tray

Daley was mayor when the process began in 2004. Here you go. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_bid_for_the_2016_Summer_Olympics Daley was against the City having to finance the games with tax dollars. The opposition to the plan was short sighted as it would have created a lot of jobs when Chicago needed them and revitalized areas that some people now complain about. Fox News political consistency? OK, they are a consistent source of bigotry and race baiting designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator and cannot be trusted as a reliable source of news.

One more thing. This hyped up 78 BS is very distracting to the White Sox and their fan base. Reinsdorf needs to sign an extension to keep the Sox on 35th Street so everyone can finally focus on baseball.

Tell me if you were against Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics (supported by Barack Obama, Oprah Winfrey Michael Jordan, Michael Phelps, Mayor Daley and opposed by Fox News and the Republican Right) but are now all in on this 78 plan. Give me a break. GRF is not structurally unsound so building an office park with a stadium designed by a Developer (that has never designed a baseball stadium?) seems like a good idea to compete with the Cubs for downtown area residents? Uh no. Oh so let our fan base figure out a way to get to games from Frankfort, New Lenox, Homer Glen, Plainfield, Joliet etc. ... on trains and boats...what a great idea....especially when Southwest suburbanites are probably the largest segment of Sox nation that regularly attend games. My buddies and I have a season ticket package which includes the Opener with Cease pitching. Meanwhile, I am pretty sick about the Related 78 development hype which is all about scoring them a huge windfall on vacant property that no one has wanted to develop for decades. The Sox and most of their fans would be better off if the Sox eventually build on the site of the Original Comiskey and develop the South side of 35th street. My own fan input: It would be great to see renderings from sports stadium architects that incorporate historical design elements and, of course, fan input to build on the site of Old Comiskey. I would love to one up the Cubs by leaving the Left Field bleachers open to downtown and a new street behind the left field wall like Waveland with some commercial/residential rather than sticking a scoreboard there to block views. Instead perhaps a large screen in Center, maybe even a curved screen like a gaming monitor on steroids. Replace some of the ball/ strike/out info with colored circular LED bulbs that mimic the bulbs in the outfield in Fenway...part of a throwback design. Go back to an analog clock on top of the scoreboard and lose the twirly bird spinners which are not original design elements. Ivy? Yes, it is already in CF at GRF (and was something that Veeck was in favor of at Wrigley) so some green elements would be a good idea, especially to cover the large concrete wall along the train tracks. Have bars/restaurants on the South side of 35th with fenced in Patio areas in back of them, and yes, keep all of the rest of the South lots for parking. Tailgating can either be allowed in some lots or not allowed. That is not a deal breaker. Let Related come up with their next idea to pawn off the 78 on someone else. I'm with the City and the State on this. Don't look to the residents of IL to fund something that in many ways, makes no sense whatsoever and is not needed for years to come.

"Chicago" as used generically refers to a mega metropolitan area so it is always helpful to define terms. The City of Chicago experienced white flight beginning in the late 1960s. That hollowed out neighborhoods in many ways with aging dilapidated housing and public schools, and the closing of retail businesses and manufacturing companies which removed jobs and killed the tax base. The chances of reversing that and reinvesting seems to be as unlikely as Israel rebuilding Gaza for the Palestinians. It's not going to happen. For example, there is no desire by those living in the suburbs and beyond to invest in Chicago's inner city neighborhoods other than hiring more cops. Everything people talk about now divides people along partisan battle lines drawn by the media who in turn, profit from it. Remember how many opposed Chicago's bid for the Olympics, largely along partisan lines? Any new stadium proposal that requires public funding will likely face similar hurdles.

OK, so you don't hop on the first plan - building a ballpark with no character and no parking designed by a developer to maximize their profits on a garbage site. There is time to seek some better alternatives. "While I do find some of your comments off base, security is a growing concern, especially for a fanbase that looks for excuses not to go to games." Yes two shootings in Chinatown yesterday. Gun violence is kind of everywhere in the country right now, especially in urban areas so no getting away from that. A reasonably secure parking lot should be part of any new plan. My arguments, including the parking issue, are not "off base" or uncommon as one can see by reading numerous fan reactions on XTwitter when this was proposed. As with many developers, the site plan is overdeveloped with buildings and a lack of open space. Parking for surrounding buildings, especially on game days is not clear nor is vehicular ingress/egress. If the entire site was developed exclusively for the White Sox and included parking, that would be different, but apparently, that is not Related's intention. Meanwhile the ISFA is sitting on 72 acres + on 35th Street with ease of access to the Expressway and mass transit. The reasons for moving from the South side make no sense. Maybe the Bears would consider it.

