tray

Not sure what your question for Melody Hobson is. GRate field will not need to be replaced for 20 years or more. There are millions of baseball fans in and around Chicago. Retirees often relocate to warmer climates but the Chicago area will always be a great place to raise a family and watch our sports teams. When is the last time you attended a game in Chicago?

I think I agree.

Oh well, U of I Discovery Partners (another in a long list of proposed anchor tenants for the 78 ) is out. Related is now suggesting that the Chicago Fire could build a soccer stadium there (no doubt, look for more impressive architectural renderings to follow). https://www.connectcre.com/stories/university-of-illinois-pivots-from-plans-at-the-78/ Dead in the water.

Jerry went downstate at the request of Related to see if Gov. Pritzker and the legislature were at all interested in public funding for Related's plan. None of the Related 78 plan or that substandard location were ever Jerry's or anyone else in the WSox organization or the ISFA.

It appears that you have an obsession with one-upmanship, name calling and targeting. I'll let you have the last word here as I have in the past, but in the future, try to resist the temptation to try to prove that you are any wiser than any other poster here.

I think you meant North rather than South. Throwing money at a complicated substandard site with all of the financial and practical entanglements with a self-serving developer would be insane, IMO. The view of the railroad boneyard to the East is awful and as you indicated, there are complicated ingress/egress issues. Maybe explore other alternatives. As a comparison, look at that rendering of the proposed Bears stadium adjacent to Soldier Field. Anything with a view of the lakefront such as on the former Michael Reese site would be great...if the Sox and ISFA are even interested in relocating from 35th St.

I suspect that Venable agreed to a long term rebuild plan similar to Getz' concept of a rebuild plan, i.e., exploring all low cost in-house options for talent, "developing" those players for a few years and meanwhile, abstaining from spending on free agents.

After seeing 35 year old Freddy Freeman in this years playoffs, Vaughn no longer meets the eye test.

Sox need several players including a DH that hits 30+ HR. I suggested Santander as one possibility. Spend some money and the team could conceivably get back to .500.

IMO....Local TV stations broadcasting over the air makes spending $50 on a good antenna well worth it. No cable interruptions and the quality of digital broadcasts for free. I love watching Channel 9 news in the morning and some of their other content like Larry Potash' Back Story. Several WTTW based channels as well.

As long as CSHN has over-the-air broadcasts I will happily tune in. I'm 35 miles away and the reception is great.

The 78 is Futuristic? How so. It's just a piece of low lying vacant land. The largely unrealistic not to scale artistic rendering is a joke. Perhaps you have have been had like many others by a developer looking to cash in and avoid having to pay real estate taxes on a vacant parcel they have failed to develop. Digital over the air broadcasts ? The quality of the picture is as good as cable and light years beyond what we watched back in the old days. But go ahead.

Yes Kyle, I think the 78 plan is a joke and I don't mind explaining and advancing my opinion, even in the face of opposing views. Meanwhile...Don't assume MOST Sox fans from SW suburbs will put their families on mass transit. Some will, many others probably won't based on security and other practical concerns. That is going to potentially decrease attendance....substantially. If you are young and single, or have not attended many games, you may not understand that. IMO, the rendering of the 78 stadium is an architectural/ballpark design joke. And who designed it? Related employees? That mainly metal and glass stadium is supposed to compete for revenue with the historic Wrigley field? LOL. The garish 4 story lit up Sox logo? LOL. The gratuitous pinwheels? The scoreboard obstructing views of downtown? The 78 plan to build commercial hi rises surrounding that park diminishes the opportunity to even consider incompatible architecture. That is why the 78 stadium rendering looks like an office building. 78 is only a bit more than 2 miles from Armor Park (and has similar views of downtown) so what is the major reason one would consider abandoning the White Sox home for over 100 years? I'm asking. Is it worth abandoning Armour Park, all the surrounding land, the infrastructure, and indeed all the history the White Sox have had with their fans on 35th street? Never forget, the 78 started as an idea by a developer who experienced multiple failed attempts at reaching some agreement to get an anchor tenant (including Amazon). Now, the ISFA, Chicago and Illinois taxpayers, and Sox ownership (current or future), should tell Related to stick it. Sox fans should not allow themselves to be sold down the river by some greedy real estate people...and we know their type.

I wish Reinsdorf and/or the ISFA would fund an architectural study for a new Comiskey near the site of the original park. Many of the errors made at GRate could be avoided. Red brick, arched windows and other elements from the original architecture could be employed. Home plate facing North. Beachers in LF (only without without a scoreboard behind them obstructing the view of downtown like the rendering of the 78). An upper deck in RF that would be lower and closer to the playing field. And of course, developing the adjacent area with some commercial and residential. No issues with parking or public transit. It's already there. Same goes for all the utilities - sanitary and public sewer. 3 phase power, etc. Soil is good - not part of a former river bed. Why try to pursue Related 78....a project that is far more expensive, entails much more financial risk and risk to the fan base? Why? Related keeps pushing and pushing. They just duked the sodfather to put a sand lot there and dragged Reinsdorf down to Springfield to look for free money. At the end of the day, there could be other options for a new stadium than the one (the 78) being shoved at us. And no, I am not talking about moving the team. I am talking about keeping them where they have been for over 100 years.

I sense some anger here. Not sure why some people want to question my experiences and my memories but whatever.

LOL.

Doesn't it makes sense to increase access to games with over-the air broadcasts plus cable? I'm asking. That is similar to channels 2,5,7,9 etc that broadcast and are available via cable/streaming as well. Arguably, Wirtz did not increase the fan base or attendance at games by pulling the Hawks off WGN. Similarly, Einhorn/Reinsdorf did not increase the fan base when they likewise pulled the WSox off free broadcast/Chan. 9. That history at least instructs that decisions like these could have unintended consequences.

We used to sit down the first base line where my father had some box seats for a few years. It was a great view of the park and beyond.

Stop stalking my posts and mischaracterizing my opinions.

Not the entire skyline but the taller buildings and that view became better on the cat walk in center. Old Comiskey was a much shorter structure that GRate, so no doubt views of the city could be improved drastically if Old Comiskey was rebuilt on the old site or where Armor Park is. Dick, I loved the old split palladian windows and walking on the cat walk behind the scoreboard. For the Bridgeport resident, I attach a picture from a recent Opener (tailgating) I took from Parking Lot C to refresh his recollection of the area.

I remember looking at the skyline through the split palladian windows at old Comiskey. Love to see the Sox rebuild at the old site and orient the park that way again.

If antiquated in your book means convenient parking, I'm down with that. I like doing my own thing including going where I want to go in the safety of my own vehicle.

I just wanted to say...fvk the cvbs.

Related development's pressure to sell the WSox on a move to the 78 did nothing but cause a lot of uncertainty about the future of the franchise. GRF is not in poor condition needing replacement like old Comiskey was. I vigorously opposed Related and their full court press to obtain public financing for a project that largely made no sense for the WSox or for tax payers. Well, goodbye old friend.