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

[77 Hitmen]

24 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Two things here.  #1, the debt service at Sox Park is a fraction of that number, and should be easily be retired before a new stadium is opened.  #2, Sox Park only has debt because more money was spent in 2003 for major construction to redo the park and extend the lease.

 

4 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

I was under the belief that Cellular One paid for the renovations in exchange for naming rights?

But, unlike Soldier Field, the ISFA debt for Rate Field is being paid down.  Why isn't it zero yet?  Perhaps ongoing building maintenance and improvements for a 35 year old structure while Jerry's sweetheart lease cuts out rent payments as attendance plummets? 

I have no idea, but what's owed for Sox Park is less than 1/10th of what is still owed for Soldier Field.  If the new owners decide they'll privately finance a new stadium, paying off the $50M debt on the current park will be a relative drop in the bucket compared to what a new stadium costs.  

[southsider2k5]

39 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Two things here.  #1, the debt service at Sox Park is a fraction of that number, and should be easily be retired before a new stadium is opened.  #2, Sox Park only has debt because more money was spent in 2003 for major construction to redo the park and extend the lease.

That was like $3 million a year.

[Princess Dye]

Ishbia will pay the Bears debt off in order to move his own project along. bam.

[Lip Man 1]

43 minutes ago, ThirdGen said:

I was under the belief that Cellular One paid for the renovations in exchange for naming rights?

January 31, 2003 - U.S. Cellular Company and the White Sox signed an agreement selling the naming rights to Comiskey Park. The deal was worth 68 million dollars and the contract was for 23 years. The money received by the club contained the stipulation that it could only be used on renovations and upgrades for the stadium, not say, for signing free agents. Because of said renovations U.S. Cellular Field became one of the finest looking stadiums in baseball. The Guaranteed Rate company would then secure naming rights in November 2016.

[ThirdGen]

50 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

 

This article answers that question.  Nobody took the money borrowed for the Soldier Field renovation for other expenses, the payment structure was totally backloaded and the debt owed has accrued $250M in interest over the last 20+ years.   

https://www.nbcchicago.com/investigations/taxpayers-still-owe-640m-on-2002-soldier-field-renovation/2981068/

So, according to this article the ISFA has only paid down $16 million in principal, less in interest than what was accruing, despite collecting over $1 billion in hotel tax revenue.

I am the last person to suggest the government pay for stadiums, but the responsibility for the debt belongs to the state, not the Bears, due to their garbage financing scheme.

[77 Hitmen]

4 hours ago, Tnetennba said:

A 15th & Clark Red Line stop would make sense for the 78, but how well that location would serve or, not serve, the surrounding community makes me think it is unlikely. I don't know if it would feasible to build a station the Orange line west of Clark, but I think any new CTA station would need to serve the greater community outside the 78 in order to be aproved and built.

Yeah, 15th and Clark is not far from the existing Red Line stops at Roosevelt to the NE and Cermak to the south and it's not like mass transit is going to get any extra federal funding for at least another 3 1/2 years.   Good question about an Orange Line stop just south of the 78.  

If the Sox build a stadium at the 78 (and that's a huge IF), at least an L stop could always be revisited in the future if it ever is determined to be beneficial to the community. 

Edited August 18 by 77 Hitmen

[Tnetennba]

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Yeah, 15th and Clark is not far from the existing Red Line stops at Roosevelt to the NE and Cermak to the south and it's not like mass transit is going to get any extra federal funding for at least another 3 1/2 years.   Good question about an Orange Line stop just south of the 78.  

If the Sox build a stadium at the 78 (and that's a huge IF), at least an L stop could always be revisited in the future if it ever is determined to be beneficial to the community. 

Once upon a time there was an L stop at 18th on the Southside Elevated (Green Line), but with the Orange Line split right there, an 18th Green Line isn't feasible. But with the South Loop boom of the past 20 years, a stop at 18th makes sense to fill the gap between Roosevelt and Cermak. The new Cermak stop was an obvious necessity, but if anything does get built at the 78, the need for an infill station only increases IMO. 