Parking is important to many suburban Sox fans. It's really not worth the gamble of building this thing and risk losing a sizable number of fans who choose to drive for security, time requirements, convenience and safety for their families. The 78 site plan is a joke in many ways as is the nondescript design of the stadium itself. What is in that glass box bldg. with "Sox" on it ? Elevators to club boxes? Gratuitous exploding pinwheels? Ugh. I see a predominance of modern architectural elements like metal beams and rectangular glass that will no doubt be replicated in surrounding flat-roofed buildings. Virtually nothing about 78 is unique let alone special and the site sucks in so many ways. By contrast fans refer to "Beautiful Wrigley Field" because it has so many things about it that make it so. IMO, there is absolutely no compelling need to move from 35th Street. Renegotiate the Lease and when the time is right, replace it with a beautiful new stadium incorporating brick, wrought iron, arches, etc. on the grounds of the original Comiskey. The designs of the architect that designed both Comiskey and Wrigley contain a lot of clues that could be used to make a new park a memorable experience and one that does justice to the long history of the South Side White Sox, the original Comiskey Park, and the surrounding neighborhoods.

Naivete is something one is forced to confront once they realize they have been played.

Absurd. It's a baseball park, not an office building.

Literally no on-site parking for a South Loop location that has not been safe to walk especially at night.

Exactly. This is the second or third development proposed/hyped by Related for that site. GRF allows Sox fans to experience most of the park as long as they do not have 500 level seats, and most do not. It looks like there are 3-4 levels on one side and what looks like restaurants or private boxes in the outfield, No brick and ivy, palladian arches or any other classic baseball stadium architecture - that for an original mlb franchise that has been at another location for over 100 years. I suppose the design of cold steel and glass was necessitated to fit into surrounding building architecture - so OK, Mies van der Rohe on baseball steroids. Modernism / minimalism but I suspect that many baseball fans prefer more traditional parks. Would tourists rather go to that cold steel and glass place than Wrigley? No.. I hear the company that makes Windex likes it though.

Parking was an enormous issue. Private parking lots scattered down 35th St., Shields etc, with guys (open packing) waving to get people in and taking cash only. Other fans would park on surrounding streets causing many issues throughout the neighborhood. Tailgating has been a great and growing phenomenon since Comiskey opened. My guess is that the 78 concept will be rejected, at least in its current form (where the site appears to be overcrowded and over-developed with questionable vehicular access including for the surrounding business and residential (or whatever those objects are). I hope equal effort and exposure be given to another alternative, but not likely with Related pimping this plan and getting so much media coverage right now.

Virtually every good idea that is depicted in that conceptual 78 drawing can be bested by a new park at the site of the original Comiskey park. I have mentioned some of those. There are enormous practical and financial advantages of building across the street on 35th Street. As far as any plan that substantially diminishes the enormous parking lot capacity and the revenue generated from it, that would be a large gamble. Tailgating? Sox and Bear fans have loved tailgating for generations. Why pay a premium for drinks and beer inside the park or at a restaurant or bar prior to game ? It is a blast to meet up friends in the park lots, grill your own food and enjoy your own drinks. The 78 plan eliminates that entirely. Hanging at bars late night after weekday games is a Wrigleyville thing. The Sox fan base that attend night games is largely different. Many of us live in far West/SW even NW suburbs or NW Indiana, and bring our sons/daughters to games in cars. Most of us will never sacrifice security for our families to ride mass transit into the City. I don't care how much is spent on armed security and who pays for it. And if we arrive early we have to take everyone into a bar or restaurant ( adding to the cost of the outing) or wait in long lines at the gate? The depiction of this 78 plan is understandably devoid of detail, including scale/dimensions, parking, pedestrian and vehicular access routes and specificity regarding the use/scale of surrounding buildings. While GRF has many things that are lacking, it does have a few attributes that are often taken for granted and if replaced, should be considered in any new plan. One that I like is the ability of everyone to seek shelter from rain under the stands in wide corridors. Also, one can walk all around the stadium or hang out at a very large outfield concourse where there is a large food court and many rest rooms (although never enough men's rooms). Any development company can requisition impressive artistic renderings which are often out of scale and contain unrealistic details in an effort to woo banks, financiers, potential tenants, etc. to buy in. This would not be the first one that this Related development company and their predecessors have done over the last few decades. I'm not buying in. Having said that, I'm not entirely against Area 78 primarily because, as noted in this thread, many, mostly younger Sox fans would welcome it. Trust me....I get it.. out with the old, in with the new. I just think it is the wrong way to go, just like did when JR, Einhorn and Savarise approved a ridiculous looking new park covered with awful brown dryvit , a steep upper deck, powder blue seats, and white erector set metal truss work. I hated it. Based on my own professional and life experiences, and my history as a Sox fan, I am more inclined to stop and think about every possible alternative rather than jumping aboard any proposal let alone one made by an overly aggressive development company under artificial deadlines and veiled threats about moving team. Often patience yields some of life's best rewards. I can envision a great new Sox park on the site of the original Comiskey...one that incorporates the best ideas of the original Comiskey and Wrigley fields and avoids most of the mistakes caused by greed, oversight, and failure to incorporate good ideas by architects and the fan base. Instead what I see here is old rectangular shaped vacant lot with any number of inherent issues with a new stadium shoehorned in while maximizing the remaining space for mainly unRelated commercial development.

