Carpe Diem Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 There is nothing wrong with "Guaranteed Rate Field" other than the location. The White Sox are blessed to play in a city that features one of the best skylines in the world and one of the biggest lakes in the world. WHY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SCENERY?!?! There is absolutely no excuse the White Sox not having a SF Giants like ballpark on the water facing the city. You want to stop being a second class organization? SHOW SOME VISION! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenksycat Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 QUOTE (Carpe Diem @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 02:43 PM) There is nothing wrong with "Guaranteed Rate Field" other than the location. The White Sox are blessed to play in a city that features one of the best skylines in the world and one of the biggest lakes in the world. WHY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SCENERY?!?! There is absolutely no excuse the White Sox not having a SF Giants like ballpark on the water facing the city. You want to stop being a second class organization? SHOW SOME VISION! JR won't open the checkbook to sign a big time free agent, they're not getting a new ballpark anytime soon and even then it will require a massive subsidy from the city which I hope never happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 QUOTE (Carpe Diem @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 02:43 PM) There is nothing wrong with "Guaranteed Rate Field" other than the location. The White Sox are blessed to play in a city that features one of the best skylines in the world and one of the biggest lakes in the world. WHY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SCENERY?!?! There is absolutely no excuse the White Sox not having a SF Giants like ballpark on the water facing the city. You want to stop being a second class organization? SHOW SOME VISION! They have a lease that runs until 2033. I'd call that a pretty good excuse. Unless you are will to spot them about a billion dollars, give or take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowand44 Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 02:50 PM) They have a lease that runs until 2033. I'd call that a pretty good excuse. Unless you are will to spot them about a billion dollars, give or take. Just break the lease, duh. Prolly like a $50 termination fee or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanOfCorn Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 DePaul took the last stadium spot. /green Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 20, 2016 Share Posted October 20, 2016 if you followed any of the Lucas Museum troubles, you will realize a ballpark isn't going to be built on the lakefront. And unless JR wants to foot the bill, not in Illinois either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 05:48 PM) if you followed any of the Lucas Museum troubles, you will realize a ballpark isn't going to be built on the lakefront. And unless JR wants to foot the bill, not in Illinois either. Yeah, real good point of the Friends of the Parks group. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Carpe Diem @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 01:43 PM) There is nothing wrong with "Guaranteed Rate Field" other than the location. The White Sox are blessed to play in a city that features one of the best skylines in the world and one of the biggest lakes in the world. WHY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SCENERY?!?! There is absolutely no excuse the White Sox not having a SF Giants like ballpark on the water facing the city. You want to stop being a second class organization? SHOW SOME VISION! If a new park is ever built it will be by new ownership and just as the Mayor and city fought to build the new park at a location they chose in the late 80's (Mayor Washington said the ONLY location the city would support and that he would tell his people on the Stadium Authority Board to vote for was across the street from the original park) you can expect the city to place location demands once again. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Yes, make it even harder to get to!!! WOOOOOOOOO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 05:48 PM) if you followed any of the Lucas Museum troubles, you will realize a ballpark isn't going to be built on the lakefront. And unless JR wants to foot the bill, not in Illinois either. This, and frankly soldier field is a pain in the ass to get to. Along River much more realistic and interesting density wise. But Friends of the Park have concluded that nothing is ever allowed to be built on the lakefront. Even the parking lots are human wonders that must never be destroyed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swingandalongonetoleft Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 How can you be friends with a park anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Carpe Diem @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 02:43 PM) There is nothing wrong with "Guaranteed Rate Field" other than the location. The White Sox are blessed to play in a city that features one of the best skylines in the world and one of the biggest lakes in the world. WHY NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT SCENERY?!?! There is absolutely no excuse the White Sox not having a SF Giants like ballpark on the water facing the city. You want to stop being a second class organization? SHOW SOME VISION! I agree with this, but they ain't building another stadium. They should have just planned it better originally. Hell, they could've just rotated the stadium a bit in its current location and part of the skyline would be visible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 04:15 AM) If a new park is ever built it will be by new ownership and just as the Mayor and city fought to build the new park at a location they chose in the late 80's (Mayor Washington said the ONLY location the city would support and that he would tell his people on the Stadium Authority Board to vote for was across the street from the original park) you can expect the city to place location demands once again. Mark You've all convinced me. Sox are a stepchild and no new stadium will be built unless the new owner fits the bill and you can forget about that. No fricking way. Not when they could move the team and get a free one in Vegas or anywhere. We really truly should stop talking about it. 35th and Shields neighborhood just needs to modernize and become a destination area for fun. That also will never happen. Fans are used to getting to the Cell and most fans have a way to get in and park and get out they are comfortable with. So we're stuck with it. Just enjoy what we've got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Zelig Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Swingandalongonetoleft @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 12:26 PM) How can you be friends with a park anyway? Sadly, it's generally a pretty one-sided relationship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chetkincaid Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 The only way the White Sox will get a new stadium is if it's built in Portland, Montreal, North Carolina, or (God forbid) Indiana. And if that northside team (whose name I'll never say on here) goes on a Yankees-like run, I wouldn't doubt if our White Sox were forced to leave Chicago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YouCanPutItOnTheBoardYES! Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) The only way the White Sox will get a new stadium is if it's built in Portland, Montreal, North Carolina, or (God forbid) Indiana. And if that northside team (whose name I'll never say on here) goes on a Yankees-like run, I wouldn't doubt if our White Sox were forced to leave Chicago. This is awesome. You hate them so much you won't even say their name. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 12:07 PM) You've all convinced me. Sox are a stepchild and no new stadium will be built unless the new owner fits the bill and you can forget about that. No fricking way. Not when they could move the team and get a free one in Vegas or anywhere. We really truly should stop talking about it. 35th and Shields neighborhood just needs to modernize and become a destination area for fun. That also will never happen. Fans are used to getting to the Cell and most fans have a way to get in and park and get out they are comfortable with. So we're stuck with it. Just enjoy what we've got. Greg: You must remember that when it comes to the city of Chicago and major decisions, politics is going to play a part. Always was...always will be. Mark Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panerista Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 QUOTE (Chet Kincaid @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 02:04 PM) The only way the White Sox will get a new stadium is if it's built in Portland, Montreal, North Carolina, or (God forbid) Indiana. And if that northside team (whose name I'll never say on here) goes on a Yankees-like run, I wouldn't doubt if our White Sox were forced to leave Chicago. Yeah. No. we aren't getting a new stadium. Also, the Sox won't be moving any time soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kitekrazy Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 QUOTE (Lip Man 1 @ Oct 20, 2016 -> 09:15 PM) If a new park is ever built it will be by new ownership and just as the Mayor and city fought to build the new park at a location they chose in the late 80's (Mayor Washington said the ONLY location the city would support and that he would tell his people on the Stadium Authority Board to vote for was across the street from the original park) you can expect the city to place location demands once again. Mark Owners usually don't build stadiums. They fleece governments for that which are then put on the tax payers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted October 22, 2016 Share Posted October 22, 2016 QUOTE (kitekrazy @ Oct 21, 2016 -> 08:48 PM) Owners usually don't build stadiums. They fleece governments for that which are then put on the tax payers. True and perhaps I worded that wrong. I meant that by the time a new ballpark is even up for discussion the Sox will have new ownership. Mark 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.