[ewokpelts]

On 8/18/2025 at 12:56 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

 

But, unlike Soldier Field, the ISFA debt for Rate Field is being paid down.  Why isn't it zero yet?  Perhaps ongoing building maintenance and improvements for a 35 year old structure while Jerry's sweetheart lease cuts out rent payments as attendance plummets? 

I have no idea, but what's owed for Sox Park is less than 1/10th of what is still owed for Soldier Field.  If the new owners decide they'll privately finance a new stadium, paying off the $50M debt on the current park will be a relative drop in the bucket compared to what a new stadium costs.  

The state refinances the debt frequently and rolls in newer costs in the bonds. 

the original sox park project,’soldier field, the 2003-2009 renovations, and any current rehab projects are all one bond now. 

[ewokpelts]

On 8/18/2025 at 4:13 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

Yeah, 15th and Clark is not far from the existing Red Line stops at Roosevelt to the NE and Cermak to the south and it's not like mass transit is going to get any extra federal funding for at least another 3 1/2 years.   Good question about an Orange Line stop just south of the 78.  

If the Sox build a stadium at the 78 (and that's a huge IF), at least an L stop could always be revisited in the future if it ever is determined to be beneficial to the community. 

The plan is for metra and Cta to have a hub at 15th st. Roosevelt is too far

[77 Hitmen]

On 8/23/2025 at 10:24 AM, ewokpelts said:

The plan is for metra and Cta to have a hub at 15th st. Roosevelt is too far

Here's the City's planning and development website for the 78.  This is at least 5 years old and before any talk of sports stadiums being built on the site.  It does mention the Red Line subway station at the site as well as realigning the Metra tracks

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/the-78.html

The Fire said they're dropping the CTA station to save on cost, but if the Sox do build there, i'd imagine it's back on the table.  They also said they were not doing to realign the Metra tracks, but I don't know how you could skip that and properly develop the south end of the property.   

[The Mighty Mite]

On 8/18/2025 at 6:32 PM, Tnetennba said:

Once upon a time there was an L stop at 18th on the Southside Elevated (Green Line), but with the Orange Line split right there, an 18th Green Line isn't feasible. But with the South Loop boom of the past 20 years, a stop at 18th makes sense to fill the gap between Roosevelt and Cermak. The new Cermak stop was an obvious necessity, but if anything does get built at the 78, the need for an infill station only increases IMO. 

Once upon a time I spent the first 4 years of my life living next to the elevated tracks at 18th street on what was the Howard-Englewood line. One of my first memories was standing on our back porch and almost able to touch the tracks. That was in the late 1940s and the station was gone. As you can see in the photo which I found on the CTA site, we lived very close to the tracks.

 

 

Edited August 28 by The Mighty Mite

[WhiteSox2023]

4 hours ago, The Mighty Mite said:

Once upon a time I spent the first 4 years of my life living next to the elevated tracks at 18th street on what was the Howard-Englewood line. One of my first memories was standing on our back porch and almost able to touch the tracks. That was in the late 1940s and the station was gone. As you can see in the photo which I found on the CTA site, we lived very close to the tracks.

 

 

Damn, it looks like you could literally hop the rail and ride for free.  🤣

[77 Hitmen]

Here's an article about the Royals' search for a new stadium site that gives a very good general analysis of 3 types of ballpark locations (suburbs, city neighborhood, downtown) and where these types of locations currently work or could work for the other MLB teams.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46030983/mlb-ballparks-future-stadiums-kansas-city-royals-downtown-suburbs-village-model

For those fans who think there's nothing wrong with Rate Field or who advocate moving the Sox out to the suburbs, here's a couple of noteworthy quotes:

"If all that mattered were the aesthetics of watching a game, or the drive-and-park convenience, the Royals would stay put. But in 2025, that's not enough."

