probably both me and my brother falling asleep.

I did this all the time with my dad (not meeting family, but going to games). All the time we'd take the Waukegan Metra into Union Station, walk about 20-30 minutes to State Street, then take the red line to the park. After the game we'd ride the trains back, getting home around 2am.  Eventually as I got older and into my teens I would do it with my friends as well. So many great memories taking those trains in and out of the city to see games. Hell the transportation was just as much part of the experience as the actual game itself.

Edited February 3 by ScootsMcGoots

[JTB]

18 hours ago, LittleHurtCG said:

Yep. The current setup at GRF is very kid friendly. Pretty easy to park and head right into the stadium. A stadium in the south loop is going to awesome for the younger crowd. Not so much of a draw for suburban families and old timers. 

As an old timer, this park fantastic.  Can’t wait to attend.  

[Lip Man 1]

The other side writes:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2024/2/3/24057114/white-sox-the-78-guaranteed-rate-bridgeport-urban-planning-35th-street-lee-bey-architecture

[Balta1701]

39 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

The other side writes:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2024/2/3/24057114/white-sox-the-78-guaranteed-rate-bridgeport-urban-planning-35th-street-lee-bey-architecture

Quote

Keeping the team in Bridgeport and making the same improvements might well accomplish the same thing.

How exactly do they envision this working? A completely new ballpark in Bridgeport but some of the current parking lots demolished? That still doesn’t make this a walkable area with transit options. This sounds too much like the sunk cost fallacy to me - we screwed up royally last time so we can’t just abandon our screwup.

[pcq]

They don't need a new park in Bridgeport. They  need a new park where people want to hang out and act stupid. I like Bridgeport. 

Edited February 4 by pcq

[Lightly Folded]

4 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

How exactly do they envision this working? A completely new ballpark in Bridgeport but some of the current parking lots demolished? That still doesn’t make this a walkable area with transit options. This sounds too much like the sunk cost fallacy to me - we screwed up royally last time so we can’t just abandon our screwup.

 

2 hours ago, pcq said:

They don't need a new park in Bridgeport. They  need a new park where people want to hang out and act stupid. I like Brudgeport. 

 

[tray]

There is potentially a lot to be learned from renowned architect Zachary Taylor Davis who designed the original Comiskey and Wrigley.

Build where the original Comiskey stood with left field once again facing North, bleachers like Wrigley with flats having a partial view inside the stadium, Palladian arched brick openings, bars and restaurants along 35th street, residential and commercial buildings down 35 street and along Shields, etc.  I would even put ivy on the outfield walls since it was Bill Veeck's idea. Lose the V shaped centerfield scoreboard, the circular circus spinners and the firework nonsense.

https://chicagology.com/skyscrapers/skyscrapers128/

Edited February 4 by tray

[caulfield12]

38 minutes ago, tray said:

There is potentially a lot to be learned from renowned architect Zachary Taylor Davis who designed the original Comiskey and Wrigley.

Build where the original Comiskey stood with left field once again facing North, bleachers like Wrigley with flats having a partial view inside the stadium, Palladian arched brick openings, bars and restaurants along 35th street, residential and commercial buildings down 35 street and along Shields, etc.  I would even put ivy on the outfield walls since it was Bill Veeck's idea. Lose the V shaped centerfield scoreboard, the circular circus spinners and the firework nonsense.

https://chicagology.com/skyscrapers/skyscrapers128/

Even teams like the Cubs and Red Sox with the most iconic stadiums in baseball barely maintain a competitive advantage these days...let alone a warmed over Old Comiskey.

Edited February 4 by caulfield12

[tray]

10 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Even teams like the Cubs and Red Sox with the most iconic stadiums in baseball barely maintain a competitive advantage these days...let alone a warmed over Old Comiskey.

The thing is caulfield, US Cellular/GRF was not and is not a warmed over Comiskey.  It has no architectural significance whatsoever.  Now look at the rendering of the Old Comiskey on page one of the link I provided. It appears to contain a lot of clues as to how to develop a new stadium and surrounding buildings/improvements on the site of the old Comiskey.  That would be far simpler to do that than to start from scratch at a new site with any number of development, financing, permitting, enviromental and other issues (i.e. the land there would be too valuable to pave for parking on the required scale).  

Moving forward, it would be simple for new architects/engineers/developers to (finally) stay true to the classic architectural design (how about use brick instead of stucco/dryvit) while providing space for residential and commercial development around the Park.

A new strip of restaurants/bars right across 35th where McCuddy's used to be would be cool. Maybe the family that owned it would want part of some business there or the families who owned Schaller's or some other old local bars like Shinnick's. Even a name like "McCuddy's II" would  be cool.

