Is “The 78” Dead? Or even more alive? Fire announce plans for SSS

[nrockway]

On 7/31/2025 at 10:33 AM, NO!!MARY!!! said:

If they ever build a retro style park in the footprint of Old Comiskey, the immediate reaction of pretty much everyone will be “retro parks are dad. The White Sox goof it up once again. Why did they abandon a perfectly good and serviceable park across the streetf for this outdated white elephant?”

in my view, they were dead on arrival. Fenway and Wrigley are actual cool places because they're genuine historical landmarks that speak to the history of our country and favorite sport. Baltimore's stadium is just an ode to nostalgia, 'the good ol days' that never existed, a piece of architecture that has no definitive place in time or space. Nothing about the game experience itself is 'retro'. It's expensive and they're shoving every advertisement they can of think down your throat. If it was really 'retro', there wouldn't be fucking ads and luxury boxes everywhere. New era of consumerism and corporate profiteering is very much derived from nostalgia. I think it's because we realize the world is not so good these days but all we know how to do is buy stuff and have no ability to imagine a better future. I'll give the 'retro' ballparks credit in the sense that they're actually parks and not multi-function blob stadiums, the only cool one in history being the AstroDome. But New Comiskey is a dedicated ballpark and I think it's a great stadium. I hate the sea of parking lots, but I've heard many of the residents of the area prefer it that way, that the ballpark is physically separated from the housing.

In terms of 'futuristic' ballparks, I think there are ways you can make them 'environmentally-friendly' or even into a bird sanctuary. There are a lot of cool architectural innovations these days, the 1920s was not the pinnacle of architecture. Hell, go full retro and just rebuild the Colosseum.

[JoeC]

 

3 minutes ago, nrockway said:

in my view, they were dead on arrival. Fenway and Wrigley are actual cool places because they're genuine historical landmarks that speak to the history of our country and favorite sport. Baltimore's stadium is just an ode to nostalgia, 'the good ol days' that never existed, a piece of architecture that has no definitive place in time or space. Nothing about the game experience itself is 'retro'. It's expensive and they're shoving every advertisement they can of think down your throat. If it was really 'retro', there wouldn't be fucking ads and luxury boxes everywhere. New era of consumerism and corporate profiteering is very much derived from nostalgia. I think it's because we realize the world is not so good these days but all we know how to do is buy stuff and have no ability to imagine a better future. I'll give the 'retro' ballparks credit in the sense that they're actually parks and not multi-function blob stadiums, the only cool one in history being the AstroDome. But New Comiskey is a dedicated ballpark and I think it's a great stadium. I hate the sea of parking lots, but I've heard many of the residents of the area prefer it that way, that the ballpark is physically separated from the housing.

In terms of 'futuristic' ballparks, I think there are ways you can make them 'environmentally-friendly' or even into a bird sanctuary. There are a lot of cool architectural innovations these days, the 1920s was not the pinnacle of architecture. Hell, go full retro and just rebuild the Colosseum.

Futuristic.

[77 Hitmen]

6 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

It’s just that telescopic camera views of downtown have fooled people into thinking that downtown would be practically on top of the place. 

Again fair enough.  It's still a decent view of the city from there.  I've taken some photos up there with my family standing at the rails and the skyline in the backdrop.  The view would be significantly more impressive if Ishbia decides he wants to invest his money in a new stadium at the 78.

And like I said before, this isn't a make-or-break issue for Rate Field.  It's certainly not its biggest flaw and some of the "ballpark that turned its back on the city" cracks are a bit melodramatic.   But it's just one more piece to the puzzle of why we're all still debating whether its a good stadium or not 35 seasons after it opened.  

 

Edited August 6 by 77 Hitmen

[NO!!MARY!!!]

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Here's the thing, if you have been around MLB parks, the ones that stand out, are the ones that have something extra about them.  Whether that is a retro design (BAL, etc), the skyline as a part of the view from home plate, some extra special activity or feature within the stadium or stadium complex (such as the KC waterfall, the Domes that open and close (TOR, HOU, TEX) the rockwall in ANA, the train in HOU, roller coaster in DET), unique designs such as water in play for HRs (Cincy SF, PIT), an entertainment district around the park (ATL, CUB, BOS), monument park in NYY, or even the history around the park (CUB/BOS/LAD) there is something that stands out about pretty much all of these parks ranked in front of Sox Park. 

Sox Park's biggest draws seem to be sightlines and adequate parking.  It's ranked low because there is nothing exciting or unique about it.  It ranks low because it is the Wal-Mart "great value" brand of stadiums.  It has all of your basic ingredients, but there is absolutely nothing special about the park or game day experience.

Then that’s something they won’t be able to correct until they get a new stadium, because they’ll never be able to build up a “Comiskeyville” where they are now, because from my understanding the neighborhood won’t allow it. 
 