"Any team thinking of making a move to the suburbs for its own Battery has to take a careful look at what is different about its market from Atlanta, which in some studies has been measured as the most sprawled-out large metro area in the country."

[caulfield12]

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Here's an article about the Royals' search for a new stadium site that gives a very good general analysis of 3 types of ballpark locations (suburbs, city neighborhood, downtown) and where these types of locations currently work or could work for the other MLB teams.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46030983/mlb-ballparks-future-stadiums-kansas-city-royals-downtown-suburbs-village-model

For those fans who think there's nothing wrong with Rate Field or who advocate moving the Sox out to the suburbs, here's a couple of noteworthy quotes:

"If all that mattered were the aesthetics of watching a game, or the drive-and-park convenience, the Royals would stay put. But in 2025, that's not enough."

"Any team thinking of making a move to the suburbs for its own Battery has to take a careful look at what is different about its market from Atlanta, which in some studies has been measured as the most sprawled-out large metro area in the country."

KC also has a tremendous amount of sprawl...just on a much smaller scale than ATL.

[nrockway]

25 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Here's an article about the Royals' search for a new stadium site that gives a very good general analysis of 3 types of ballpark locations (suburbs, city neighborhood, downtown) and where these types of locations currently work or could work for the other MLB teams.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/46030983/mlb-ballparks-future-stadiums-kansas-city-royals-downtown-suburbs-village-model

For those fans who think there's nothing wrong with Rate Field or who advocate moving the Sox out to the suburbs, here's a couple of noteworthy quotes:

"If all that mattered were the aesthetics of watching a game, or the drive-and-park convenience, the Royals would stay put. But in 2025, that's not enough."

"Any team thinking of making a move to the suburbs for its own Battery has to take a careful look at what is different about its market from Atlanta, which in some studies has been measured as the most sprawled-out large metro area in the country."

The 'ballpark district' (the mallpark) is seemingly the correct model at least in terms of mutually beneficial public-private partnerships (not correct if you deplore a culture of consumption, but that's a different story). Every team is basically doing this nowadays in pretty much every sport. They don't just build a new ballpark, but an integrated system of hotels, restaurants, condos, offices etc. Real estate development is a profitable business and why shouldn't sport franchises get into the game especially if the public might subsidize it? 

I think the logic of 'public investment' into ballparks has changed because of this model. It might actually generate tax revenue greater than the investment. It can be a good source of urban development as far as the public is considered aside from a billionaire making a bunch of money. Mark Rosentraub seems to be the foremost expert on this topic, for a long time, and his analyses of "does the public get anything in return for their investment?" have evolved in light of this model.

Here's a short blurb he offered in 2015 about it: https://www.marketplace.org/story/2015/08/13/sports-arena-investment-or-subsidy

Quote

 

When a government pours money into a sports venue, sometimes it’s hard to tell whether it’s a subsidy or an investment, Mark Rosentraub, sport management professor at the University of Michigan, says.

“It becomes an investment when there’s a clearly defined set of returns that are worth the risk of any investment,” he says.

Rosentraub says if the arena anchors a bigger redevelopment plan, that’s when it tends to make a city money

 

Since 2015, we've seen some pretty good examples of it. It works well in San Diego, St Louis, Minneapolis for sure. I seem to recall reading that the suburban sites in Atlanta and Arlington are not great examples of it.

 

So I think the debate for the Sox is the current site or 'the 78' and not the suburbs. I prefer the current site for a variety of reasons, but the notable thing is that the land adjacent to the park (the parking lots) is publicly owned (by Illinois Sports Facilities Authority) and it's essentially a blank canvas to build upon. The team and the public can simply work together and not have to deal with ROOSEVELT CLARK PTNRS (the landowner of 'the 78') or any other private entity. The parking lots comprise roughly 70 acres of land which is a larger area than the 78. It already has a CTA stop and easier expressway access. The surrounding community is not as wealthy as South Loop residents, but the area is gentrifying on both sides of the expressway and I have to think there is demand for retail, restaurants, amenities etc that didn't necessarily exist when new SoxPark was built in 1991. Certainly, some formal analysis should be done.

