tray
-
Posts
3,741 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Posts posted by tray
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:
So basically, you just want to convert the 30+ year old GR Field into Old Comiskey?
Would this really make sense to you over building an entirely new and modern ballpark or are you just in it for your own touch of nostalgia?
My words have been parsed by an antagonist. There are reasons I believe that Area 78 will not be pursued for a new baseball stadium - numerous failed projects there, the time and costs that would be involved to address major impediments to construction, special infrastructure requirements like a sea wall, storm and sanitary sewer connections, and possible soil bearing where the former river bed was located. The most recent plan approved by the City excluded the old river bed path referring to it as "Crescent park".
As far as GRF, yes it is 35 years old, but there is nothing structurally wrong with it and there are precedents for making major changes to it. Personally, I would not mind seeing a new stadium on the site of the original Comiskey or at another site within Chicago, but not the 78. That's a large hole in the ground that seems like an ideal spot for Amazon or an Intermodal. The owners/developers have been pushing that site for years, but I for one, am not buying in. But anyway, go ahead and buy in if you want to. I don't care.
-
1
-
-
23 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:
And also Balta, you are also correct that they aren’t putting a second OF deck on 35th and Shields lmao
GRF may never see major renovations, but Area 78 is never going to happen. lmao.
-
If an agreement to extend the current Lease is made, a plan for a major remodeling of the existing park might be pursued. Not sure which plan would be architecturally/structurally/economically feasible, but I am sure there are plenty of ideas out there.
I always thought removal of the entire 500 level would not hurt revenue much and then replacing seating capacity with upper tanks in the outfield w/Palladian arched openings on the back walls like Comiskey had. Maybe make the center field monitor a regular rectangle with metal arch or analog clock above. Anyway, I am sure there are a lot of ideas out there that would cost a lot less and be done several years before entering into a complicated deal to develop the black hole known as Area 78. I'd bet the bank that thing is never going to go.
-
A Bellinger signing would be incredible for the Sox.
-
1
-
-
If greed was not a factor by owners/developers and the City, I think a nice 9 hole golf course, outdoor running track, and a park with an outdoor skating rink would be the highest and best use. That would add green space and beautify the city-scape. This parcel is a no-go for any major development otherwise. Too many issues with it that have caused other proposals (including a recent very ambitious one) to fail. There must be other options for a location that are way less problematic. Why go out and look for major problems? Jerry is way too smart to get involved in that century old Area 78 nightmare.
-
2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:
Congrats, you have once again proven what everyone else already knew.
I am always among the last to gather facts and formulate opinions.
-
"After the crooked river canal was filled and what is now known as the Rezko property was born, the land was used as a train yard and entry point for Grand Central until the 1970’s. When the yard was demolished, no one bothered to hook up sewer or water pipes or run electricity to the property, or even build streets or sidewalks to the lot. Located 30 feet below Roosevelt Road, the property is practically inaccessible from three sides—and, if anyone wanted to build on it, they’d first have to invest significantly in preliminary infrastructure as well as clean up all the garbage and chemicals in the soil. This is partially why Rezko failed to do anything with the land—besides having to deal instead with his money laundering and fraud convictions, of course."
https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/august-2013/rezkos-lot/
-
1
-
-
I am concerned that speculation about the possibility of a new stadium is going to hurt the franchise if/when it proves to be just that, or appears to be something intended primarily for leverage with ISFA. The Sox should get on with this or make another plan in order to clarify a way forward as soon as possible. Acquire the parcel, seek pubic/private financing, obtain a few conceptual plans, address site issues. JR is the right person to make this happen, if he wants it to.
-
I an not a geologist or land engineer but simply am noting the history of the site. You truck in all the solid fill you want but the original river bed may compromise soil bearing. We also do not know what kind of fill was used there. Once again, even without knowing some of these answers, the fact that the parcel has not been developed since 1929 should be cause for some trepidation about this site. I would pass on it and look for other alternatives, especially closer to the lakefront by Burnham Harbor.
One issue with difficult sites like this is that you just cannot accurately quantify prices until the shovels go down in the soil.
-
3 minutes ago, ron883 said:
What type of engineer are you tray?
Builder who has been involved with land development, including sites in Chicago that had numerous soil issues.
-
2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:
I promise you if randos on a sports message board are thinking of this, this has been studied and understood for decades by all of the different people who have tried to revitalize this site since the 1960s. If it was completely unbuildable, or if it was so expensive/difficult that it wasn't economically feasible, no one would be talking about doing something there anymore.
There are major reasons the site has not been developed since the river was moved....in 1929. The reason this rando brought it up here because no one else did. Time and costs for developing this site would be major considerations for the Sox if they want to make a move by 2029.