Even if they do, I still worry that it would flop because they’re the White Sox and they don’t have a large fan base. 

Edited August 6 by NO!!MARY!!!

[NO!!MARY!!!]

Just now, NO!!MARY!!! said:

 

5 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Again fair enough.  It's still a decent view of the city from there.  I've taken some photos up there with my family standing at the rails and the skyline in the backdrop.  The view would be significantly more impressive if Ishbia decides he wants to invest his money in a new stadium at the 78.

And like I said before, this isn't a make-or-break issue for Rate Field.  It's certainly not it's biggest flaw and some of the "ballpark that turned it's back on the city" cracks are a bit melodramatic.   But it's just one more piece to the puzzle of why we're all still debating whether it's a good stadium or not 35 seasons after it opened.  

 

To me it’s a funny thing that it’s 35 years old and still gets referred to as the “new” park. 

[Tnetennba]

5 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

Sure. Far off in the distance 

Your point being what? Any skyline view would be better than zero skyline view. 

[Tnetennba]

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Again fair enough.  It's still a decent view of the city from there.  I've taken some photos up there with my family standing at the rails and the skyline in the backdrop.  The view would be significantly more impressive if Ishbia decides he wants to invest his money in a new stadium at the 78.

And like I said before, this isn't a make-or-break issue for Rate Field.  It's certainly not it's biggest flaw and some of the "ballpark that turned it's back on the city" cracks are a bit melodramatic.   But it's just one more piece to the puzzle of why we're all still debating whether it's a good stadium or not 35 seasons after it opened.  

 

The view from Roosevelt is hard to beat, but it’s not like the skyline view from 35th is non-existent. Dude is just arguing for the sake of it. 

[JoeC]

4 minutes ago, Tnetennba said:

Your point being what? Any skyline view would be better than zero skyline view. 

I really like @77 Hitmen's view, and I eco his sentiments - there's no one thing that makes the park bad, but it's the absence of a gazillion small things that makes the park "bleh" compared to so many others around the league.

[Snopek]

I don't understand what's considered a "retro park" anymore. I get the Camden Yards thing, especially since it was such a shift from what we were used to at the time. But it seems like any stadium built after new comiskey, other than those with retractable roofs, is loosely referred to as a retro park.

[southsider2k5]

33 minutes ago, JoeC said:

I really like @77 Hitmen's view, and I eco his sentiments - there's no one thing that makes the park bad, but it's the absence of a gazillion small things that makes the park "bleh" compared to so many others around the league.

Definitely.  There is nothing BAD per se about Sox Park, but if someone asked you what was special about it, versus any of the rest of the parks in MLB, what would you actually say?

[JoeC]

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

Definitely.  There is nothing BAD per se about Sox Park, but if someone asked you what was special about it, versus any of the rest of the parks in MLB, what would you actually say?

Parking!

[WBWSF]

Some fans on this site criticize  the parking at the stadium. I think its one of the best things about going to a game there. In addition JR has to be making a ton of money from the parking.

[77 Hitmen]

3 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

Then that’s something they won’t be able to correct until they get a new stadium, because they’ll never be able to build up a “Comiskeyville” where they are now, because from my understanding the neighborhood won’t allow it. 
 

Even if they do, I still worry that it would flop because they’re the White Sox and they don’t have a large fan base. 

I also have my doubts about them being able to develop a "Comiskeyville" around the current stadium.  Will the neighborhood allow it?  If they did allow it, would it bring in enough people the 280 days a year that the Sox are not playing there to keep it thriving?

As far as worrying that the Sox could build a new stadium at the 78 and it would still flop.....well, yeah that would be such a White Sox thing to happen.  But if the Ishbia brothers are that afraid of failure, then they probably shouldn't waste their money on buying the team in the first place.   And yes, a new ballpark would always have to live in the shadow of Wrigley Field's image since it's in the same city.  But being right on the river and being walking distance to all the downtown attractions (including the Metra stations) with an iconic view of the skyline could allow it to successfully carve out its own niche if it's designed correctly and if the new owners invest in fielding a winning team on the field.  

Edited August 6 by 77 Hitmen

[Dick Allen]

3 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I also have my doubts about them being able to develop a "Comiskeyville" around the current stadium.  Will the neighborhood allow it?  If they did allow it, would it bring in enough people the 280 days a year that the Sox are not playing there to keep it thriving?

As far as worrying that the Sox could build a new stadium at the 78 and it would still flop.....well, yeah that would be such a White Sox thing to happen.  But if the Ishbia brothers are that afraid of failure, then they probably shouldn't waste their money on buying the team in the first place.   And yes, a new ballpark would always have to live in the shadow of Wrigley Field's image since it's in the same city.  But being right on the river and being walking distance to all the downtown attractions (including the Metra stations) with an iconic view of the skyline could allow it to successfully carve out its own niche if it's designed correctly and if the new owners invest in fielding a winning team on the field.  