There's almost certainly demand for it at the 78, but the public investment would probably be larger if they're going to build a transit stop and I'd wonder what the return on that investment would actually be. For the Sox, I don't know why they would want to cut into their profits by involving another corporation. However, the land is almost certainly more valuable at the 78 owing to its downtown proximity, you'd likely get a lot more tourists and north siders visiting. 

From a 'social' standpoint, the key thing to me, I reckon some other entity will eventually develop the 78. It isn't the Sox or nothing. Some developer could just build a bunch of condos and be done with it. There could be some kind of 'research center'. They could just build a mall regardless without an 'anchor tenant'. Turn it into a big, wooded park is my thinking. That would probably do wonders to adjacent property values and be a really nice oasis near to downtown.

Whereas if the Sox move from their current site, what is really going to happen to all that now vacant land? It probably just gets added into the City's "Dollar Lot" inventory or some such program. Vacant lots that are not exactly being gobbled up and developed on the South and West Sides. It would be a massive blow to the community to simply add dozens of acres of vacant lots and it would also be a contradiction of city and state investments into the region. It would be bad urban planning, simply.

[77 Hitmen]

On 8/30/2025 at 12:16 PM, nrockway said:

The 'ballpark district' (the mallpark) is seemingly the correct model at least in terms of mutually beneficial public-private partnerships (not correct if you deplore a culture of consumption, but that's a different story). Every team is basically doing this nowadays in pretty much every sport. They don't just build a new ballpark, but an integrated system of hotels, restaurants, condos, offices etc. Real estate development is a profitable business and why shouldn't sport franchises get into the game especially if the public might subsidize it? 

I think the logic of 'public investment' into ballparks has changed because of this model. It might actually generate tax revenue greater than the investment. It can be a good source of urban development as far as the public is considered aside from a billionaire making a bunch of money. Mark Rosentraub seems to be the foremost expert on this topic, for a long time, and his analyses of "does the public get anything in return for their investment?" have evolved in light of this model.

Here's a short blurb he offered in 2015 about it: https://www.marketplace.org/story/2015/08/13/sports-arena-investment-or-subsidy

Since 2015, we've seen some pretty good examples of it. It works well in San Diego, St Louis, Minneapolis for sure. I seem to recall reading that the suburban sites in Atlanta and Arlington are not great examples of it.

 

So I think the debate for the Sox is the current site or 'the 78' and not the suburbs. I prefer the current site for a variety of reasons, but the notable thing is that the land adjacent to the park (the parking lots) is publicly owned (by Illinois Sports Facilities Authority) and it's essentially a blank canvas to build upon. The team and the public can simply work together and not have to deal with ROOSEVELT CLARK PTNRS (the landowner of 'the 78') or any other private entity. The parking lots comprise roughly 70 acres of land which is a larger area than the 78. It already has a CTA stop and easier expressway access. The surrounding community is not as wealthy as South Loop residents, but the area is gentrifying on both sides of the expressway and I have to think there is demand for retail, restaurants, amenities etc that didn't necessarily exist when new SoxPark was built in 1991. Certainly, some formal analysis should be done.

There's almost certainly demand for it at the 78, but the public investment would probably be larger if they're going to build a transit stop and I'd wonder what the return on that investment would actually be. For the Sox, I don't know why they would want to cut into their profits by involving another corporation. However, the land is almost certainly more valuable at the 78 owing to its downtown proximity, you'd likely get a lot more tourists and north siders visiting. 

From a 'social' standpoint, the key thing to me, I reckon some other entity will eventually develop the 78. It isn't the Sox or nothing. Some developer could just build a bunch of condos and be done with it. There could be some kind of 'research center'. They could just build a mall regardless without an 'anchor tenant'. Turn it into a big, wooded park is my thinking. That would probably do wonders to adjacent property values and be a really nice oasis near to downtown.

