ron883 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 3 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Let's go Brandon! 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Just now, ron883 said: Let's go Brandon! Huh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Chappas Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 14 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Huh? Chicago mayor 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 36 minutes ago, ron883 said: Let's go Brandon! This is a shocker...glad he's your favorite NASCAR driver. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron883 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 51 minutes ago, Balta1701 said: Huh? The article said city hall needs to make the right plays. I want Mayor Johnson to get it done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 6 hours ago, tray said: 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. Makes sense, but the White Sox are going to blame their status in Chicago on location. I hope there isn't much in public funding help, but changing neighborhoods will allow for differnet things, although I wonder how long it would actually take to develop around a new South Loop ballpark. I have the feeeling its going to look similar to what GRF looks like now with a bunch of emptiness. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 6 hours ago, tray said: 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. Building at the 78 makes the most sense and I’m not sure how anyone could argue otherwise unless they value ease of parking & tailgating above all else. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 3 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: Makes sense, but the White Sox are going to blame their status in Chicago on location. I hope there isn't much in public funding help, but changing neighborhoods will allow for differnet things, although I wonder how long it would actually take to develop around a new South Loop ballpark. I have the feeeling its going to look similar to what GRF looks like now with a bunch of emptiness. Emptiness around the park or emptiness within the park? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 18 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: Makes sense, but the White Sox are going to blame their status in Chicago on location. I hope there isn't much in public funding help, but changing neighborhoods will allow for differnet things, although I wonder how long it would actually take to develop around a new South Loop ballpark. I have the feeeling its going to look similar to what GRF looks like now with a bunch of emptiness. Its not that big of a plot, and its already surrounded by development, just mostly residential Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 37 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: Emptiness around the park or emptiness within the park? At first, around it, but in time, unless an ownership change, within. as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 7 hours ago, tray said: 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. The White Sox have never been a huge draw at 35th and Shields, they are one of the few MLB teams that have failed to draw 3 million fans in a season, sort of sad for a big market club. It was a huge mistake to build Comiskey II there in the first place and on top of it they built an ugly monstracity that everybody hated. I thought at the time moving to Addison was a good idea but now building a new place at “78” would make a ton of sense. For starters they would draw more from the downtown after work force and also from tourists staying in the downtown area, they would also draw more casual fans who won’t travel to 35th street but would to “78”. Get this done Chicago. Edited January 30 by The Mighty Mite 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 40 minutes ago, Dick Allen said: At first, around it, but in time, unless an ownership change, within. as well. An ownership change is coming, it’s just a matter of when. But even without one, a new stadium would have a real impact on long-term attendance. The people who visit downtown Chicago in the summer would have another stop on their agenda given its premium location. And that’s especially true if the leaked renderings and rumors of being closer to the action reflect any sort of truth, as those suggest a ballpark that would be amongst the best in sports. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicago White Sox Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 The way I see it a new “best in class” stadium + a new “anyone but a Reinsdorf” ownership = a complete transformation for the franchise. This is such a no-brainer move for the Sox and we’re truly lucky this plot of land is even available and actually attainable for us. Get this s%*# done so Sox fans can actually dream of a promising future for the next generation of fans. 8 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) . Edited January 30 by Tnetennba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) . Edited January 30 by Tnetennba Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 2 hours ago, Chicago White Sox said: Building at the 78 makes the most sense and I’m not sure how anyone could argue otherwise unless they value ease of parking & tailgating above all else. Tailgating is fun and all, but how often are people actually doing it over a summer? Meanwhile those lots sit empty and locked 20 hours a day on most days. There is zero rational argument for keeping that much empty parking when almost anything else would be a better draw for fans and a much better use of real estate. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 42 minutes ago, Chicago White Sox said: The way I see it a new “best in class” stadium + a new “anyone but a Reinsdorf” ownership = a complete transformation for the franchise. This is such a no-brainer move for the Sox and we’re truly lucky this plot of land is even available and actually attainable for us. Get this s%*# done so Sox fans can actually dream of a promising future for the next generation of fans. 💯💯 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleCoastBias Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, Chicago White Sox said: The way I see it a new “best in class” stadium + a new “anyone but a Reinsdorf” ownership = a complete transformation for the franchise. This is such a no-brainer move for the Sox and we’re truly lucky this plot of land is even available and actually attainable for us. Get this s%*# done so Sox fans can actually dream of a promising future for the next generation of fans. Getting ahead of ourselves but it might be the next logical step: does a new stadium and a new ownership group also lead to logo rebranding? Remember, new Comiskey ushered in the current logo and colors we all love (pretty sure opening day of the new park was the first day in the new unis). Like many, I love our logo and don't really want a change. But there was a fan mockup a few years ago that added red as a tertiary color to the current setup that I really liked, mostly red piping or outlining. Wasn't a big change, just an upgrade to the existing stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to see a change to our logo to really overhaul the image and perception for the organization to go along with a shiny new facility and ownership. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 With regard to public funding, I am generally very skeptical of giving these rich guys handouts. So far we haven't heard anything too egregious about the proposed 78 deal so we'll see on that. But as a general thought...I'm not a fan of unilateral disarmament either. I don't need the Sox to be the one team who ends up with a shitty ballpark because they didn't get public help. The Sox can be the team who got a shitty ballpark with public help (joking, maybe) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 3 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said: The White Sox have never been a huge draw at 35th and Shields, they are one of the few MLB teams that have failed to draw 3 million fans in a season, sort of sad for a big market club. It was a huge mistake to build Comiskey II there in the first place and on top of it they built an ugly monstracity that everybody hated. I thought at the time moving to Addison was a good idea but now building a new place at “78” would make a ton of sense. For starters they would draw more from the downtown after work force and also from tourists staying in the downtown area, they would also draw more casual fans who won’t travel to 35th street but would to “78”. Get this done Chicago. 1) I'm under the impression that the new stadium will be built. I'm hoping that JR stays out of the stadium design business this time. Jr was the one who ruined the present stadium with the miserable upper deck. 2) I've always wondered why this land was never developed. Its been sitting there empty forever. Hopefully the time has come to do something with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 1 hour ago, MiddleCoastBias said: Getting ahead of ourselves but it might be the next logical step: does a new stadium and a new ownership group also lead to logo rebranding? Remember, new Comiskey ushered in the current logo and colors we all love (pretty sure opening day of the new park was the first day in the new unis). Like many, I love our logo and don't really want a change. But there was a fan mockup a few years ago that added red as a tertiary color to the current setup that I really liked, mostly red piping or outlining. Wasn't a big change, just an upgrade to the existing stuff. I wouldn't be surprised to see a change to our logo to really overhaul the image and perception for the organization to go along with a shiny new facility and ownership. The current logo is nationally known, even outside baseball. It's such a classic that I have a hard time seeing a new ownership group rebranding and drastically changing it. Maybe a few new alternate uniforms, but I don't see that classic Sox going away. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Sacamano Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 (edited) 1 minute ago, Tnetennba said: The current logo is nationally known, even outside baseball. It's such a classic that I have a hard time seeing a new ownership group rebranding and drastically changing it. Maybe a few new alternate uniforms, but I don't see that classic Sox going away. Some new alternates would be cool. Edited January 30 by Bob Sacamano 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 Just now, Bob Sacamano said: Some new alternates would be cool. Chris Sale would like them to be rid of the ‘83s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mighty Mite Posted January 30 Share Posted January 30 2 minutes ago, WBWSF said: 1) I'm under the impression that the new stadium will be built. I'm hoping that JR stays out of the stadium design business this time. Jr was the one who ruined the present stadium with the miserable upper deck. 2) I've always wondered why this land was never developed. Its been sitting there empty forever. Hopefully the time has come to do something with it. They have talked about this site since the mid 60s when Arthur Allyn wanted a new park for the Sox and one for the Bears, why it never has been developed is a mystery to me and I’m sure others 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.