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

[Paulie4Pres]

12 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The question isn't the right question.  You should be asking what happens if you don't offer incentives.   This is exactly how Chicago recruited away a company like Boeing, and exactly why Motorola left the burbs.

The question is what happens when everyone tells these rich greedy owners to pound sand and put their money where their mouth is? That's actually the answer. If it is such a guarantee why don't you finance all the costs? See, that's actually how this country used to work. Big business and rich people used to build ENTIRE TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES out of their own pocket. Now they want all of us to subsidize their goals. f***. Them. Prove you are going to create jobs and generate revenue for my area that is actually worth it. 

But they don't. And they never do. Because they know they can get idiots to subsidize their vanity projects. There should be rioting in the streets over AI datacenters as there is ZERO benefit to anyone outside of the already filthy rich. But here we are.

Edited August 11 by Paulie4Pres

[southsider2k5]

4 hours ago, Paulie4Pres said:

The question is what happens when everyone tells these rich greedy owners to pound sand and put their money where their mouth is? That's actually the answer. If it is such a guarantee why don't you finance all the costs? See, that's actually how this country used to work. Big business and rich people used to build ENTIRE TOWNS AND COMMUNITIES out of their own pocket. Now they want all of us to subsidize their goals. f***. Them. Prove you are going to create jobs and generate revenue for my area that is actually worth it. 

But they don't. And they never do. Because they know they can get idiots to subsidize their vanity projects. There should be rioting in the streets over AI datacenters as there is ZERO benefit to anyone outside of the already filthy rich. But here we are.

Company towns were horrible. The company owned everything and loaded it over employees.

[Paulie4Pres]

51 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Company towns were horrible. The company owned everything and loaded it over employees.

No argument here. It was more the point that they paid for the infrastructure to support their business themselves. Now they all want handouts from taxpayers that see little to no benefit from it. 

[WBWSF]

15 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

That's because many people don't want to pay money to see a historically bad team play in a forgettable stadium in an area without much else to do.  People don't always equate "cheaper" for a good value on their entertainment dollar.   

The Bulls and Blackhawks are bad too, but have half as many home games and half as many seats per game to fill in a climate controlled facility.  The Bears are the NFL and will sell out their 10 home dates a year no matter what (just like most other NFL teams).   And we all know all the factors of why the Cubs always draw fans.

 

Somebody told me once you have to work at it to be a White Sox fan. First of all there is nothing wrong with the stadium on the lower level. The upper deck is for the birds, but the lower level (where i sit ) is great.  The White Sox Bar and Grill, adjacent to the park is a good place to hang out. The bars on 33rd street (Cork & Kerrys  and the other places ) are good. Grandstand is within walking distance if you want White Sox stuff cheaper than the stadium. Last but not least if you like pizza Connies is a 5 minute drive from the park. That being said I hope they build the new stadium in the South Loop. 

[77 Hitmen]

12 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

And from what has been published in the Sun-Times and the Tribune the majority of the politicians who have gone on the record, have said they are against giving them anything (not being willing to risk their own political future.)

The Bears and Sox may either have to face reality and figure out a way to pay for everything or shut up, keep making their money, putting out garbage teams and remain in their current locations. 

Time will tell.  

I don't know if that's accurate.  I have seen several interviews with the Governor, who has been VERY vocal in opposing public funding for new sports stadiums, where he specifically said he was OPEN to the possibility of infrastructure spending for such projects.  Do you have any links where a group of lawmakers said they wouldn't spend a dime on infrastructure to develop the Arlington Park or 78 properties?

And right or wrong, I seriously doubt any local elected officials are going down in defeat because they approved spending for things like enhancements to the 2 nearby expressway exit ramps and an upgrade to the existing Arlington Park Metra station.  It would be one thing if there was a hike in sales tax or property tax directly linked to work on the project, but that's not the case here.  

