southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: Same with Seattle. Almost all of downtown used to be tidelands and they chopped like 150 feet off the "Denny Hill climb" and trucked all that dirt down to the bay in order to fill it in. Unless they are building a tunnel under the new stadium, I'd expect modern engineering to have no difficulties working around any fill issues under it. A lot of San Fransisco is also built on 1906 earthquake rubble shoved into the bay. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 39 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said: This has me tremendously excited. As excited as I've been since the start of the Covid year season. So, tell me, it seems like the perfect storm to get a half private, half public stadium built in an awesome setting -- why is it just now being talked about? Is this really viable? It sounds too good to be true, honestly. The Sox playing in an intimate, modern stadium in a neighborhood well served by transit with plenty of room for organic growth around the new park? Get it done! It is being talked about now because the White Sox's lease at the Rate is officially up in a few years, so decisions will need to be made soon, there is actual time pressure to make a decision in the next couple years. Their options include extending the lease at the Rate, a new ballpark somewhere, or moving. These decisions don't need to be made today, but lining up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding takes time, so they need to be made soon. Any of these have some controversy to them - an extension of the lease at the Rate is complicated since the last deal was SO TEAM FRIENDLY that the politicians won't just want to renew it forever. A new ballpark is complicated since the last deal was SO TEAM FRIENDLY that the politicians won't just want to write Reinsdorf another blank check to stay in the same spot after his wealth increased by billions during the previous deal. Moving the team is obviously controversial. This particular spot has the benefits of potentially solving several of these issues. It makes sense for the city and state to put in some funds to this site since it is currently a dead zone that has had multiple development proposals fail and requires some environmental remediation. The transit options are ideal. It's much closer to downtown and could have the actual city viewable from the ballpark. It's a broad piece of land so the ballpark could serve as an anchor to a larger development - so the city and state could get tax revenue from the rest of the site once it is developed, justifying the funds they would put in to bring it back into the taxpaying base. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said: A lot of San Fransisco is also built on 1906 earthquake rubble shoved into the bay. They were building a new skyscraper foundation a couple years ago and pulled out a boat while they were digging. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 2 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: They were building a new skyscraper foundation a couple years ago and pulled out a boat while they were digging. I remember this story now that you say it out loud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 (edited) 3 hours ago, ptatc said: Calling Sox fans discrete is an understatement. As we've seen though the team even under JR is up and down with success. Just 2 years ago they made the playoffs in consecutive years for the first time since WW2. How did that change the attendance? As I've said before with the scrubs in town, I'm not sure a new owner is going to come here and spend the team into debt every year. The Sox had never made the playoffs in consecutive seasons before 2020 and 2021. 2020 of course was only a 60 game season as you recall. As far as attendance remember in 2021 it was limited because the COVID situation was still on-going. And you'd have to spend far more money then is conceivable to drive a MLB franchise into debt. They are basically printing money by the boatload. Edited January 19 by Lip Man 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 1 hour ago, Balta1701 said: It is being talked about now because the White Sox's lease at the Rate is officially up in a few years, so decisions will need to be made soon, there is actual time pressure to make a decision in the next couple years. Their options include extending the lease at the Rate, a new ballpark somewhere, or moving. These decisions don't need to be made today, but lining up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding takes time, so they need to be made soon. Any of these have some controversy to them - an extension of the lease at the Rate is complicated since the last deal was SO TEAM FRIENDLY that the politicians won't just want to renew it forever. A new ballpark is complicated since the last deal was SO TEAM FRIENDLY that the politicians won't just want to write Reinsdorf another blank check to stay in the same spot after his wealth increased by billions during the previous deal. Moving the team is obviously controversial. This particular spot has the benefits of potentially solving several of these issues. It makes sense for the city and state to put in some funds to this site since it is currently a dead zone that has had multiple development proposals fail and requires some environmental remediation. The transit options are ideal. It's much closer to downtown and could have the actual city viewable from the ballpark. It's a broad piece of land so the ballpark could serve as an anchor to a larger development - so the city and state could get tax revenue from the rest of the site once it is developed, justifying the funds they would put in to bring it back into the taxpaying base. For the record, if the City and Sox come to some sort of a deal on this site, and it means that it will take to 2030 to finish, I am sure they will make Comiskey available to them for another year while it gets done. Why wouldn't they if they have an end game in sight? If they can't come to an agreement, or if the Sox are leaving town? Yeah, then the probably tell them to get lost. But if they need an extra year to get a dream project done there is an essentially zero chance they don't figure it out pretty easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 6 hours ago, South Side Hit Men said: Part of this is chalked up to having a large market team, but the handful of teams which completely own their own stadium are worth the most. Getting free or near free land plus infrastructure paid for your development of baseball and non baseball revenue generating real estate is the best long term value for a team. JR is too old to have a long term, but his