Lip Man 1 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 4 hours ago, ptatc said: As a good business man should. That's the best way to make money. It depends on the business you are in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 15 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said: It depends on the business you are in. As long as MLB is considered a quasi-public institution due to the anti-trust exemption...you can't fairly compare it to a mom and pop store or a Wal-Mart/Costco, either. The trust/buy-in of the community is required for the relationship to work equitably for both sides. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: Here's a Trib article talking about the possibility of the Sox moving to The 78 along with the Fire: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/04/white-sox-stadium-fire-78/ From the article: "As part of the proposed development, the Fire are buying 9 acres of land at The 78, the team and developer confirmed. That leaves plenty of room for the White Sox to build an adjacent ballpark, Ganis said" And this might not sit well with some Sox fans, but also from the article: “Even when the Cubs stink on the field, they still draw” about 3 million people in the stands most seasons, Ganis said. “That is something the White Sox are sorely missing, and it’s because of the location of their stadium and how walled off it is from where people live, work and play.” As we've all agreed countless times, it'll depend on whether the Sox are willing to commit a significant amount of private money toward a new stadium. We all know the state isn't going to give them $1B for the ballpark itself and JR's offer to pay $200M toward a new ballpark isn't even close to enough. But the Fire building on this site does not kill the opportunity for the Soer x to also move there. Maybe it doesn't matter but 94 traffic would be a nightmare. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MiddleCoastBias Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 16 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: These are literal facts. From about Michigan Ave over is reclaimed land that is loaded with skyscrapers. The WTC is also on historically reclaimed lands. These are facts you can look up. Almost the entire city of Boston is reclaimed waterways - all of Back Bay neighborhood was literally the back of the bay. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 12 hours ago, pcq said: Maybe it doesn't matter but 94 traffic would be a nightmare. The same 94 that goes by the current ballpark? If the Sox move to the 78, I can't imagine why fans driving up from the S or SW would go all the way up to the Roosevelt exit on the Ryan. Anyone coming up from the Ryan or I-55 would exit at the Chinatown feeder ramp. From there, you can go up Clark or Wentworth to the site. Coming in from the Ike or Kennedy, people would exit at Congress/Ida B. Wells and take that into the south loop. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 16 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: The same 94 that goes by the current ballpark? If the Sox move to the 78, I can't imagine why fans driving up from the S or SW would go all the way up to the Roosevelt exit on the Ryan. Anyone coming up from the Ryan or I-55 would exit at the Chinatown feeder ramp. From there, you can go up Clark or Wentworth to the site. Coming in from the Ike or Kennedy, people would exit at Congress/Ida B. Wells and take that into the south loop. Is there going to be any place to park your car? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 26 minutes ago, WBWSF said: Is there going to be any place to park your car? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 14 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: It depends on the business you are in. Not really. You will make more money if you use other peoples money and not your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 (edited) 36 minutes ago, WBWSF said: Is there going to be any place to park your car? Almost all ballparks are moving away from the model of surrounding the stadium with acres of parking lots. They seem to be doing just fine. Next up, the Phillies and Mets are looking to turn their parking lots into entertainment districts. The United Center too with the 1901 Project. I don't remember what they said as far as the number of parking spaces they had planned for a stadium at the 78. I do agree that it's something they need to address and insufficient access to enough parking would be an issue, but it's not going to be acres of surface lots. Even if they stay at the current site, they'd likely want to redevelop much of the existing parking into some sort of "Baseball Village". Edited June 5 by 77 Hitmen 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said: Almost all ballparks are moving away from the model of surrounding the stadium with acres of parking lots. They seem to be doing just fine. Next up, the Phillies and Mets are looking to turn their parking lots into entertainment districts. The United Center too with the 1901 Project. I don't remember what they said as far as the number of parking spaces they had planned for a stadium at the 78. I do agree that it's something they need to address and insufficient access to enough parking would be an issue, but it's not going to be acres of surface lots. Even if they stay at the current site, they'd likely want to redevelop much of the existing parking into some sort of "Baseball Village". I would think it would be a mistake if their wasn't any parking. Alot of their fan base from the suburbs come in their car. One of the reasons why I go to White Sox games is because the parking lots are great. 