Heck, Arlington Heights just elected a new mayor who is totally gung ho about getting the Bears project approved and constructed.  That doesn't  exactly sound like locals storming village hall with pitchforks to me.  

[Lip Man 1]

20 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I don't know if that's accurate.  I have seen several interviews with the Governor, who has been VERY vocal in opposing public funding for new sports stadiums, where he specifically said he was OPEN to the possibility of infrastructure spending for such projects.  Do you have any links where a group of lawmakers said they wouldn't spend a dime on infrastructure to develop the Arlington Park or 78 properties?

And right or wrong, I seriously doubt any local elected officials are going down in defeat because they approved spending for things like enhancements to the 2 nearby expressway exit ramps and an upgrade to the existing Arlington Park Metra station.  It would be one thing if there was a hike in sales tax or property tax directly linked to work on the project, but that's not the case here.  

Heck, Arlington Heights just elected a new mayor who is totally gung ho about getting the Bears project approved and constructed.  That doesn't  exactly sound like locals storming village hall with pitchforks to me.  

Hit: The stories directly quoted a number of state/area politicians saying they would not approve money given the circumstances to go to a new Bears stadium. 

The Tribune's Brad Briggs had a long column this morning recapping the Bears game Saturday and he had a part in it on the quickly called Friday press conference by McCaskey which he called a (direct quote) "lobbying effort."

Among the things he wrote were this:

Unanswered is what the Bears would potentially seek in the way of public aid for infrastructure improvements around the site to roads, sewers and more in order to pull off the move. Also unknown is how a potential move by the team would impact $525 million in remaining public debt from the 2003 renovation of Soldier Field.

[77 Hitmen]

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Hit: The stories directly quoted a number of state/area politicians saying they would not approve money given the circumstances to go to a new Bears stadium. 

The Tribune's Brad Briggs had a long column this morning recapping the Bears game Saturday and he had a part in it on the quickly called Friday press conference by McCaskey which he called a (direct quote) "lobbying effort."

Among the things he wrote were this:

Unanswered is what the Bears would potentially seek in the way of public aid for infrastructure improvements around the site to roads, sewers and more in order to pull off the move. Also unknown is how a potential move by the team would impact $525 million in remaining public debt from the 2003 renovation of Soldier Field.

That still doesn't answer to me whether any of the local politicians said they'd oppose spending any public money on infrastructure for huge developments at Arlington Park or the 78 for whatever gets built there.  They can easily say they held the line on no public money for any of the new stadiums even if in reality there will be public money spent on infrastructure.  I still have not seen anything that suggests that local officials are saying no to infrastructure money.

And I agree about the issue of the $525M in public debt remaining for the Soldier Field renovations.  To me, I'm more outraged about that than the idea of public money being used for infrastructure.  Who is going to pay that off?

The state also has $50M in debt for Rate Field, but that ~1/10th the amount of what is owed for Soldier Field.  If the new Sox owners really want to pay $1B for a new privately-funded stadium, paying off that $50M debt sounds like relative chump change.  That's basically Luis Roberts's contract.

Edited August 11 by 77 Hitmen

[southsider2k5]

12 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

That still doesn't answer to me whether any of the local politicians said they'd oppose spending any public money on infrastructure for huge developments at Arlington Park or the 78 for whatever gets built there.  They can easily say they held the line on no public money for any of the new stadiums even if in reality there will be public money spent on infrastructure.  I still have not seen anything that suggests that local officials are saying no to infrastructure money.

And I agree about the issue of the $525M in public debt remaining for the Soldier Field renovations.  To me, I'm more outraged about that than the idea of public money being used for infrastructure.  Who is going to pay that off?

The state also have $50M in debt for Rate Field, but that ~1/10th the amount of what is owed for Soldier Field.  If the new Sox owners really want to pay $1B for a new privately-funded stadium, paying off that $50M debt sounds like relative chump change.  That's basically Luis Roberts's contract.

