5 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

and 7 miles in New York City is different than 7 miles in Kansas City.

And frankly, 17 miles is different in Dallas too, because Fort Worth exists.

It seems like the three biggest cities have teams further out. And cities with multiple teams are also further from downtown.

Suburbs really come into being in the 1950s and 1960s after many of these stadium sites were selected. 

Probably just random chance. 

44 minutes ago, Texsox said:

It seems like the three biggest cities have teams further out. And cities with multiple teams are also further from downtown.

Suburbs really come into being in the 1950s and 1960s after many of these stadium sites were selected. 

Probably just random chance. 

Hard to know where to count Arlington as it feels like suburban sprawl between Dallas and Ft. Worth.

Definitely far from downtown/s and set up just like KC with two stadiums and easy interstate access.

9 hours ago, Highland said:

All this stadium talk is nothing but a distraction to how bad this team is, and the fact that we don't know when it will get better.

I remember a team that played in two parks.

Anybody remember Block 37 aka Still Life With Shovel. 

8 minutes ago, pcq said:

I remember a team that played in two parks.

Anybody remember Block 37 aka Still Life With Shovel. 

When I worked for the Packers they played 2 games each year in Milwaukee at County Stadium and the rest in Green Bay. 

I would die to see the Sox migrate uptown a bit then a third team shows up to take over The Cell. I suppose certain owners would oppose that effort. In the early days of the NFL only Chicago had two teams. 

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

It seems like the three biggest cities have teams further out. And cities with multiple teams are also further from downtown.

Suburbs really come into being in the 1950s and 1960s after many of these stadium sites were selected. 

Probably just random chance. 

I feel like NYC just needs to not be in that graphic.

For starters — I'm guessing Lower Manhattan is being counted as downtown, but Midtown has a more classic "downtown" vibe.

But then you have Downtown Brooklyn, which isn't built up to nearly the same degree, but keeps expanding (the Barclays Center is technically just outside of that neighborhood).

I'm sure you'd get different answers from different people about Queen's Downtown, but Flushing is literally called Downtown Flushing by the city.

As for Yankees Stadium, yeah. It's a 20 minute subway ride from Grand Central (6 miles).

TL;DR - Balta is right and this graphic is dumb without context.

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

It seems like the three biggest cities have teams further out. And cities with multiple teams are also further from downtown.

Suburbs really come into being in the 1950s and 1960s after many of these stadium sites were selected. 

Probably just random chance. 

Chicago and NY have always had multiple teams, might be why none are located downtown or in the central business district. The Dodgers are a mid-century transplant and moved into a Chavez Ravine location near downtown when suburban flight was en vogue.

Both Chicago teams have played in the same locations for a century, same for the Yankees. The Mets have always been in Queens, correct? None of these four teams were a part of the 90s wave of new downtown parks, although it was an option for the Sox and fairly universally considered a mistake to have not made the move.

 

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.

 

 

It me.  Parser

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.

 

6 hours ago, ptatc said:

When I worked for the Packers they played 2 games each year in Milwaukee at County Stadium and the rest in Green Bay. 

Three games (Gold Package) vs. five (Green Package) in Green Bay. I enjoyed many Packers games at Milwaukee County Stadium before the jump. 

8 hours ago, tray said:

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.

 

I enjoyed "The Jungle". That was when high school students would actually read an entire novel. Now we talk about the novel and read excerpts sigh. 

78 sounds a bit toxic but there are many other obstacles that would require disparate forces to work together effectively. Not sure how likely that is. ? 

5 minutes ago, pcq said:

78 sounds a bit toxic but there are many other obstacles that would require disparate forces to work together effectively. Not sure how likely that is. ? 

Money talks.  The more JR is willing to shell out for a new stadium, the more likely this is to happen.  Regardless, I think we'll hear soon (by the end of the year) if this is a go or not.  They'll need every day of the next five years to make this happen.

In 1985 the corner of Clark and Roosevelt was nothing more than weeds and railroad tracks that had been abandoned by the Rock Island five years before. The city needed to build the pipes, sewer lines, power lines, roads, bridges, and subway stops that would serve the new stadium. Reinsdorf wanted to keep the money from parking and concessions. He also didn’t want to pay rent on the new facility. City Hall expected the Sox to foot some of the bill. That was a non-starter as far as the Sox were concerned. 

 

Does anyone really think things have changed?

9 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

In 1985 the corner of Clark and Roosevelt was nothing more than weeds and railroad tracks that had been abandoned by the Rock Island five years before. The city needed to build the pipes, sewer lines, power lines, roads, bridges, and subway stops that would serve the new stadium. Reinsdorf wanted to keep the money from parking and concessions. He also didn’t want to pay rent on the new facility. City Hall expected the Sox to foot some of the bill. That was a non-starter as far as the Sox were concerned. 

 

Does anyone really think things have changed?

Unless he can magically conjure up long term benefits thinking at his age…as another failed 3-5 year rebuild as GRF leases are expiring will lead to him being treated about as well as Krause’s widow.

Should just take Hobson/Lucas money and run.

