2 minutes ago, Green Line said:

My problem with a retractable roof is that it'll end up being closed the vast majority of the time.  The home team always prefers to play in a climate-controlled, perfectly comfortable environment.  I read that this happened in Texas after they built their new stadium.  The slightest deviation from perfect weather and they will keep it closed.  Not good for the fans and people who enjoy outdoor baseball.

You're talking about Texas though where you can be playing in 100+ degree weather for a good period of time. Just like in Arizona.

Edited January 29, 20242 yr by Bob Sacamano

8 minutes ago, Bob Sacamano said:

You're talking about Texas though where you can be playing in 100+ degree weather for a good period of time. Just like in Arizona.

Yeah but my point is the team wasn't opening the rooftop even when it cooled down.  It became an issue in the playoffs where the League had to force them to open it up, because otherwise they never would have.  It was not 100 degrees by then.  Somebody ran the numbers and they only played with the roof open a handful of times the entire summer despite the heat often being well below scorching.

The exact circumstances won't be the same in Chicago but my point is retractable roofs are often closed too often when its unnecessary.  I think thats bad for baseball.

Edited January 29, 20242 yr by Green Line

On 1/28/2024 at 11:39 AM, Tnetennba said:

Does Wrigley struggle with attendance in April if the team is decent? If the new Sox Park is done right I think it starts to negate some of those weather detractors.

The big difference is the Cubs have such a strong season ticket base, so the numbers are still pretty decent. They might sell 28-30k tickets on a Tuesday night in April, but there's less than 25k in the building and tons of tickets available on the secondary market for under $20.  

The hope would be that a new park closer to downtown would increase the corporate season ticket base to closer to what the Cubs have. 

5 minutes ago, soxfan18 said:

The big difference is the Cubs have such a strong season ticket base, so the numbers are still pretty decent. They might sell 28-30k tickets on a Tuesday night in April, but there's less than 25k in the building and tons of tickets available on the secondary market for under $20.  

The hope would be that a new park closer to downtown would increase the corporate season ticket base to closer to what the Cubs have. 

That's essentially what I was getting at. New Sox Park being so much closer to downtown would give corporations and tourists alike reason to buy tix ahead of time, even if the weather turns out crappy that day.

1 hour ago, Bob Sacamano said:

Take away opening day (for the teams with the decrease anyway) and I wonder how it looks

Different, of course - but that's part of what I'm saying; if we concede that Opening Day draws more people and therefore offsets lower attendance during an April timespan, it's irrelevant if that's on 4/1 or 4/16. You have to have an Opening Day; you have to have play other home games in April; attendance is lower in April; why not just try to make the weather potential better wherever possible. Kick the southern teams an extra % or two of the split, etc.

1 hour ago, Green Line said:

Yeah but my point is the team wasn't opening the rooftop even when it cooled down.  It became an issue in the playoffs where the League had to force them to open it up, because otherwise they never would have.  It was not 100 degrees by then.  Somebody ran the numbers and they only played with the roof open a handful of times the entire summer despite the heat often being well below scorching.

The exact circumstances won't be the same in Chicago but my point is retractable roofs are often closed too often when its unnecessary.  I think thats bad for baseball.

This is specifically the Astros. They open their roof so rarely that I have no idea why they paid for it.

53 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

This is specifically the Astros. They open their roof so rarely that I have no idea why they paid for it.

I can't even recall going to a game where the roof was open.

I've been twice with the roof open. Everyone around me was complaining that it was open. Lol

3 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

That's essentially what I was getting at. New Sox Park being so much closer to downtown would give corporations and tourists alike reason to buy tix ahead of time, even if the weather turns out crappy that day.

Plus, if it’s part of a multi-use entertainment district, there’s stuff to do before / after, or in the event it’s too cold / rainy / etc. during the game.

Right now, the ballgame is the only thing for most people. Sure, some people (like me) would find stuff to do before / after the game, but for the most part, the way the ballpark is set up in a sea of parking lots, the game is a standalone activity. I suspect that if you turn the ballgame into a centerpiece of a broader outing, it would help draw way more casual fans, as you suggest.