kids would benefit if they owned and operated the stadium, team and TV network, vs. settling for what he can finagle out of politicians and settling for a less than ideal arrangement. MLB Teams which own their stadium (2023 Forbes Franchise Rank & Value) 2 $4.8B Los Angeles Dodgers 3 $4.5B Boston Red Sox 4 $4.1B Chicago Cubs 6 $2.9B New York Mets 10 $2.6B Saint Louis Cardinals 12 $2.2B Texas Rangers 14 $2.0B Toronto Blue Jays 20 $1.5B Colorado Rockies Colorado is the outlier (Toronto dragged down a bit due to the value of the Canadian dollar), and would chalk that up more to inept ownership and management of the team. Steve Cohen purchased both the Mets and the publicly owned stadium in 2020 for $2.4B. The team value is up a half billion per Forbes, and he is planning a $8B development investment around the complex he owns. This is the way to maximize long term value. Ownership isn't that important. Those teams are at the top because of their market, like you said. It's the operational control that matters most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan18 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 3 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said: This has me tremendously excited. As excited as I've been since the start of the Covid year season. So, tell me, it seems like the perfect storm to get a half private, half public stadium built in an awesome setting -- why is it just now being talked about? Is this really viable? It sounds too good to be true, honestly. The Sox playing in an intimate, modern stadium in a neighborhood well served by transit with plenty of room for organic growth around the new park? Get it done! 2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: In a weird sort of way I think the size of it is actually the thing working most against it. If it were a smaller area, there wouldn't be the grandioseness of each set of plans that comes up for this site. It's kind of like the old post office. Instead of just coming up with something, everyone is coming up with this insanely big plans, which by their nature are the hardest to get to the finish line. It was the same with Block 37 for decades as well. I think in a lot of ways a ballpark and village might be one of the easiest things to get over the finish line compared to something more complex plans of the last couple of decades. Hell I have walked past this site a million times when i worked in this area and thought how great it would have been as a ballpark vs a casino, or a highrise, or even an empty lot. Pretty wild that Rivers not winning the casino bid might end up being the greatest thing that ever happened to this ballclub. When I saw the news yesterday I was skeptical of this being realistic, but the more I read the more it makes sense. Related needs a huge draw to their entertainment district, and nothing makes more sense than putting a ballpark in the middle of it. And they might even pay for most of it! 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 19 Author Share Posted January 19 20 minutes ago, soxfan18 said: Ownership isn't that important. Those teams are at the top because of their market, like you said. It's the operational control that matters most. The big thing will be keeping the debt load as small as possible for JR. This franchise is one of very few that has almost a zero debt load, which will make it very attractive if it ever does hit the open market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 I an not a geologist or land engineer but simply am noting the history of the site. You truck in all the solid fill you want but the original river bed may compromise soil bearing. We also do not know what kind of fill was used there. Once again, even without knowing some of these answers, the fact that the parcel has not been developed since 1929 should be cause for some trepidation about this site. I would pass on it and look for other alternatives, especially closer to the lakefront by Burnham Harbor. One issue with difficult sites like this is that you just cannot accurately quantify prices until the shovels go down in the soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 32 minutes ago, tray said: I an not a geologist or land engineer but simply am noting the history of the site. You truck in all the solid fill you want but the original river bed may compromise soil bearing. We also do not know what kind of fill was used there. Once again, even without knowing some of these answers, the fact that the parcel has not been developed since 1929 should be cause for some trepidation about this site. I would pass on it and look for other alternatives, especially closer to the lakefront by Burnham Harbor. One issue with difficult sites like this is that you just cannot accurately quantify prices until the shovels go down in the soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted January 19 Share Posted January 19 43 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: The big thing will be keeping the debt load as small as possible for JR. This franchise is one of very few that has almost a zero debt load, which will make it very attractive if it ever does hit the open market. Don't worry once Trump gets into office and pressures the fed we'll have free money again for the financiers. I'm only half joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierSox Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 https://x.com/sportsmockery/status/1748404240647639259?t=7jFnPnvMp9quxQZ4VmFg5A&s=19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 17 minutes ago, HoosierSox said: https://x.com/sportsmockery/status/1748404240647639259?t=7jFnPnvMp9quxQZ4VmFg5A&s=19 This would be so fucking incredible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 https://chicago.suntimes.com/white-sox/2024/1/19/24044344/white-sox-stadium-the-78-related-midwest-jerry-reinsdorf-multibillion-dollar-development Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stinky Stanky Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: It is the same with NYC. You sure about this? I always thought Manhattan Island was a big rock that was solid support for all those skyscrapers. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 4 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: The Sox had never made the playoffs in consecutive seasons before 2020 and 2021. 