Whereas if the Sox move from their current site, what is really going to happen to all that now vacant land? It probably just gets added into the City's "Dollar Lot" inventory or some such program. Vacant lots that are not exactly being gobbled up and developed on the South and West Sides. It would be a massive blow to the community to simply add dozens of acres of vacant lots and it would also be a contradiction of city and state investments into the region. It would be bad urban planning, simply.

Good post.   

Suburban ballpark developments work in Atlanta and Arlington because of the sprawled nature of those regions and the culture of decentralized, car-oriented development there.  I don't think it would work well in most cities and certainly not Chicago.  A "baseball village" at, say, Arlington Park would definitely have a "mallpark" feel whereas a development either at 35th St or the 78 could be integrated into the surrounding urban environment and could feel more organic.  As I've posted before, I don't think the Sox catering to people who are afraid of the city and afraid to take mass transit is a winning formula for future success. 

And yes, I'd imagine the Ishbias would be crazy to not conduct some formal analysis of the feasibility of developing the parking lots around Rate Field into some sort of "ballpark village" vs. building a privately-funded ballpark at the 78 and developing the land there along with the Fire for retail/restaurants.  One benefit of a new stadium at the 78 is that the new owners could rid themselves of the well-documented design flaws of the current stadium.  We'll see what they decide to do.  It's not my billions.  

If (and that's a huge IF), the Sox do move to the 78, I can't imagine the 70+ acres that the ISFA owns at Rate Field would fall into vacant lot or "dollar lot" status.  It's location in a gentrifying area and close to mass transit lines is too valuable for that to happen.  With the demand for more housing in the area, it's a prime candidate to be developed into a residential area that can probably provide a mixed type of housing that has been in demand.  

Edited August 31 by 77 Hitmen

[nrockway]

9 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Good post.   

Suburban ballpark developments work in Atlanta and Arlington because of the sprawled nature of those regions and the culture of decentralized, car-oriented development there.  I don't think it would work well in most cities and certainly not Chicago.  A "baseball village" at, say, Arlington Park would definitely have a "mallpark" feel whereas a development either at 35th St or the 78 could be integrated into the surrounding urban environment and could feel more organic.  As I've posted before, I don't think the Sox catering to people who are afraid of the city and afraid to take mass transit is a winning formula for future success. 

And yes, I'd imagine the Ishbias would be crazy to not conduct some formal analysis of the feasibility of developing the parking lots around Rate Field into some sort of "ballpark village" vs. building a privately-funded ballpark at the 78 and developing the land there along with the Fire for retail/restaurants.  One benefit of a new stadium at the 78 is that the new owners could rid themselves of the well-documented design flaws of the current stadium.  We'll see what they decide to do.  It's not my billions.  

If (and that's a huge IF), the Sox do move to the 78, I can't imagine the 70+ acres that the ISFA owns at Rate Field would fall into vacant lot or "dollar lot" status.  It's location in a gentrifying area and close to mass transit lines is too valuable for that to happen.  With the demand for more housing in the area, it's a prime candidate to be developed into a residential area that can probably provide a mixed type of housing that has been in demand.  

Well said. I think in retrospect, to your last paragraph, you're totally right. They're doing some big real estate projects even further south, along the Green Line '43 Green' just came up and the second phase is already completely leased. Unsure if it's actually open yet, if it is, just recently. Some of the newly built townhomes around it have sold for over $800k in the last 5 years. Have to imagine there's even more potential 10 blocks north from a developer standpoint. Makes me wonder why JR didn't see this potential, but then again, he's involved with Wirtz in that huge development project around the United Center and it's probably not feasible to do both. Might be a big opportunity for Ishbia as you say.

