Balta1701 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, tray said: 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. This is a MAJOR project, fwiw. It will probably cost less than the full 78 site, but you're basically talking about spending so much money that you might as well build a new ballpark. The outfield isn't built to support the weight of an entire second story on top of it, so you are completely rebuilding the support for the outfield while also stripping off and redesigning the infield - while also considering how this will change factors like wind, sunlight into the luxury boxes, etc. It would be difficult to strip off most of the upper deck while still preserving the luxury boxes, and that would look straight up odd in addition to being a high cost. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions to renovate a park into something monstrous at a bad site, just pass on the idea and spend more to build something FAR BETTER at a good site. For example, if your options are a beautiful domed football stadium in the suburbs or building a monstrosity on the lakeshore that looks like you landed a spaceship inside a once historic building that everyone hates because it is awful and hard to get to, do not build the stupid space ship. It will be a massive waste of money, it will look ridiculous, and in 20 years you'll be tired of it and wanting the actual professional building in the suburbs. This may or may not be relevant to any other team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 Just now, Balta1701 said: This is a MAJOR project, fwiw. It will probably cost less than the full 78 site, but you're basically talking about spending so much money that you might as well build a new ballpark. The outfield isn't built to support the weight of an entire second story on top of it, so you are completely rebuilding the support for the outfield while also stripping off and redesigning the infield - while also considering how this will change factors like wind, sunlight into the luxury boxes, etc. It would be difficult to strip off most of the upper deck while still preserving the luxury boxes, and that would look straight up odd in addition to being a high cost. If you're going to spend hundreds of millions to renovate a park into something monstrous at a bad site, just pass on the idea and spend more to build something FAR BETTER at a good site. For example, if your options are a beautiful domed football stadium in the suburbs or building a monstrosity on the lakeshore that looks like you landed a spaceship inside a once historic building that everyone hates because it is awful and hard to get to, do not build the stupid space ship. It will be a massive waste of money, it will look ridiculous, and in 20 years you'll be tired of it and wanting the actual professional building in the suburbs. This may or may not be relevant to any other team. When referring to the other team, that stadium was also the third smallest in the league the moment it was completed 😂 (and now, 20 years later when all of the above you wrote is also true, it is the smallest by almost 2K seats) https://sports.betmgm.com/en/blog/nfl-largest-stadiums/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 And also Balta, you are also correct that they aren’t putting a second OF deck on 35th and Shields lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 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. Edited January 24 by tray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 10 minutes ago, tray said: GRF may never see major renovations, but Area 78 is never going to happen. lmao. Why is it never going to happen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Why is it never going to happen? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, Rusty_Kuntz said: I agree with your overall point but Baltimore (Memorial Stadium), Pittsburgh (Three Rivers) Cincinnati (Riverfront), Philly (Veterans), Detroit (Tigers Stadium), and Cleveland (Municipal) were all in the city and in three the new park was built in almost the same location as the old park. Unless you meant they abandoned plans for suburban parks? Either way, I think that reiterates your point even more: baseball has largely always been played in denser urban locations and it remains easily the dominant landscape for it today. I was refuting the notion that there was a trend in baseball of moving to the suburbs in recent years. All of the teams I listed either moved closer to downtown or remained adjacent to. MLB teams aren't looking to move out of urban centers any more with rare exception. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, tray said: 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. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, tray said: GRF may never see major renovations, but Area 78 is never going to happen. lmao. Man talking about building a second deck on an-almost 35 year old stadium has thoughts on things not happening, lmao 1 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Man talking about building a second deck on an-almost 30 year old stadium has thoughts on things not happening, lmao Why anyone would want to invest more money in a bad ballpark in a mediocre location is beyond me. If the team is going to suck for years, at least the promise of a new ballpark in a better location is some sort of excitement. Edited January 24 by WhiteSox2023 4 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 I was told that unless Jerry gets another deal similar to the last one at the Rate, they are moving. JR, apparently, has been aware of some time of building an area where people want to hang out at and looked at the costs as well as the opposition in Bridgeport for such like that. With that stated, this move is about moving to an environment where people can hang out as opposed to building it himself. It's about making the team and INF around it as strong as possible as he prepares for a sale. Was also told he has an idea of who wants to buy the team. Take it with a grain of salt. I haven't talked this person in awhile as I really haven't care for the Sox in awhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, nitetrain8601 said: I was told that unless Jerry gets another deal similar to the last one at the Rate, they are moving. JR, apparently, has been aware of some time of building an area where people want to hang out at and looked at the costs as well as the opposition in Bridgeport for such like that. With that stated, this move is about moving to an environment where people can hang out as opposed to building it himself. It's about making the team and INF around it as strong as possible as he prepares for a sale. Was also told he has an idea of who wants to buy the team. Take it with a grain of salt. I haven't talked this person in awhile as I really haven't care for the Sox in awhile. I suspect JR won't be around to make any decisions like that when the time comes and has been previously posted MLB is not going to turn down expansion team money so a current franchise can move to a smaller location. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, nitetrain8601 said: I was told that unless Jerry gets another deal similar to the last one at the Rate, they are moving. JR, apparently, has been aware of some time of building an area where people want to hang out at and looked at the costs as well as the opposition in Bridgeport for such like that. With that stated, this move is about moving to an environment where people can hang out as opposed to building it himself. It's about making the team and INF around it as strong as possible as he prepares for a sale. Was also told he has an idea of who wants to buy the team. Take it with a grain of salt. I haven't talked this person in awhile as I really haven't care for the Sox in awhile. If that actually is true, then I would also wish all the pain on them while they're moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 This will drag out for a while. I'd bet a lot of money that the White Sox don't move when their current lease ends. If, somehow, they do move to the 78, as long as it takes these things to hash out, and then actually build, they will, at the very least, be signing a short term extension. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 5 hours ago, tray said: 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. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 55 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: This will drag out for a while. I'd bet a lot of money that the White Sox don't move when their current lease ends. If, somehow, they do move to the 78, as long as it takes these things to hash out, and then actually build, they will, at the very least, be signing a short term extension. If they have a legit deal and it works for the taxpayers and owners I don't see why this is a problem. They have a working ballpark! Adding an extra year or two during construction seems like zero issue? Way better than a team looking for a home. Way better than a business going bankrupt if construction is delayed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitetrain8601 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said: I suspect JR won't be around to make any decisions like that when the time comes and has been previously posted MLB is not going to turn down expansion team money so a current franchise can move to a smaller location. 1 hour ago, Balta1701 said: If that actually is true, then I would also wish all the pain on them while they're moving. Apologies, it's not moving to another city, but moving the ballpark elsewhere in Chicago. He did look long and hard at the UC and that is considered the backup site. There are valid reasons why they didn't use that as their first choice which I can't get into. 1 hour ago, Dick Allen said: This will drag out for a while. I'd bet a lot of money that the White Sox don't move when their current lease ends. If, somehow, they do move to the 78, as long as it takes these things to hash out, and then actually build, they will, at the very least, be signing a short term extension. He won't be. The Sox are a lot further along than what fans think. There are different financial proposals that have been submitted and they have been working closely with the city. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rusty_Kuntz Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 3 hours ago, Tnetennba said: I was refuting the notion that there was a trend in baseball of moving to the suburbs in recent years. All of the teams I listed either moved closer to downtown or remained adjacent to. MLB teams aren't looking to move out of urban centers any more with rare exception. I know, I wrote that. Was agreeing with you premise. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: If they have a legit deal and it works for the taxpayers and owners I don't see why this is a problem. They have a working ballpark! Adding an extra year or two during construction seems like zero issue? Way better than a team looking for a home. Way better than a business going bankrupt if construction is delayed. Didn’t write it was an issue. In fact, I’m betting on it. Unless JR announces in the next couple of years he’s building a ballpark on his own with some state and city concessions, we will have to go through what all these towns with ballpark issues had to go through, save Arlington, TX. Rob Manfred is going to have to come to town and tell us how the team can’t possibly compete at their current location, which we were told before, only to build them something where they usually didn’t compete despite have several competitive advantages. And people can fool themselves all they want. JR isn’t putting up his own money to build a 10 figure ballpark. Edited January 24 by Dick Allen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chick Mercedes Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 6 hours ago, tray said: 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. It makes sense for Jerry to do the wrong thing. I believe you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 15 minutes ago, nitetrain8601 said: Apologies, it's not moving to another city, but moving the ballpark elsewhere in Chicago. He did look long and hard at the UC and that is considered the backup site. There are valid reasons why they didn't use that as their first choice which I can't get into. He won't be. The Sox are a lot further along than what fans think. There are different financial proposals that have been submitted and they have been working closely with the city. Thanks for that clarity. The UC area has empty lots, but I can't see those working for the necessary footprint for a ballpark without some permanent tree closures. And if we are being perfectly honest, the UC isn't any more desirable a location than Armour Square. Damen is already a slog on game/event nights and there are less transit options, even once the Damen Green Line stop opens. I imagine JR would run into similar issues building out a ballpark village type fan experience as in the 11th ward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 39 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: Didn’t write it was an issue. In fact, I’m betting on it. Unless JR announces in the next couple of years he’s building a ballpark on his own with some state and city concessions, we will have to go through what all these towns with ballpark issues had to go through, save Arlington, TX. Rob Manfred is going to have to come to town and tell us how the team can’t possibly compete at their current location, which we were told before, only to build them something where they usually didn’t compete despite have several competitive advantages. And people can fool themselves all they want. JR isn’t putting up his own money to build a 10 figure ballpark. If we get to the point where Manfred is coming to town because they are demanding so much from the city, yeah enjoy Nashville. There is an obvious path here where each side gets pinched a little but where there is so much money in the asset and development rights for the extra land that JR would be flat out stupid not to take advantage of it. This sets the family up to take in billions while also making the city better, and if they sell the team at some point they sell a ready-for-development or already-developed land. If he needs to feel like he took the state to the cleaners in the process, then he can lose out on the money he would make for developing the rest of the land. It would be complaining about $300 million and losing $2 billion over the next couple decades. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: Nice graphic. Thanks for posting. We do have to consider that five miles from downtown Chicago is much different than five miles from downtown Tampa Bay or Milwaukee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 24 Share Posted January 24 1 minute ago, Texsox said: Nice graphic. Thanks for posting. We do have to consider that five miles from downtown Chicago is much different than five miles from downtown Tampa Bay or Milwaukee. 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted January 24 Author Share Posted January 24 1 minute 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. As does the entire metroplex in between. It's basically one city. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.