I am going to guess with the amount of time left in the Sox deal at Sox Park, that $50 million will roll off right about the time the lease expires.

[WBWSF]

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

That still doesn't answer to me whether any of the local politicians said they'd oppose spending any public money on infrastructure for huge developments at Arlington Park or the 78 for whatever gets built there.  They can easily say they held the line on no public money for any of the new stadiums even if in reality there will be public money spent on infrastructure.  I still have not seen anything that suggests that local officials are saying no to infrastructure money.

And I agree about the issue of the $525M in public debt remaining for the Soldier Field renovations.  To me, I'm more outraged about that than the idea of public money being used for infrastructure.  Who is going to pay that off?

The state also has $50M in debt for Rate Field, but that ~1/10th the amount of what is owed for Soldier Field.  If the new Sox owners really want to pay $1B for a new privately-funded stadium, paying off that $50M debt sounds like relative chump change.  That's basically Luis Roberts's contract.

 if the Bears and White Sox owners pay for their stadiums and  the government pays for the infrastructures, it will be a done deal on both accounts. I read recently that the city of Jacksonville will pay 55% of the cost of the new football stadium for the Jaguars. Obviously some view new sports stadiums as a positive.

[southsider2k5]

7 hours ago, Paulie4Pres said:

No argument here. It was more the point that they paid for the infrastructure to support their business themselves. Now they all want handouts from taxpayers that see little to no benefit from it. 

They didn't pay for their infrastructure as much as they owned their employees and used the town to drain back the money they paid them, and then kicked them out if they no longer worked for the company.  It was more of an indentured servant situation vs "support" of a town.

We might not like it, but this is the system that exists, and until it is made illegal at the federal level, there will always be this structure to attract companies and jobs... and we all know that isn't going to happen.

[Kyyle23]

1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

 if the Bears and White Sox owners pay for their stadiums and  the government pays for the infrastructures, it will be a done deal on both accounts. I read recently that the city of Jacksonville will pay 55% of the cost of the new football stadium for the Jaguars. Obviously some view new sports stadiums as a positive.

I don’t know why you shoehorned the Sox in there, they have made no such promises or statements that they are paying for their own stadium.  Seems like much to the contrary 

[77 Hitmen]

7 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Somebody told me once you have to work at it to be a White Sox fan. First of all there is nothing wrong with the stadium on the lower level. The upper deck is for the birds, but the lower level (where i sit ) is great.  The White Sox Bar and Grill, adjacent to the park is a good place to hang out. The bars on 33rd street (Cork & Kerrys  and the other places ) are good. Grandstand is within walking distance if you want White Sox stuff cheaper than the stadium. Last but not least if you like pizza Connies is a 5 minute drive from the park. That being said I hope they build the new stadium in the South Loop. 

Good summary.  Despite my posts in this thread criticizing the current park and supporting the idea of a new Sox stadium at the 78, I actually don't hate the current park, have had many fond memories there, and agree that there are positives about the place.

The lower deck is very good and there really isn't a bad seat in the lower level, but IMO there are better lower decks in MLB.  The upper deck is the park's albatross made worse by the team's policy of banning 500 level ticket holders from the lower concourse.

I've enjoyed going to Grandstand and Connie's.  It's great that Cork & Kerry is nearby and that the ChiSox Bar & Grill is attached to the ballpark, but even so, the number of places surrounding the ballpark for fans to go to before and after a game is severely lacking.  And unfortunately, that does matter in today's economics for getting enough people to come to games.  And by the way, Connie's is actually closer to the 78 than to Rate Field

Quite frankly, there just isn't much of anything remarkable at Rate Field.  "There's nothing wrong with the stadium" is a pretty crappy motto for a ballpark to be perfectly honest.  If all that is needed is for teams to just field a winning team and the ballpark doesn't matter, then why have so many other teams gone to such great lengths to make sure their ballparks have a ton of character and are surrounded by other points of interest?  