I'm definitely biased, but I'd love to see some Sox-centric development at the site and the state's involvement could garner some nice concessions for the community (like a much-needed grocery store). I might speculate that some kind of 'ballpark village' could spark something across the expressway at the site of the former Stateway Gardens which is still mostly vacant (but well taken care of) 20 years after its demolition. Pretty sure CHA still owns that land, put the grocery store there as well as affordable housing, finally follow through with the broken promise to replace the housing lost from the demolitions. Seems like a situation where everyone can win: developers can profit, the state and city have a new source of revenue, regular people have a more livable community.

I don't hate the idea of the 78, you're right about the current park's design flaws, and it would be nice to finally do something with a huge site that has been vacant since the 70s. My opinion is that it's just kind of low-hanging fruit at the current site but I don't know what changes they could make to the current park to make it more 'imageable' without demolishing it and building again. Even something like orienting it north-northeast toward the skyline could go a long way which is probably impossible, I have no clue. Also no clue why they didn't just do that in the first place, the MLB preference is to face it northeast. Something to do with keeping the address at 35th and Shields I guess?

[soxrwhite]

If you win they will come.

[77 Hitmen]

On 8/31/2025 at 6:20 PM, soxrwhite said:

If you win they will come.

Based on historical data, NO.   The only time they were higher than 15th in attendance in the last 30 years was 2006, the year after the won the World Series.  In 2005, they were 15th and by 2007 they were back down to 15th.  They were reigning division champs in 2009 and 2022 and were 16th and 19th in attendance, respectively.

https://www.thebaseballcube.com/content/mlb_attendance/

If it was as simple as "just winning", the vast majority of MLB teams wouldn't have wasted their time over the last 30 years building ballparks with character and in locations that attract more fans.

If the Sox stay at their current ballpark (which is very possible if not probable), the new owners are going to have to do something with the stadium and its surroundings.  

 

Edited September 2 by 77 Hitmen

[WBWSF]

I would be surprised if they stayed at the present site. You can't fix the miserable upper deck that everybody has hated from year one. Not too many businesses are going to move into the parking lots. The area is not a popular location in the city. Besides, those parking lots are a real money maker for the owner.In addition most fans like the parking lots. Where else would you park?

[77 Hitmen]

On 8/31/2025 at 1:54 PM, nrockway said:

Well said. I think in retrospect, to your last paragraph, you're totally right. They're doing some big real estate projects even further south, along the Green Line '43 Green' just came up and the second phase is already completely leased. Unsure if it's actually open yet, if it is, just recently. Some of the newly built townhomes around it have sold for over $800k in the last 5 years. Have to imagine there's even more potential 10 blocks north from a developer standpoint. Makes me wonder why JR didn't see this potential, but then again, he's involved with Wirtz in that huge development project around the United Center and it's probably not feasible to do both. Might be a big opportunity for Ishbia as you say.

I'm definitely biased, but I'd love to see some Sox-centric development at the site and the state's involvement could garner some nice concessions for the community (like a much-needed grocery store). I might speculate that some kind of 'ballpark village' could spark something across the expressway at the site of the former Stateway Gardens which is still mostly vacant (but well taken care of) 20 years after its demolition. Pretty sure CHA still owns that land, put the grocery store there as well as affordable housing, finally follow through with the broken promise to replace the housing lost from the demolitions. Seems like a situation where everyone can win: developers can profit, the state and city have a new source of revenue, regular people have a more livable community.

I don't hate the idea of the 78, you're right about the current park's design flaws, and it would be nice to finally do something with a huge site that has been vacant since the 70s. My opinion is that it's just kind of low-hanging fruit at the current site but I don't know what changes they could make to the current park to make it more 'imageable' without demolishing it and building again. Even something like orienting it north-northeast toward the skyline could go a long way which is probably impossible, I have no clue. Also no clue why they didn't just do that in the first place, the MLB preference is to face it northeast. Something to do with keeping the address at 35th and Shields I guess?