The simplest of solutions is often overlooked.  Have you seen the rehabs and new residential construction to the West of GRF?  There is a great start there for a continued commitment to Bridgeport and to Chicago's South side. The South Loop has been meandering in that direction anyway.

 

Edited February 4 by tray

[pcq]

Question assuming the new park faces NE instead of SE how do the wind patterns factor in and what should the dimensions be? My first guess would be to add five feet distance to the walls all around and see how it plays. There might be an algorithm for analyzing this. 

[greg775]

16 hours ago, tray said:

There is potentially a lot to be learned from renowned architect Zachary Taylor Davis who designed the original Comiskey and Wrigley.

Build where the original Comiskey stood with left field once again facing North, bleachers like Wrigley with flats having a partial view inside the stadium, Palladian arched brick openings, bars and restaurants along 35th street, residential and commercial buildings down 35 street and along Shields, etc.  I would even put ivy on the outfield walls since it was Bill Veeck's idea. Lose the V shaped centerfield scoreboard, the circular circus spinners and the firework nonsense.

https://chicagology.com/skyscrapers/skyscrapers128/

Sounds like Jerry has been the villain owning those parking lots instead of developing the area in that space. On the other hand, the parking lots are needed. Like you said you don't want to go walking east of GRate Field. That Sun Times article about saving Bridgeport was good but how do you build apartments and restaurants and bars when you need the parking lots?

[CentralChamps21]

Building an shopping/dining complex at GRF was never going to work. Nobody is going to go there on days other than home games.

[Dick Allen]

10 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said:

Building an shopping/dining complex at GRF was never going to work. Nobody is going to go there on days other than home games.

People don't go to the bars around Wrigley all that much if there is no game. I read an article a couple of years ago about Goose Island who had an outpost there. They lost their lease. The landlord wanted to go month to month but they couldn't do it because if he pulled it right before the season started, they would lose a ton of money. A lot of turnover around there.

[GREEDY]

There will be advancements in transportation efficiency before the next ballpark even opens that should alleviate SOME of the parking concerns.

 

 

[pcq]

This one is a head-scratcher. If JR is basically the Trump of Chicago in real estate, did he do anything of note to make Bridgeport/ Armor Square a more desirable destination. I know there were a number of upgrades made east of the Ryan before the bubble burst in 2008 but if JR is our Chicago RE mogul what hath he wrought??

[South Side Hit Men]

15 hours ago, greg775 said:

Sounds like Jerry has been the villain owning those parking lots instead of developing the area in that space. On the other hand, the parking lots are needed. Like you said you don't want to go walking east of GRate Field.

Illinois Institute of Technology

Home to 7,000 students, and over a thousand employees, 3 Nobel Prize Laureates.

Located east of Comiskey Park II.

 

Edited February 5 by South Side Hit Men

[greg775]

15 minutes ago, South Side Hit Men said:

Illinois Institute of Technology

Home to 7,000 students, and over a thousand employees, 3 Nobel Prize Laureates.

Located east of Comiskey Park II.

 

Isn't East of GRate field considered a no-visit zone especially at night?

[South Side Hit Men]

1 minute ago, greg775 said:

Isn't East of GRate field considered a no-visit zone especially at night?

They tore down all the housing projects. I took the Green Line to Comiskey as a kid in the 1970s and 1980s. It was OK then, better now. There is plenty of room for parking lots across the Dan Ryan south of 35th / IIT.

Build a lit fan walkway to / from the stadium across the DR beyond the existing 35th street sidewalk with the thousands of more fans using on game days.

There would be police, Sox parking lot security and traffic aids across the DR as there are now where parking exists.
Also could have / can build parking structures like the Yankees and other teams and downtown has. Doesn’t have to be acres of inefficient flat land.

Would work if the team stayed, Jerry / New Owner purchased the current stadium and surrounding land / parking lots currently owned by the ISFA from the state, plus new unoccupied lane east of the DR, built significant retail and business development. State extinguishes current debt, Sox get infrastructure handouts and stadium plus land for much less than a private purchase, win win for everyone.

The Sox would own it all / profit from the stadium and substantial real estate development. All the transportation infrastructure is already in place, the land is ready without significant environmental remediation. They would have more land (70 acres vs. 62 or less on the 78 parcel) plus whatever additional land they acquire east of the DR or west adjacent to the current property.

Could build a Bears Stadium on 78, or something else once you stabilize downtown in terms of replacing the collapsed demand for office space with conversions to residential over the next decade or two. More important to focus on restoring safety downtown at this point to facilitate long term viability then fret over accommodating 81 game days for a private business.