2020 of course was only a 60 game season as you recall. As far as attendance remember in 2021 it was limited because the COVID situation was still on-going. And you'd have to spend far more money then is conceivable to drive a MLB franchise into debt. They are basically printing money by the boatload. I guess 2020 doesn't count then since the as it's not recognized by the MLB. You must think that the Padres borrowed money for fun. Edited January 20 by ptatc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 20 Author Share Posted January 20 11 minutes ago, Stinky Stanky said: You sure about this? I always thought Manhattan Island was a big rock that was solid support for all those skyscrapers. It is in the sections where the tallest buildings are. But there are large sections of fill as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 6 hours ago, Balta1701 said: It is being talked about now because the White Sox's lease at the Rate is officially up in a few years, so decisions will need to be made soon, there is actual time pressure to make a decision in the next couple years. Their options include extending the lease at the Rate, a new ballpark somewhere, or moving. These decisions don't need to be made today, but lining up hundreds of millions of dollars in funding takes time, so they need to be made soon. Any of these have some controversy to them - an extension of the lease at the Rate is complicated since the last deal was SO TEAM FRIENDLY that the politicians won't just want to renew it forever. A new ballpark is complicated since the last deal was SO TEAM FRIENDLY that the politicians won't just want to write Reinsdorf another blank check to stay in the same spot after his wealth increased by billions during the previous deal. Moving the team is obviously controversial. This particular spot has the benefits of potentially solving several of these issues. It makes sense for the city and state to put in some funds to this site since it is currently a dead zone that has had multiple development proposals fail and requires some environmental remediation. The transit options are ideal. It's much closer to downtown and could have the actual city viewable from the ballpark. It's a broad piece of land so the ballpark could serve as an anchor to a larger development - so the city and state could get tax revenue from the rest of the site once it is developed, justifying the funds they would put in to bring it back into the taxpaying base. I actually like Sox Park and I think it is nice looking. This problem is like thinking your cousin would be more likeable if he wore nicer clothes. The problem with Sox Park is some of the humans who work there. I would probably convert the owner's lot into a memorial site for the people I would dfa. Problem solved. Oh and the problem with Southside culture and perception might have been addressed by say a real estate developer over the course of 43 years. Maybe. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 3 minutes ago, pcq said: I actually like Sox Park and I think it is nice looking. This problem is like thinking your cousin would be more likeable if he wore nicer clothes. The problem with Sox Park is some of the humans who work there. I would probably convert the owner's lot into a memorial site for the people I would dfa. Problem solved. Oh and the problem with Southside culture and perception might have been addressed by say a real estate developer over the course of 43 years. Maybe. Give me a legitimate destination, walkable with lots of things to do nearby, attached to and a part of the city, with transit options. Watch me make a special trip there in like 10 years, stay 4 nights in the hotel on site, dine in the area, catch a whole series, drop what $3k depending on the seats? I’m already up for this. Also something involving deep dish. Slight contrast with our usual stop at the Skyway Oasis McDonalds on the way there when I was young, because nothing else in the area other than parking lots and 90s ballpark food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 4 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Give me a legitimate destination, walkable with lots of things to do nearby, attached to and a part of the city, with transit options. Watch me make a special trip there in like 10 years, stay 4 nights in the hotel on site, dine in the area, catch a whole series, drop what $3k depending on the seats? I’m already up for this. Also something involving deep dish. Slight contrast with our usual stop at the Skyway Oasis McDonalds on the way there when I was young, because nothing else in the area other than parking lots and 90s ballpark food. Was 90s ballpark food bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 10 minutes ago, ron883 said: Was 90s ballpark food bad? It was ordinary. Hot dogs and burgers and stuff. Also comparatively expensive, next to a highway fast food stop. There’s a lot more interesting dining options at ballparks these days. Also I’m now over 21 and craft beer is a thing. And if you had upper deck seats you were terrified to stand up to get anything. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stinky Stanky said: You sure about this? I always thought Manhattan Island was a big rock that was solid support for all those skyscrapers. It's almost all bedrock. Famously, some of it is jutting up in places including Central Park. It's also a major part of the subway history, going through or (more preferably) around, over, and under it. Thank you for coming to my ted talk. 14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: It was ordinary. Hot dogs and burgers and stuff. Also comparatively expensive, next to a highway fast food stop. There’s a lot more interesting dining options at ballparks these days. Also I’m now over 21 and craft beer is a thing. And if you had upper deck seats you were terrified to stand up to get anything. Pretty much. It was basic ass hot dogs, pretzels and nachos, cheapish US macros for beer and for sweets you had ice cream and froyo, an early 90s phenomenon. I feel like the Sox were one of the first parks that started to serve more diverse s%*#, like the bertucci bros area. Edited January 20 by chitownsportsfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 45 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: It was ordinary. Hot dogs and burgers and stuff. Also comparatively expensive, next to a highway fast food stop. There’s a lot more interesting dining options at ballparks these days. Also I’m now over 21 and craft beer is a thing. And if you had upper deck seats you were terrified to stand up to get anything. s%*#, I'm terrified to stand up in the upper deck now. Tall person vertigo is real up there! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted January 20 Share Posted January 20 14 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: s%*#, I'm terrified to stand up in the upper deck now. Tall person vertigo is real up there! Husky Stadium upper deck is the worst I've ever been in: great view. steep as s%*#. 1 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.