That's crazy that the Stateway Gardens land is still mostly vacant given the shortage and demand for affordable housing in the city.   

Yes, I seriously doubt they'd change the orientation of the current park if they stay there.  That would be insanely expensive for not building a completely new park.  I'm not sure what they could do with the current park.  Perhaps add some sort of "home run porch" in RF as had been rumored when they did the major renovations 20 years ago.  I seem to recall that some renderings floating out there at the time also showed adding a new "grand entrance" somewhere along 35th St.   And, of course, develop some sort of commercial district on much of the parking lots.

Edited September 2 by 77 Hitmen

[Tnetennba]

On 8/28/2025 at 7:04 AM, The Mighty Mite said:

Once upon a time I spent the first 4 years of my life living next to the elevated tracks at 18th street on what was the Howard-Englewood line. One of my first memories was standing on our back porch and almost able to touch the tracks. That was in the late 1940s and the station was gone. As you can see in the photo which I found on the CTA site, we lived very close to the tracks.

 

 

My first apartment in the city was on the 3rd floor of a South Loop loft with the Green/Orange line racks right outside my window. I quickly learned to keep my blinds closed, especially during rush hour 😂. 

[NO!!MARY!!!]

18 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Based on historical data, NO.   The only time they were higher than 15th in attendance in the last 30 years was 2006, the year after the won the World Series.  In 2005, they were 15th and by 2007 they were back down to 15th.  They were reigning division champs in 2009 and 2022 and were 16th and 19th in attendance, respectively.

https://www.thebaseballcube.com/content/mlb_attendance/

If it was as simple as "just winning", the vast majority of MLB teams wouldn't have wasted their time over the last 30 years building ballparks with character and in locations that attract more fans.

If the Sox stay at their current ballpark (which is very possible if not probable), the new owners are going to have to do something with the stadium and its surroundings.  

 

Downer post, but true. Also recall that in 2012 they were in 1st place most of the season and didn’t even crack 2 million in attendance. I don’t see that ever changing, especially now. 

[WBWSF]

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

Downer post, but true. Also recall that in 2012 they were in 1st place most of the season and didn’t even crack 2 million in attendance. I don’t see that ever changing, especially now. 

In 2012 they didn't draw 2 million fans  after being in first place much of the season. They did a marketing research and  and it showed  how expensive it was to come to a White Sox game.  They were charging Wrigley Field  prices. Since then they have lowered the prices on alot of things. They have family Sundays, discounted food on  Tuesdays.  They've made it more affordable for the average person. You won't go broke going to a White Sox game like you do at Wrigley Field. In 2022 the White Sox drew over 2 million fans with a team that won only 81 games.  There never going to draw like the Cubs do, but they will draw decently with a winning team.

Edited September 3 by WBWSF

[77 Hitmen]

On 9/2/2025 at 10:49 AM, WBWSF said:

I would be surprised if they stayed at the present site. You can't fix the miserable upper deck that everybody has hated from year one. Not too many businesses are going to move into the parking lots. The area is not a popular location in the city. Besides, those parking lots are a real money maker for the owner. In addition most fans like the parking lots. Where else would you park?

The economics of baseball have changed.  It looks to me like teams are finding that developing the land around a stadium is a much bigger money maker than surface parking lots.

I wonder how often the Sox actually fill up all of their parking lots.  Even at games with 35k+ in attendance, do the lots ever get full?  And even if the Sox had middle of the pack attendance, how many times a year would they actually need all those parking spaces?  It looks like other sports teams are redeveloping a good chunk of the surface lots around their stadiums.  The Mets and Phillies are the latest.  Heck, even in our own city, the Bulls and Blackhawks are spending billions to turn most of parking around the United Center into the "1901 Project".  

Whether the Sox move to the 78 or stay at 35th & Shields and redevelop much of the parking lots, I am sure there will be parking available for fans.  It just won't be dozens of acres of surface lots adjacent to the stadium.  

Edited September 3 by 77 Hitmen