I used to be like many other Sox fans in thinking that our ballpark gets a bad rap because the world is against Sox fans, the Cubs-loving media is brainwashing everyone, critics probably haven't even been to the stadium, everyone else is wrong and we die-hard Sox fans are right, etc., etc.   Over time, I've come to realize that just isn't reality.

But we'll see, it's not my $1B that would need to be spent for a new ballpark.  If the new owners decide that it isn't practical or feasible to build a privately-financed new ballpark at the 78, then I'll continue to support this team and hope for a better product on the field.  I just hope they put a lot of money into improving the ballpark and surrounding area if the team is going to stay there for another 3 or 4 decades. 

Edited August 11 by 77 Hitmen

[southsider2k5]

A great example of your tax dollars at work...  hundreds of millions of tax dollars going to build condos.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/07/initial-financing-hearing-held-for.html

[nrockway]

6 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

A great example of your tax dollars at work...  hundreds of millions of tax dollars going to build condos.

https://chicagoyimby.com/2023/07/initial-financing-hearing-held-for.html

need a puke emoji...TLR works.

 

personally don't think this project ever gets done. I thought they just decided to build a park on the land. Something about a DuSable-themed children's museum. Just do that.

Edited August 12 by nrockway

[The Mighty Mite]

21 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Somebody told me once you have to work at it to be a White Sox fan. First of all there is nothing wrong with the stadium on the lower level. The upper deck is for the birds, but the lower level (where i sit ) is great.  The White Sox Bar and Grill, adjacent to the park is a good place to hang out. The bars on 33rd street (Cork & Kerrys  and the other places ) are good. Grandstand is within walking distance if you want White Sox stuff cheaper than the stadium. Last but not least if you like pizza Connies is a 5 minute drive from the park. That being said I hope they build the new stadium in the South Loop. 

The upper deck isn’t that bad especially after lopping off 8 rows in 2004 along with a cozier roof, it’s no worse than a lot of the other new retro parks. If there was one less tier of suites it would be just about ideal.

Edited August 12 by The Mighty Mite

[WBWSF]

1 hour ago, The Mighty Mite said:

The upper deck isn’t that bad especially after lopping off 8 rows in 2004 along with a cozier roof, it’s no worse than a lot of the other new retro parks. If there was one less tier of suites it would be just about ideal.

The original design of the present stadium didn't  have the second level of suites. JR had the design  changed because he wanted the second level of suites, which in turn has ruined the stadium.

[Snopek]

4 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

The original design of the present stadium didn't  have the second level of suites. JR had the design  changed because he wanted the second level of suites, which in turn has ruined the stadium.

His ability to ruin things he touches is almost impressive. 

[southsider2k5]

"Nothing wrong with..."

"It's no worse than..."

"If... It would be just about ideal"

 

Such ringing endorsements.

[Kyyle23]

48 minutes ago, Snopek said:

His ability to ruin things he touches is almost impressive. 

Not only that but to continually make less money than he could be making lol.

[Lip Man 1]

A representative weighs in:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/08/12/opinion-chicago-bears-leave-arlington-heights-property-tax/

"Every lawmaker in Springfield should look at this proposal and ask themselves how they will explain it back home." 

Edited August 12 by Lip Man 1

[southsider2k5]

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

A representative weighs in:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/08/12/opinion-chicago-bears-leave-arlington-heights-property-tax/

"Every lawmaker in Springfield should look at this proposal and ask themselves how they will explain it back home." 

Honestly?  It would just show that people pay more attention to sports than they do politics and they honestly should be ashamed of themselves.  I can name five projects right now in my town of 30,000 people which are getting these kinds of funds, which are happening, a few in businesses with way bigger market caps than the Bears or Sox.

[77 Hitmen]

5 hours ago, WBWSF said:

The original design of the present stadium didn't  have the second level of suites. JR had the design  changed because he wanted the second level of suites, which in turn has ruined the stadium.