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 hour ago, tray said:

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.

Why not have some parking lots where you can still do that, but not an entire sea of parking lots?

You CAN have both. I think that’s the idea here….

6 minutes ago, JoeC said:

Why not have some parking lots where you can still do that, but not an entire sea of parking lots?

You CAN have both. I think that’s the idea here….

Having seas of parking lots, it's quite reminiscent of Kauffman and Arrowhead together right off two interstates.

Great for tailgating, but terrible from an "entertainment" standpoint of having any other activities, bars/pubs/restaurants, shopping and office complexes, parks, etc.

Just miles of concrete/asphalt.  Not exactly visually or aesthetically appealing in any sense.

1 hour ago, tray said:

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.

Except you don't speak for all Southsiders. I, a Bridgeport resident, rarely partake in tailgating. If there were more options at the park, I would probably partake of those even on non game days while those parking lots sit empty, contributing absolutely nothing to the surrounding neighborhood.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

 

Is there a recap or free version of this?

29 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

 

Interesting. Would love to know the deets of said game changing plan. 

26 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Is there a recap or free version of this?

not that I could find, but some snippets

Quote

“Jerry is very bullish on the location,” Manfred said. “That would be a great deal for the city of Chicago and the White Sox."

Quote

Manfred said he’s not familiar with all the details of the proposed new facility, such as what sort of architectural era it might evoke, but said Reinsdorf has assured him it would require “no new taxes.”

...shifting revenues from an existing 2% tax on Chicago hotel rooms to the new facility. Those tax revenues now are directed to paying debt for the construction of the Sox’s current home, Guaranteed Rate Field, but all bonds will be retired by later this decade. 

Reinsdorf also reportedly is interested in taking advantage of an existing tax-increment financing deal between the city and The 78 developer, Related Midwest.

There's obviously more in the article, but didn't want to post too much of a paywalled piece.

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by Sleepy Harold

57 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Having seas of parking lots, it's quite reminiscent of Kauffman and Arrowhead together right off two interstates.

Great for tailgating, but terrible from an "entertainment" standpoint of having any other activities, bars/pubs/restaurants, shopping and office complexes, parks, etc.

Just miles of concrete/asphalt.  Not exactly visually or aesthetically appealing in any sense.

I think, given the public transit availability at Roosevelt and Clark (along with the additional entertainment options in the area), you could get away FAR less parking, but you can still have a good portion of that parking be available to tailgaters.

50 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

 

If Manfred likes it, I'm not sure what to think.

9 minutes ago, JoeC said:

If Manfred likes it, I'm not sure what to think.

If he likes it, it probably means it’s a good deal for ownership. What it means for taxpayers or fans is another story. 

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

If he likes it, it probably means it’s a good deal for ownership. What it means for taxpayers or fans is another story. 

Using the hotel tax to cover the facilities doesn’t strike me as the most controversial part of the previous deal - not compared with Reinsdorf taking all of the parking revenue or the taxpayer backstop if his team doesn’t draw enough fans

13 minutes ago, Balta1701 said:

Using the hotel tax to cover the facilities doesn’t strike me as the most controversial part of the previous deal - not compared with Reinsdorf taking all of the parking revenue or the taxpayer backstop if his team doesn’t draw enough fans

No arguments there. Extending the same tax into the future probably satisfies the “no new tax” claim. TIF funds would likely be used for new infrastructure at the 78, new park or not. I’ll be skeptical of most anything JR sells until the dirty details come out. 

1 hour ago, Sleepy Harold said:

not that I could find, but some snippets

There's obviously more in the article, but didn't want to post too much of a paywalled piece.

Just post the entire article. The mods here don't care. 

 

6 minutes ago, ron883 said:

Just post the entire article. The mods here don't care. 

Pay walled articles are easily viewable with a brief Google search, that's how I pulled those quotes out.

Edited January 30, 20242 yr by Sleepy Harold