Eloy and Moncada have already been dangled out there. Good idea, trade both of them for a decent return. But why does Vaughn seem un-tradeable? He does not hit well enough to be a full time DH and he is a substandard defensive 1B. Read the Jimmy Maraglus article at the link I posted and the posts that follow. Vaughn does not fit Getz apparent vision to make the roster more athletic, better defensively, and faster on the bases. Please, I don't "hate" any player or any idea to build a stadium. Me, I am fine with moving to a new site, but not when it makes absolutely no sense to do it. That seems to be the case with 78.

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.

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/

Jimmy Margalus opined on this point a while back: https://soxmachine.com/2023/07/andrew-vaughn-still-oddly-outside-scope-of-white-sox-trade-talks/

Probably because no team has any interest in this guy but maybe he should be dangled out on the trade market by Getz given his emphasis on speed and defense. Vaughn clogging up the bases with a single or getting tagged out trying to stretch a base hit into a double makes no sense with the new Go-Go Sox. Vaughn has alligator arms at 1B and very little range on defense. He doesn't make sense as a DH because of his splits and again, his lack of speed on the bases. The Cubs among other teams might be interested.

I don't see how going to bars after a night game is what families with children want to do or what thousands of fans from the SW suburbs would want to do given that they could have a 30-45 minute drive home and have probably downed a few during the game. Safety? Public transit in the City is not safe and neither is walking the streets at night. You are better off getting in your car and heading home or towards the suburbs after night games. Gun violence, especially in the City, has changed everything.

I'm not certain that parking garages would work for a variety of reasons. As I tried to explain, there is obviously a different fan experience at Wrigley vs GRF where people are able to drive their cars, park in a safe parking lot adjacent to the park, and tailgate if they choose.. Most fans (from the far SW suburbs, for example), are simply never going to use mass transit to commute to a game for security and other reasons. I am not sure how parking garages would work in a situation where almost everyone arrives and departs around the same time. So parking is a major cost consideration along with the land required for them. Let's see a site plan with this proposed plan including how many parking spaces will be provided and how the ingress/egress to expressways will work. As some have pointed out, GRF is only 2 El stops from Area 78 and there may be other issues with that site. How is moving there justified when all of the infrastructure and parking already exist on 35th Street ? It isn't like that site provides a view of the Lake or Burnham harbor. That, I think would be a different conversation. In my time I have seen so many artistic architectural renderings designed to excite developers, but this is one of the few that I just cannot see as it stands. Too many unanswered questions and a lack of detail in the development plans.

Evidence is not opinion based on limited personal observation. Evidence could be statistics about how many fans drive to games versus how many take mass transit and of course, how many, especially suburban families with children, would refuse to take mass transit through the city for security reasons because of gun violence and other crime. Of course some people will always rely on mass transit but the reality is that any new stadium must have parking that accommodates thousands of automobiles for suburban Sox fans. GRF has that.

Sox fans absolutely value parking greatly since that is the way most of them get to the games and most of them will never, ever board public transportation in Chicago. How does building at the 78 make the most sense ? You haven't even seen a rendering or a site plan that includes parking for thousands of vehicles, access to surrounding streets and expressways. Please, if you have not done so recently, drive by the Area 78 site and let us know what you think. Take a few phone pics from the street and post them here.

Most Sox fans are used to driving to GRF from the suburbs. They will never avail themselves of mass transit for security reasons among other things. Everything considered, maybe building on the site of the original Comiskey makes the most sense. The site is not in a hole, no need for environmental, it has historical significance, parking and infrastructure are already there, and the Sox/ISFA and City already own the land and surrounding parking. Why make things more complicated than they need to be....so people from the SW suburbs can paddle there down the Sanitary canal ? Sometimes the easiest and most cost effective solution is the best one.

The thing that some cub fans do not get is that South Siders like the large parking lots adjacent to the park to meet friends and to tailgate with their own grill, food and beverages. We don't need to jam into bars outside the park before games. Most fans probably choose to head home after long night games. For others there are countless restaurants from Bridgeport to Little Italy to Greektown or out in the suburbs to catch dinner or have a drink later. Wrigley provides a different fan experience which is also fine. They don't have to be the same and they never will be. Enjoy them for what they are.

Perhaps Bubbly Creek Park. for those who have interest in Chicago history or were forced to read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" in high school. But yea, water taxis.