 

5 hours ago, Snopek said:

His ability to ruin things he touches is almost impressive. 

Incredible.  Such a Reinsdorfian move.

And am I remembering correctly that the 300 Club Level was originally an exclusive "members only" section similar to the Stadium Club (and don't get me started about that monstrosity)?  I want to say that it was later opened up to general ticket sales after about a year or two because they weren't getting enough people to pay for access to it.  That would explain why it's a very small seating area (only 5 rows deep)

So, Jerry actually saw to it that the upper deck was pushed above THREE levels for suites/exclusive seating.  This is why the UD is the "500 level", it really is that many levels up.  Check out photos of the seating levels at other MLB parks, I doubt you can find many (if any) with so many exclusive levels before you get to the SECOND level of seating for the general public.  This site offers a ton of views of all the MLB parks:  https://ballparkratings.com/

The original design of the ballpark was so flawed that it's mind-boggling.  

 

Edited August 12 by 77 Hitmen

[WBWSF]

10 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

Incredible.  Such a Reinsdorfian move.

And am I remembering correctly that the 300 Club Level was originally an exclusive "members only" section similar to the Stadium Club (and don't get me started about that monstrosity)?  I want to say that it was later opened up to general ticket sales after about a year or two because they weren't getting enough people to pay for access to it.  That would explain why it's a very small seating area (only 5 rows deep)

So, Jerry actually saw to it that the upper deck was pushed above THREE levels for suites/exclusive seating.  This is why the UD is the "500 level", it really is that many levels up.  Check out photos of the seating levels at other MLB parks, I doubt you can find many (if any) with so many exclusive levels before you get to the SECOND level of seating for the general public.  This site offers a ton of views of all the MLB parks:  https://ballparkratings.com/

The original design of the ballpark was so flawed that it's mind-boggling.  

 

Everybody makes mistakes in life but if you're a MLB owner you can't make mistakes like JR did with the present White Sox stadium. I've always thought the stadium situation (where it was built and how it was built) has been JRs biggest mistakes of his ownership. JR didn't realize what he had with the new stadium. When the new stadium opened JR thought the new stadium would draw 2 million fans. He was surprised when it came close to drawing 3 million fans the first year in 1991. The fans and the media (led by Sun Times writer and White Sox hater, Jay "Woman Beater" Mariotti) hammered the new stadium because of the dreadful upper deck. 

[ThirdGen]

In recent years is there a single business in Illinois that built its own infrastructure? Expressway ramps, local streets, etc are the domain of the state. If the Bears pay for a expressway on off ramp, would they be allowed to charge tolls? I don't like govt paying for stadiums but the roads to get there, that's the govt job.

[Lip Man 1]

38 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

Incredible.  Such a Reinsdorfian move.

And am I remembering correctly that the 300 Club Level was originally an exclusive "members only" section similar to the Stadium Club (and don't get me started about that monstrosity)?  I want to say that it was later opened up to general ticket sales after about a year or two because they weren't getting enough people to pay for access to it.  That would explain why it's a very small seating area (only 5 rows deep)

So, Jerry actually saw to it that the upper deck was pushed above THREE levels for suites/exclusive seating.  This is why the UD is the "500 level", it really is that many levels up.  Check out photos of the seating levels at other MLB parks, I doubt you can find many (if any) with so many exclusive levels before you get to the SECOND level of seating for the general public.  This site offers a ton of views of all the MLB parks:  https://ballparkratings.com/

The original design of the ballpark was so flawed that it's mind-boggling.  

 

Correct the second level was a JR decision, he wanted the most luxury boxes as possible and ironically I don't think all the boxes have ever been sold out, maybe in 2006 but that's the only possible year I could think of.

And according to the HOK architectural firm JR was offered the Camden Yards design before the Orioles seized upon it and he said no.