77 Hitmen

Some more interesting details about the proposed new Fire stadium: https://chicagoyimby.com/2025/06/additional-renderings-and-details-revealed-for-chicago-fire-fc-stadium.html It sounds like they're planning to build an extension of LaSalle St from Roosevelt Rd to avoid a more expensive project to realign the Metra tracks.

Definitely they want a better atmosphere than they have at the 65k capacity Solider Field. I found this wiki page that lists the seating capacities of all the soccer-only stadium in MLS (and NWSL). It looks like 22k seats is about average, though two new MLS stadiums will have 25k seating capacity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soccer-specific_stadium Maybe there's a cost consideration too since Manseuto is funding the entire cost of the new stadium?

I was getting that message when trying to DVR an upcoming movie (Eight Men Out!) on a basic cable channel yesterday. Maybe it's just a glitch?

It's not just that tweet from the Fire, this was in the Trib, Sun-Times and the local TV news yesterday as the Fire has released renderings of their new stadium at the 78 to the press. Very impressive. But, I'm a bit surprised they're going with a 22k capacity stadium given soccer's potential to really grow in the coming years. I wonder if there will be the ability to expand seating capacity later. https://chicago.suntimes.com/sports/2025/06/16/chicago-fire-stadium-south-loop-renderings-the-78-joe-mansueto The Fire also say that they are open to the possibility of the White Sox building a stadium on the 78. I'll take their word for it over Brodie Brazil.

Unless I missed it, it doesn't say there would be any public funding for a MLB ballpark. The only city/state that I have heard is willing to pay for a new MLB stadium is Salt Lake City/State of Utah. But Salt Lake City's metro area is ranked 46th in the US. Would Ishbia want to move the Sox there? I doubt it.

Do you have a link to an article that says this?

While it would be nice in the first 6 weeks of the season (and on rainy days throughout the season), it's probably not worth the extra cost. There are only 2 retractable roof ballparks in cold weather climates: Toronto and Milwaukee. I suppose you could say 3 if you include Seattle, but that roof is only for rain and that park is not climate controlled. On the other hand, all sun belt teams except the California teams and Atlanta have a retractable or fixed roof. It is clear that most northern cities have decided they're better off with a totally open air stadium - either for costs or aesthetics....or both. I don't know how other retractable roof ballparks are, but I've been to the one in Arizona, and it feels like your seeing a ballgame inside a "building" than a ballpark. IMO, it lacks the charm of may open air ballparks.

Maybe a KC area resident could clarify, but I don't think Kansas side of the KC metro area (and Overland Park, KS specifically) is comparable to the Hammond/Gary part of the Chicagoland area.

If I understand it correctly, the bill would commit public financing for up to 50% of the cost of a stadium. The Royals are looking for a new stadium and the Chiefs are looking for a massive renovation of Arrowhead. That's still a lot of public money being committed. The dynamics in KC is different as there's a serious threat of Kansas getting one or both of those teams to move to their side of the state in in the KC metro area. This would be more plausible than the Bears or Sox getting enticed to move to NW Indiana (which isn't going to happen).

Agreed. If Ishbia keeps the Sox at the Rate long-term, I'd be surprised if he'd settle for just minor tweaks to the current park and with leaving the area around the park pretty much the same. That's not exactly a good way to try to claw back all that market share that Jerry pissed away over the last 44 years. And I know some will say that all the Sox need to do is field a winning team and people will show up. But winning multiple pennants is easier said than done and championship cores are very fleeting when you do finally get one.

Yep, it makes no sense that a local billionaire who is building a $70M mansion here would buy the team only to move it to Nashville. And the Orlando talk is even bigger nonsense. Interesting that Greenberg thinks the most likely outcome is for Ishbia to keep the Sox at their current location and develop the area around the stadium. That's very possible. It'll be very interesting to see how this all plays out over the next few years. But even if they stay at the current location, I cannot imagine that a new owner would pay $2B for the franchise only to keep the current arrangement of acres of parking lots around the current park without much else to do.

