77 Hitmen

....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.

What did he base that on? I did watch the video and he gave no details of why he thinks the White Sox are in play. And if he's an investor, how does he fit in if Jerry Reinsdorf isn't selling the Sox and very likely he has Justin Ishbia lined up as the next owner after he passes? If the Rays stay in Tampa, I find it very, very, very hard to believe that MLB will want to put another major league team in nearby Orlando. The YouTube video also incorrectly suggests that the Fire's plan to build on The 78 means any hope of the Sox moving there is dead since the Fire took that location. Not true.

If JR were a forward thinker, it would have been New Comiskey Park that ushered in the golden age of new, charming "retro" ballparks instead of Camden Yards. Instead, he rejected plans for a retro park in favor of a soulless, generic ballpark with two levels of skyboxes below the upper deck that required $68M to retrofit some charm into about a decade later. And yes, he's always been penny wise and dollar foolish as far as the White Sox go. It'll be up to the new owners after his passing (probably the Ishbia brothers) to spend money on either a new ballpark at the 78 or to redevelop most of the parking around the current park into some sort of entertainment district that will draw more fans to keep up with today's realities of MLB teams getting people through the turnstiles.

Here's a Trib article talking about the possibility of the Sox moving to The 78 along with the Fire: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/04/white-sox-stadium-fire-78/ From the article: "As part of the proposed development, the Fire are buying 9 acres of land at The 78, the team and developer confirmed. That leaves plenty of room for the White Sox to build an adjacent ballpark, Ganis said" And this might not sit well with some Sox fans, but also from the article: “Even when the Cubs stink on the field, they still draw” about 3 million people in the stands most seasons, Ganis said. “That is something the White Sox are sorely missing, and it’s because of the location of their stadium and how walled off it is from where people live, work and play.” As we've all agreed countless times, it'll depend on whether the Sox are willing to commit a significant amount of private money toward a new stadium. We all know the state isn't going to give them $1B for the ballpark itself and JR's offer to pay $200M toward a new ballpark isn't even close to enough. But the Fire building on this site does not kill the opportunity for the Sox to also move there.

This article says: "the Fire’s new stadium proposal almost certainly thwarts any Sox chances of also moving to The 78. While there’s enough room for two stadiums and a mixed-use district that would feature housing, top-tier shopping and dining, outdoor spaces, and other community-building enrichments, it’s doubtful that the Sox will cohabitate with the Fire." Why is it "doubtful that the Sox would cohabitate with the Fire" and why does this proposal "almost certainly" thwart any Sox chance to move to the 78? And if the answer is because Jerry won't pay for it, that's not what is being talked about - that's a separate (though important) issue. What about the Fire announcing plans to build on the site make it less likely that the Sox would build there and where did Jerry say that he wouldn't share the site with the Fire?

Sully weighs in on the latest turn of events for the 78: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/03/chicago-white-sox-the-78-ballpark-fire/

Yes, I agree with this point. Jerry didn't become a billionaire without knowing how to play hard ball in negotiations and that's certainly wise on his part to do so if he can get away with it. We'll just see how this all plays out.

Search for MLB ballpark rankings and you'll find that Rate Field ranks at or near the bottom in almost every review - especially if you discount the A's and Rays stadium debacles. We Sox fans can keep repeating how the current park is "just fine" all we want.....but hardly anyone outside of hard core Sox fans believes this. They did a great job in renovating the park 20 years ago and I agree with the difference between the lower deck experience (pretty good) and upper deck experience (not so great). But, at the end of the day, it's an unremarkable ballpark in an unremarkable neighborhood. The Sox could probably get away with this mediocrity if they didn't share a city with a team that plays in a ballpark that most people outside of the Sox fan base consider a must-see baseball experience. Here's another recent review. Sox fans aren't going to like which park is ranked dead last (after Sacramento and Tropicana Field) and which park is ranked #1. But this is the world we live in.

Agreed. If anything, this is great news for anyone who wants a new Sox stadium at the 78. With the Fire kick-starting infrastructure work and the development of an entertainment district, this should make it more likely for the Sox to build on the site. The hold up for the Sox is Reinsdorf's insistence on public funding for the stadium itself, but as we've discussed in other threads, the huge wild card here is the Ishbia brothers.

The Fire's owner is putting up $650M of private money toward this new stadium after recently spending $100M on a new practice facility for a franchise that is valued at $530M. Meanwhile Billionaire Jerry says he can only put $200M in private financing toward a new Sox stadium for a franchise that is valued somewhere around $2B. Pathetic. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/03/chicago-fire-new-soccer-stadium/

George Wendt has died at age 76. https://www.cnn.com/2025/05/20/entertainment/george-wendt-death

Yes, Angel Stadium opened in 1966. Kaufmann Stadium and Rogers Centre are older too. But, regardless, your point is still a valid one. Unfortunately, New Comiskey became outdated one year after it opened when Camden Yards opened the floodgates to new ballparks with character. Last I heard, Uncle Jerry hinted that he could commit ~$200M. And yes, that's far short of what would be needed and what the ownerships of Tampa Bay ($700M) and Kansas City (~$1B) have said they'd commit in private funding for a new stadium.

Yep. It should be loud and clear to the White Sox by now that if they want a new stadium, it'll have to be privately financed except for infrastructure costs. Good question. If I had to guess, I'd imagine sharing infrastructure costs at the AH would be less costly overall. On the other hand, if the City of Chicago ever wants The 78 to be developed into anything but a vacant lot, it's going to involve a lot of infrastructure costs. The factors driving the Bears back to AH over the site next to Soldier Field seem a lot more obvious. First there's a huge legal barrier in trying to build on the lakefront site and then the costs to develop that site that has been floated are astronomical. Or the Ishbia brothers.

State Farm Stadium in Arizona says they have 120 events per year. https://www.statefarmstadium.com/about So, 30 dates is perhaps a low estimate. I don't know how that compares to other indoor football stadiums such as the ones in Minneapolis, Detroit, or Indy. An indoor stadium in AH could very well host Beyonce/Taylor Swift-level mega concerts and not worry about winter weather or (as was the case this week) thunderstorms.

Lots of stories in the local news today about the Bears shifting their focus back to Arlington Heights. I have yet to hear the Sox mentioned as a possible co-tenant on the Arlington Park land. The only mention of the Sox that I'm aware of is from weeks ago when the incoming new AH mayor was dreaming out loud about bring the Sox to the site, too.