18 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Unless he can magically conjure up long term benefits thinking at his age…as another failed 3-5 year rebuild as GRF leases are expiring will lead to him being treated about as well as Krause’s widow.

Should just take Hobson/Lucas money and run.

Has Lucas expressed interest in buying a MLB team? Doesn't seem his style. 

So I haven’t kept up how this is able to be financed at least in part with public assistance that is ostensibly not available to the Bears?

1 hour ago, pcq said:

78 sounds a bit toxic but there are many other obstacles that would require disparate forces to work together effectively. Not sure how likely that is. ? 

Funny that the north side of Roosevelt and right across Clark were all part of the same rail yards, yet somehow they were viable for condos, a shopping plaza, and a pricy private school. 

36 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

In 1985 the corner of Clark and Roosevelt was nothing more than weeds and railroad tracks that had been abandoned by the Rock Island five years before. The city needed to build the pipes, sewer lines, power lines, roads, bridges, and subway stops that would serve the new stadium. Reinsdorf wanted to keep the money from parking and concessions. He also didn’t want to pay rent on the new facility. City Hall expected the Sox to foot some of the bill. That was a non-starter as far as the Sox were concerned. 

Does anyone really think things have changed?

Seriously?

Is baseball, and pro sports altogether, different than it was 40 years ago?

Has the value of the ballclub changed?

Has the age of the owner changed?

Does the owner think that he'll still be owning the team in 40 years?

Has the business model evolved in any way? 

Has the South Loop changed as a whole?

Just thought about how funny it would be after we got amped about this skyline view beyond the outfield if they built a dome lol.

25 minutes ago, soxfan18 said:

Seriously?

Is baseball, and pro sports altogether, different than it was 40 years ago?

Has the value of the ballclub changed?

Has the age of the owner changed?

Does the owner think that he'll still be owning the team in 40 years?

Has the business model evolved in any way? 

Has the South Loop changed as a whole?

Of all of the changes, this is the part that has brought civic leaders to the table with serious interest in making it happen IMO. 40 years ago, what is considered the South Loop now was mostly empty warehouses and former industrial buildings, not the posh neighborhood it is today. The city no doubt wants to see this sordid parcel of land developed and added into the tax base, and would seem to have a vested interest in finally getting something developed on this site.

JR knows time is a factor too, with a ballpark lease expiring soon as well as his own mortality as he approaches 90. He can’t sit on his billion dollar asset indefinitely the way he has for the past 40 years. There has to be a plan for the future after him. His options for holding lawmakers hostage again is also limited, with very few viable locations available in the city to build a new park. Both sides seem to have more incentive to meet in the middle here as opposed to the last time around. 
 

Edited January 25, 20242 yr by Tnetennba

28 minutes ago, soxfan18 said:

Seriously?

Is baseball, and pro sports altogether, different than it was 40 years ago?

Has the value of the ballclub changed?

Has the age of the owner changed?

Does the owner think that he'll still be owning the team in 40 years?

Has the business model evolved in any way? 

Has the South Loop changed as a whole?

The same owner tossed aside any decision-making by his GM and went back to the well to bring back his favorite manager and buddy after 34 years, 76 year old Tony LaRussa.  We all know how that went.

In his press conference announcing the promotion of Getz to GM, JR also praised Branch Rickey as his favorite baseball executive and said that David Eckstein was his favorite player.  “He couldn’t run, he couldn’t hit, he couldn’t throw, he couldn’t field.  There was only one thing that he ever did, and that was beat you.”  Basically, this was JR’s reasoning [excuse] for his new GM to sign all the cheap and scrappy [crappy] players we have seen this offseason.

JR is most definitely living in the past and thinks it’s his way or the highway.  The problem is, the game has changed and his way doesn’t work anymore.

Edited January 25, 20242 yr by WhiteSox2023

31 minutes ago, soxfan18 said:

Seriously?

Is baseball, and pro sports altogether, different than it was 40 years ago?

Has the value of the ballclub changed?

Has the age of the owner changed?

Does the owner think that he'll still be owning the team in 40 years?

Has the business model evolved in any way? 

Has the South Loop changed as a whole?

Yes, it's more expensive and local governments are actually less likely to pay for these ever growing in expense buildings.

Do you really think JR thought when they built their current home, he'd be owning the team when he was 90?

The South Loop has changed a bit, but you get in after the change, if the changed is for the better, things are far more expensive.

10 hours ago, tray said:

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 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

In 1985 the corner of Clark and Roosevelt was nothing more than weeds and railroad tracks that had been abandoned by the Rock Island five years before. The city needed to build the pipes, sewer lines, power lines, roads, bridges, and subway stops that would serve the new stadium. Reinsdorf wanted to keep the money from parking and concessions. He also didn’t want to pay rent on the new facility. City Hall expected the Sox to foot some of the bill. That was a non-starter as far as the Sox were concerned. 

 

Does anyone really think things have changed?

These things are all known.  Again, if negotiations have gotten this far, do we really think that the City and/or JR (who literally made his million in real estate) don't know any of this?  If this stuff was a deal breaker, they wouldn't be talking about it, still.