Even in Wrigleyille, those businesses make nothing off season. Goose Island used to have a place there but lost their lease. The landlord wanted to put them on a month to month, but they wouldn't do it because they would get screwed if he stopped it before or during baseball season, the only time they made money.

[77 Hitmen]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Here's the thing, if you have been around MLB parks, the ones that stand out, are the ones that have something extra about them.  Whether that is a retro design (BAL, etc), the skyline as a part of the view from home plate, some extra special activity or feature within the stadium or stadium complex (such as the KC waterfall, the Domes that open and close (TOR, HOU, TEX) the rockwall in ANA, the train in HOU, roller coaster in DET), unique designs such as water in play for HRs (Cincy SF, PIT), an entertainment district around the park (ATL, CUB, BOS), monument park in NYY, or even the history around the park (CUB/BOS/LAD) there is something that stands out about pretty much all of these parks ranked in front of Sox Park. 

Sox Park's biggest draws seem to be sightlines and adequate parking.  It's ranked low because there is nothing exciting or unique about it.  It ranks low because it is the Wal-Mart "great value" brand of stadiums.  It has all of your basic ingredients, but there is absolutely nothing special about the park or game day experience.

I've been to eight of the existing MLB ballparks that are not in Chicago.  They all had great seats in the lower deck.  Many of them (but not all) also had great food options.  So even though we see those things as stand-outs at Rate Field, they're still nothing special compared to the rest of the league.   

Of the ones I've been to, I'd say Angel Stadium in Anaheim is the most "meh" to me.  It does have that rock wall feature in the outfield, but it's otherwise a fairly generic ballpark surrounded by acres of parking lots without a lot to do in the area  (other than Disneyland being a couple of miles down the street).   

Edited August 6 by 77 Hitmen

[southsider2k5]

19 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I've been to eight of the existing MLB ballparks that are not in Chicago.  They all had great seats in the lower deck.  Many of them (but not all) also had great food options.  So even though we see those things as stand-outs at Rate Field, they're still nothing special compared to the rest of the league.   

Of the ones I've been to, I'd say Angel Stadium in Anaheim is the most "meh" to me.  It does have that rock wall feature in the outfield, but it's otherwise a fairly generic ballpark surrounded by acres of parking lots without a lot to do in the area  (other than Disneyland being a couple of miles down the street).   

I am at 15 (New and old Sox park, Tiger stadium, Comerica, New Cincy, Astrodome, MInute Maid, Arlington Stadium, Ballpark at Arlington, Washington DC, Skydome, Busch Stadium, new STL stadium, Miller Park, and TampaDome)

I think the Tampa Dome is by far the worst.  It was basically the new Sox Park with none of the 2003 improvements, but with a Dome.  Boring and literally NOTHING interesting about it.

I was a big fan of the Ballpark in Arlington all except for the heat and the air not moving, the Skydome with the hotel in the building, and Minute Maid field.

Something as straight forward as an overhanging upper deck in the OF (even if just RF or LF) to recreate roof shots from the old park, white brick exterior like Old Comiskey, or something else unique to Sox Park would have been wonderful, and would have been a standout amongst other parks.  It's nice, there isn't a bad seat in the house (yes even the high stretches in the upper deck, but this is pretty much the truth in ANY new park), great sightlines, and plenty of parking, but it has zero personality.

[hogan873]

My son and I are trying to hit at least one park a year, and we went to Busch Stadium last month.  Beautiful stadium right in downtown with a ballpark village around it.  Great views of the city and the Arch from inside.  Wide open concourses with many, many options for food, drinks, and souvenirs.  And the best part was getting into the park.  No massive lines you have to wait in for a long-ass time.

I hope the Sox build a new stadium downtown with great views.  Making it awesome on the inside with concessions, fan-friendly stuff, etc. would be great, too.  But regardless of if and when they build a new stadium, they need to fix the entry into the park.  No other stadium I've been to is anywhere nearly as bad as getting into The Rate.

[greg775]

The area around Comiskey will never get redeveloped into a baseball zone. So move it to suburbia and make it a complex with the Bears. Make it a one of a kind destination area with roller coasters, etc. Maybe even renew the old dogtrack/racetrack concept out there too, or soccer.

[Tnetennba]

5 hours ago, JoeC said:

I really like @77 Hitmen's view, and I eco his sentiments - there's no one thing that makes the park bad, but it's the absence of a gazillion small things that makes the park "bleh" compared to so many others around the league.

Totally agree. The lower bowl is great, and generally I have no qualms with it beyond the sea of parking lots that sit empty 99% of the time when there aren’t Sox games. It’s not very unique or idiosyncratic the way parks build after tend to be, and that’s where I think opinions outside of Sox fandom start to trend more negative when comparing it to this newer parks. Sadly, it is a fairly cookie cutter design meant for a suburban locale with little though put towards integrating it with the surrounding neighborhood, made more glaring with the immediate trend set off by Camden and subsequent “retro” downtown ballparks that followed.  