3 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 6 hours ago, MiddleCoastBias said: Almost the entire city of Boston is reclaimed waterways - all of Back Bay neighborhood was literally the back of the bay. So are places like Tapei and Hong Kong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 20 hours ago, nrockway said: I promise you don't need to be a civil engineer to comprehend this. The developers aren't engineers, the financiers aren't engineers, the construction workers aren't. You might be amazed to know that human beings built structures in generally smart places before the field existed. The guy kinda just said common sense things. What are you disputing? I'd also note that that it's a brownfield and the remediation can be costly. The A's definitely didn't want to do environmental remediation on that Howard Brown Terminal site (a far better location for a ballpark than the 78). The site is clearly cursed and you have one liar after another (probably different aspects of the same liar, Related Morons) telling us for the last 50 years that something wonderful is coming there. It's never gonna happen. Plant some trees and be done with it. Just south is a really great park, they ought to extend it A process that would be (relatively) inexpensive, ecologically productive, generally good for surrounding property values. Everybody wins except the Related Companies. He just seems very confident about this and I was curious. If he is an engineer, in construction, or in real estate development, it makes his posts carry more weight than if he's just some opinionated dude in sales who is driving past the site or looking at it on google maps. Do you guys honestly think all these billionaires and real estate professionals haven't done feasibility studies on the site? Also, civil engineering has been a thing for like thousands of years. Not sure what you mean by that. You think the Great Pyramids in Egypt were constructed based on "common sense?" 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: The same 94 that goes by the current ballpark? If the Sox move to the 78, I can't imagine why fans driving up from the S or SW would go all the way up to the Roosevelt exit on the Ryan. Anyone coming up from the Ryan or I-55 would exit at the Chinatown feeder ramp. From there, you can go up Clark or Wentworth to the site. Coming in from the Ike or Kennedy, people would exit at Congress/Ida B. Wells and take that into the south loop. From the 55 interchange north its just such a clusterfuck slog, not to mention crawling back east on Roosevelt. Exit Chinatown and you roll right up Clark St. So much easier. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 (edited) 2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: Almost all ballparks are moving away from the model of surrounding the stadium with acres of parking lots. They seem to be doing just fine. Next up, the Phillies and Mets are looking to turn their parking lots into entertainment districts. The United Center too with the 1901 Project. I don't remember what they said as far as the number of parking spaces they had planned for a stadium at the 78. I do agree that it's something they need to address and insufficient access to enough parking would be an issue, but it's not going to be acres of surface lots. Even if they stay at the current site, they'd likely want to redevelop much of the existing parking into some sort of "Baseball Village". Fans in other cities adjusted to different transportation circumstance with new ballparks, Chicagoans can do it too. The 78 won't be surrounded by a sea of parking lots, but there are plenty of lots and garages near by that can be contracted as satellite lots with shuttle service. I fully believe a new stadium would provide viable parking options for drivers. Edited June 5 by Tnetennba 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 Not sure why some are singling out and striking out at me because I pointed out an axiom of the the building industry that all architects, engineers, excavators and concrete contractors follow - a building's foundation has to sit on a stable base. The 78 was largely a former river bed. The "78" location circa 1929 is essentially outlined in the above image. The river was drained and used as a landfill. No one including myself has suggested that buildings and concrete flatwork (sidewalks, etc) cannot be located on "the 78." Almost anything can be done, but costs and timeliness are always an issue. I could not find any historical evidence that the silt and organic residue of the old river bed was ever excavated, only that the old river was drained, filled with available soil and then used for decades as a landfill. Any new construction building including any concrete flatwork might need to be supported via piles/pile caps, etc. or excavated down past the elevation of the old river bed down to a bearing layer. Again, that can be done but ignoring added costs for those kind of solutions and possible environmental remediation depending on what was dumped there, etc., would be short sighted. A lot of the above facts as well as any plan for adequate ingress/egress have been entirely washed over by Auchi and his front men at Related who have promoted this property to any takers since Auchi acquired it from Rezko. Cub fans who enjoy the location of Wrigley and the surrounding neighborhood must laugh at a proposal to locate the Sox in a dead corner of the city that lacks any of the vibrance and charm of