Jon Greenberg of The Athletic discusses Isbhia deal to buy the Sox: https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/white-sox-ownership-deal-could-make-the-team-a-completely-different-franchise/3765009/

Fox 32 talking heads discuss what's next for the Sox after the Fire stadium and Ishbia announcement last week: https://www.fox32chicago.com/video/1655033 EDIT: maybe this should have gone into the Fire/78 thread instead.

That's a really good, sensible article. Very interesting MLB payroll vs. winning pct. graph at the end. The Angels sure are the outliers there!

....and they hosted the 50th anniversary game in 1983 at Old Comiskey Park.

The Michael Reese location seems to be a much worse location for the Sox than their current location. Still nothing to do in the area and further away from the L, the Rock Island Metra, and the expressways. Plus, right off the lake for that ice cold lake breeze for early season games. The Ishbias would be idiots to move to that location. SoFi Stadium in LA cost $5.5B, but the Titans new stadium has a cost of $2.1B. Sounds like the Bears might have to scale back their plans for Arlington Park if they can't finance that higher amount. And no, I don't think most of the Sox fan base would be happy if the team moved to AH....except for the fans who live in or near the northwest suburbs.

Yeah, it's mentioned in the Sun-Times article linked above. So, you are correct that it's been mentioned. I suppose they could build an entertainment district anywhere - The 78, around the existing park, or even at Michael Reese, but the first 2 sites at least are very well connected by L lines. The 78 is close to downtown, the current park is of course next to a nice residential area and by 2 L stops. Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I'm not sure how an entertainment district would thrive at the Michael Reese site. How easy is it to get to that site by mass transit if you aren't taking the Metra Electric or South Shore line? How is that site better than 35th and Shields?

Why in his right mind would Justin Ishbia want to move the Sox to the Michael Reese site? For all the complaints about 35th and Shields, are the Sox seriously going to move to a site that is further away from mass transit, further away from the main expressways, AND still has nothing to draw people before and after games? Oh, and I can't imagine what the wind off the lake would feel like there right on the lakefront in the first 6 weeks of the season. Am I missing something about why the Sox would be better off at Michael Reese than the current location other than some politicians desperate to get that site redeveloped? It sounds like an insanely stupid option to me. They'd be better off staying at the current park, building a new park on the site of Old Comiskey, or building a new park at The 78.

....and many Chicagoans have been doing it too for years for that hated place that is 8 miles north of Sox Park.

This fits with the notion that Jerry just doesn't want to give up control. I'm just glad there is a succession plan in place that doesn't involve the Reinsdorfs. In 2034, he'll be 98 years old.

Dumb question, but who is "NBB"?

I was wondering if the Fire stadium news spurred this to move forward now. Regarding 2029, are they timing it for when the current stadium lease is up?

Almost all ballparks are moving away from the model of surrounding the stadium with acres of parking lots. They seem to be doing just fine. Next up, the Phillies and Mets are looking to turn their parking lots into entertainment districts. The United Center too with the 1901 Project. I don't remember what they said as far as the number of parking spaces they had planned for a stadium at the 78. I do agree that it's something they need to address and insufficient access to enough parking would be an issue, but it's not going to be acres of surface lots. Even if they stay at the current site, they'd likely want to redevelop much of the existing parking into some sort of "Baseball Village".

The same 94 that goes by the current ballpark? If the Sox move to the 78, I can't imagine why fans driving up from the S or SW would go all the way up to the Roosevelt exit on the Ryan. Anyone coming up from the Ryan or I-55 would exit at the Chinatown feeder ramp. From there, you can go up Clark or Wentworth to the site. Coming in from the Ike or Kennedy, people would exit at Congress/Ida B. Wells and take that into the south loop.

...only for the remainder of this season and it'll move over to the "ultimate tier" before next season according to your previous post. The days of having cable/streaming providers pass along RSN fees to all their customers whether they want it or not are over.