[Lip Man 1]

2 hours ago, greg775 said:

The area around Comiskey will never get redeveloped into a baseball zone. So move it to suburbia and make it a complex with the Bears. Make it a one of a kind destination area with roller coasters, etc. Maybe even renew the old dogtrack/racetrack concept out there too, or soccer.

Not happening. 

[ron883]

2 hours ago, greg775 said:

The area around Comiskey will never get redeveloped into a baseball zone. So move it to suburbia and make it a complex with the Bears. Make it a one of a kind destination area with roller coasters, etc. Maybe even renew the old dogtrack/racetrack concept out there too, or soccer.

Maybe even hare coursing, like the good old days. 

[greg775]

18 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Not happening. 

The new owner would be wise to escape all the upcoming taxes, etc. Also like I said, Lip, there won't be a redeveloped Bridgeport. Do you see the new owners wanting to be in that area of the city? They'd be guaranteed a boon if they and the Bears joined forces and built a sports city out by the old Arlington. Why would the Sox stay at 35th and Shields with their brand new, rich owner? Luxury is what he'll want.

[SoxFest23]

Best example of what the new ballpark should look like is just up the road... Yep, Wrigleyville. No need to reinvent things, a classic retro ballpark would look and feel great.

On 5/18/2025 at 7:32 PM, caulfield12 said:

 

 

Edited August 7 by SoxFest23

[77 Hitmen]

9 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

I say this out of die hard cynicism, of course. Earlier in the thread I pointed out that old Comiskey never got the “Sacred Cathedral of the Holy Game” treatment during its lifetime and was trashed when it wasn’t being ignored. Also “new” Comiskey wasn’t trashed until Camden Yards came around, at least that’s my memory. I admit I could be wrong. The park was designed with Royals Stadium in mind, yet somehow that park escaped the constant criticisms of the second Comiskey. 
 

Also, there is the shadow of Wrigley Field looming large. They’ll never escape that. They could build the retro-iest ballpark in history and I truly believe we will hear, in Chicago and elsewhere “the White Sox *sneer* offer the phony retro atmosphere that Wrigley actually has (if you ignore the towering scoreboards and mostly-new bricks).”

That's because Royals Stadium was built in 1973, right at the time that every other new stadium was a multi-purpose, cookie cutter monstrosity.  It was the only baseball-only MLB stadium built between Anaheim Stadium in 1966 and New Comiskey in 1991.  Nobody in 1992 was going to turn their criticism to a 19 year-old stadium instead of one that was being built pretty much concurrently with Camden Yards.  Has it ever been confirmed that Reinsdorf was presented with an option to build a retro-style ballpark and he rejected it?  

And yes, any new stadium would unfortunately be in the shadow of Wrigley.  If they're smart, they wouldn't try to imitate Wrigley or try to be "retro" (whatever that means) just for the sake of being "retro."  Though, some nods to Old Comiskey Park would be nice.

And, of course, this is ***IF*** the Sox go ahead and build a new stadium.  That'll be up to the Ishbia brothers because it'll be their money.

[77 Hitmen]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am at 15 (New and old Sox park, Tiger stadium, Comerica, New Cincy, Astrodome, MInute Maid, Arlington Stadium, Ballpark at Arlington, Washington DC, Skydome, Busch Stadium, new STL stadium, Miller Park, and TampaDome)

I think the Tampa Dome is by far the worst.  It was basically the new Sox Park with none of the 2003 improvements, but with a Dome.  Boring and literally NOTHING interesting about it.

I was a big fan of the Ballpark in Arlington all except for the heat and the air not moving, the Skydome with the hotel in the building, and Minute Maid field.

Something as straight forward as an overhanging upper deck in the OF (even if just RF or LF) to recreate roof shots from the old park, white brick exterior like Old Comiskey, or something else unique to Sox Park would have been wonderful, and would have been a standout amongst other parks.  It's nice, there isn't a bad seat in the house (yes even the high stretches in the upper deck, but this is pretty much the truth in ANY new park), great sightlines, and plenty of parking, but it has zero personality.

Looks like I have some catching up to do.🙂  Seriously, I'd like to get out and see more MLB parks in the coming years.  My previous visits to other parks was always an enjoyable experience.  I'd say my favorite so far has been Petco Park.  

I've also been to two now-demolished ballparks:  Old Comiskey and County Stadium in Milwaukee (which I didn't count in my 8 current out of town parks visited).  I can't believe I've never been to the Brewers' new stadium.  No excuse for me - it's been around about 25 years now.

Edited August 7 by 77 Hitmen