Wrigleyville, or to at least some extent the Sox Historic home on 35th street. Go ahead and put the Fire or Sox there. None of my friends and family (and I bet many others) will risk taking their family on public transportation to get there and returning at night on trains or buses from there. Where is Auchi to answer some questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 11 minutes ago, tray said: Go ahead and put the Fire or Sox there. None of my friends and family (and I bet many others) will risk taking their family on public transportation to get there and returning at night on trains or buses from there. Hahahahahahaha. what? Gotta watch out for the those dangerous violent criminals paying $2,500/month for 400 SF micro-apartments at NEMA. Thank god the current park is a whole entire single redline stop removed from this treacherous hellhole. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 (edited) Just now, Nardiwashere said: He just seems very confident about this and I was curious. If he is an engineer, in construction, or in real estate development, it makes his posts carry more weight than if he's just some opinionated dude in sales who is driving past the site or looking at it on google maps. Do you guys honestly think all these billionaires and real estate professionals haven't done feasibility studies on the site? Also, civil engineering has been a thing for like thousands of years. Not sure what you mean by that. You think the Great Pyramids in Egypt were constructed based on "common sense?" yeah, and they haven't built anything in 50 years! it's not a good site! plant some trees, extend out the park! re the pyramids: yes. children figure out that if you stack one block on top of two, their tower won't collapse. wild things happen when you add a third block to that bottom row. it is literally common sense. the Pyramids were built by common sense, a well-funded monarchy and slave labor. I like to think about 'professions' in the classical world compared to now, 'civil engineering' as such is a modern innovation and a fascinating, helpful one. You can probably find antecedents for sure, some guy did some math to help him build his house, but it's not like people are being trained in this as a profession. Edited June 5 by nrockway Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoUEvenShift Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 14 minutes ago, nrockway said: yeah, and they haven't built anything in 50 years! it's not a good site! plant some trees, extend out the park! re the pyramids: yes. children figure out that if you stack one block on top of two, their tower won't collapse. wild things happen when you add a third block to that bottom row. it is literally common sense. the Pyramids were built by common sense, a well-funded monarchy and slave labor. I like to think about 'professions' in the classical world compared to now, 'civil engineering' as such is a modern innovation and a fascinating, helpful one. You can probably find antecedents for sure, some guy did some math to help him build his house, but it's not like people are being trained in this as a profession. You sure about that? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 9 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said: You sure about that? Yeah, the whole slave labor thing has been disproven recently. They were paid work teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrittBurnsFan Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 9 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: Yeah, the whole slave labor thing has been disproven recently. They were paid work teams. Aaaaaand...it isn't as simple as stacking blocks on top of each other. There are tunnels and tombs on different levels in there...extremely complicated! And...there were many failed attempts at building pyramids in that era. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 Just now, southsider2k5 said: Yeah, the whole slave labor thing has been disproven recently. They were paid work teams. what do I know, I'm not an Egyptologist. it was mostly a joke. that's actually good to know. I'd be curious though, why wouldn't they use slaves and what is the evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 7 minutes ago, nrockway said: what do I know, I'm not an Egyptologist. it was mostly a joke. that's actually good to know. I'd be curious though, why wouldn't they use slaves and what is the evidence? There are glyphs in tombs describing the teams and the work they did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 "Pyramids of Giza? Any child could do that. Constructing a baseball park in 2025 across the street from a Target? Insurmountable task for civilization." 1 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 1 hour ago, Tnetennba said: Fans in other cities adjusted to different transportation circumstance with new ballparks, Chicagoans can do it too. The 78 won't be surrounded by a sea of parking lots, but there are plenty of lots and garages near by that can be contracted as satellite lots with shuttle service. I fully believe a new stadium would provide viable parking options for drivers. ....and many Chicagoans have been doing it too for years for that hated place that is 8 miles north of Sox Park. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 44 minutes ago, Nardiwashere said: "Pyramids of Giza? Any child could do that. Constructing a baseball park in 2025 across the street from a Target? Insurmountable task for civilization." So easy, a slave could do it. 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.