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.