-
8 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:
That's because John McDonough (who grew up a Sox fan by the way) had the brilliant idea first started by William Wrigley to "promote" Wrigley Field instead of the team.
The location has to be adjacent to Burnham Harbor somewhere with great views of the Lakefront if the Sox want to accomplish something like that.
-
Having researched the history of this parcel as a river that moved was later used as a landfill, I had simply pointed out the obvious - that there will be major costs associated with excavating, filling and underpinning buildings and flat work there. Look at some of the historic pictures of the river there. Those costs could be prohibitive given the fact that the entire site was crossed North to South by the Chicago river and then filled in with who knows what. It could take years and millions of dollars to dig out the prior landfill, truck in solid fill, and drive pylons to support a stadium, a river wall, etc. once EPA approvals have been made and architectural and engineering plans have been approved. This seems like a no-go if the idea is to replace GRF by 2029.
-
If I am looking at the same strip of land I wonder if perhaps that acreage would present load bearing issues at certain points and/or require removal of non-load bearing fill and/or contaminated soil.
Looking at a historical map from the straightening of the Chicago river back in the 1920's (see link below) , I have to wonder how deep the old river bed was, how much muck and fill would need to be hauled away and how many piles would have to be driven in order to support structures and even flat work. The cost for extensive land engineering, excavation, fill, pylons, etc. could well be a reason why that site has remained undeveloped for decades.
-
1
-
-
I dislike the 78 site. It's a dump. All the railroad tracks converging there and the quality of the river at that point. It's awful.
And really no special views of the lake or the loop that warrant moving there.
Sox are sitting on a goldmine as it is as with all of the existing parking and infrastructure and with Bridgeport and Bronzeville continuing to gentrify year after year. They don't need a new stadium and if and when they do, just build on the site of the original Comiskey.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
-
Congratulations to this young man who is a good role model for young people who may think they have limitations to their career paths for any reason.Having said that and with all due respect for him, I thought it was time to move on, even prior to any reported contractual issues.
IMO, it would also be a good idea to start phasing Stone out. As a long time Sox fan it seems like our play-by-play and color commentators should have some sort of chemistry. When you start off with Stone as a given, the selection becomes limited and perhaps that decision has to essentially be ceded to Stone. I have always thought Stone would be happier as a Cubs announcer. He has been trending toward too much sarcasm and I for one, have often disagreed with his take on several players, coaches, etc. I know that is part of his job, but again, maybe a fresh perspective on everything is now in order.
-
3
-
-
I'd bring him back unless there was some Chris Sale like issue we don't know about where he revolted against the team and management. You can't form opinions about players based on things you just assume about them. Many of these players , even the best ones like Robert Jr., might not be people you might consider as friendly, etc. As I recall,TA spent time mentoring kids in the ACE program and appeared to like Chicago and all Sox fans. Obviously he had some personal issues and injury issues but he's a human being for C Sakes.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Makes sense in every way. My hope is that Getz gets passed his proclivity for Royals though.
-
Long forgotten by some, a young twenty-something Terry Savarise was tasked by Reinsdorf and Einhorn to travel to every major league stadium to glean ideas for the new park. He came back impressed by Dodgers Stadium's open outfield design and color scheme - powder blue and white with an open bowl design. He knew nothing about architecture or sport stadium architecture, Chicago architecture or the history of the architecture of Comiskey and Wrigley. His monumental mistakes cost the franchise hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years to remedy.
Next time a major renovation or new park is considered, Sox ownership should seek advice from Chicago architects and Sox fans in addition to the arch. group that designs sports stadiums. They also should look into acquiring land near the lakefront or even Soldier Field if the Bears move.
-
Cubs want Bellinger. At least get into negotiations and bid the salary up.
As I stated, I know that realistically this is not going to happen but thinking outside the box (can we do that here without getting stoned?) an outfield of Bennintendi, Robert and Bellinger would be above average and possibly way above average. Bellinger still looks like he is in good shape physically, is a good outfielder, and can produce 15+ home runs. Kind of exactly what the Sox need to move the team toward being competitive and win back some fans.
-
It would be big news in this town if the Sox signed Bellinger. Yes, I know they won't, but it would be big news on both sides of town.
-
Add to that (ugly 19 game blown lead stat) several games the we may have come back if our bullpen just kept games close and tie games. Hahn tried to bolster the end of the bullpen with guys who seriously unperformed. In many games it was frustrating that Bummer and a few others could not throw strikes when they needed, allowed walked hitters to steal bases, all resulting in crushing late inning rallies. When a team loses a lot of close games in late innings, it is hard to build any sort of momentum.
Please no more lead off walks with a one run lead followed with the guy stealing second. You do that, you are almost handing the game to the other team.
Sox looking at building in South Loop
in Pale Hose Talk
Posted
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.