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

[nrockway]

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

I see plenty of Cubs jerseys on the Orange Line heading into downtown, and *gasp* they transfer to the scary subway at Roosevelt. 

Roosevelt is often where I get on/off and it's a weird place just as Jackson is just as Wilson is up north. There's probably a middle ground between "this place is a s%*# hole" and "there's nothing to see here, you must be a suburbanite". 

[77 Hitmen]

7 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

So explain to me Yankees and Mets fans, who again, can survive after dark without surface parking?  Sox fans are smart enough to adjust. 

 

6 hours ago, JoeC said:

Someone should invent a sort of building where you can park on a 2nd or 3rd floor.

Yeah, I think some are missing this point.  The Sox are not ELIMINATING parking at the ballpark no matter what they end up doing.  For anyone who can't or won't ride the CTA, there will be parking spaces either at the current stadium or the 78 for fans who want to drive to the game.    It just likely won't be 70 acres (or whatever) of surface lots.

 

 

[77 Hitmen]

4 hours ago, soxrwhite said:

Chicago is Chicago. Its not any other city. Many people on this site live out of town. Thats fine. I'm glad you are White Sox fans and/or strong to your roots, but don't pretend you know our city in 2025.

Suburbanites are not riding the CTA at night. The CTA  lines for the Northside franchise do not run through the west and south sides.

The 78 might work because of it's proximity to downtown. The riverwalk,water taxis, Uber, and short bus rides to ample dowtown parking could do it.

I'm a suburbanite and if they move to the 78, I'd just walk 20 minutes or so along the riverwalk to Union Station and catch a Metra train to and from the game.  I wouldn't need to use the CTA at all.   This is just me, but I can see myself going to more weeknight games with that arrangement since driving into the city from where I live can be such a pain in the ass with the traffic.  

Right now, taking the train to a game involves a lot more steps, including the CTA.  Post game, it means waiting on the crowded red line platform for a train to the loop and then walking 15 minutes to Union Station.  People do it now - I often see fans coming out of Union Station all decked out in Sox gear as I'm heading home from work.

For people who want to drive to the game, there will be parking at the ballpark even if they redevelop much of the lots and stay at Rate Field or they move to a new park at the 78.  The Fire already said there will be 2000 parking spaces at the site for their new soccer stadium.  

[Lip Man 1]

Latest story on Bears stadium. If you read through it there are some interesting comments and notations:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/09/08/nfl-chicago-bears-arlington-heights-stadium/

[Tnetennba]

14 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

Yeah, I think some are missing this point.  The Sox are not ELIMINATING parking at the ballpark no matter what they end up doing.  For anyone who can't or won't ride the CTA, there will be parking spaces either at the current stadium or the 78 for fans who want to drive to the game.    It just likely won't be 70 acres (or whatever) of surface lots.

 

 

Less missing the point, more refusing to see the point.

I have no doubt that any ballpark at the 78 will have parking options, but not having their parking wants directly catered to has a select few here completely losing their s%*#, ad infinitum. 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Tnetennba said:

Less missing the point, more refusing to see the point.

I have no doubt that any ballpark at the 78 will have parking options, but not having their parking wants directly catered to has a select few here completely losing their s%*#, ad infinitum. 

Hell, judging by how fair weather the Sox fan base is, making it easier to get to games by being in a transit friendly neighborhood, especially if a ballpark village type of situation happens, may actually be the best thing to ever happen to growing the fanbase, because as of now, Sox fans only show up to the current location after years of sustained winning.

[77 Hitmen]

3 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Latest story on Bears stadium. If you read through it there are some interesting comments and notations:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/09/08/nfl-chicago-bears-arlington-heights-stadium/

For those who don't have a Trib subscription, here are the key points from the article:

- Bears plan to publicly present their stadium plans (w/ Q&As) this fall and hope to break ground next spring.

- Legislative action to give the Bears power to negotiate property taxes is a long shot in the brief fall veto session and will have to be addressed next spring.  Legislator from Arlington Hts says they want to get the bill right, not get it done fast.

- Only 3 other NFL stadiums have been privately financed:  SoFi, MetLife, and Gillette.  Each are in the suburbs and have had help with tax breaks, tax-funded infrastructure, and/or a nearby entertainment zone.  Two of these three stadiums are shared by 2 teams.  

[Lip Man 1]

35 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

For those who don't have a Trib subscription, here are the key points from the article:

- Bears plan to publicly present their stadium plans (w/ Q&As) this fall and hope to break ground next spring.

- Legislative action to give the Bears power to negotiate property taxes is a long shot in the brief fall veto session and will have to be addressed next spring.  Legislator from Arlington Hts says they want to get the bill right, not get it done fast.

- Only 3 other NFL stadiums have been privately financed:  SoFi, MetLife, and Gillette.  Each are in the suburbs and have had help with tax breaks, tax-funded infrastructure, and/or a nearby entertainment zone.  Two of these three stadiums are shared by 2 teams.  

I thought this also was impactful:

"Nationwide, from 1970 to 2020, taxpayers paid nearly three-quarters of the costs of sports venues that received public funding, according to research done by professors at Kennesaw State University, University of Maryland and West Virginia University. But more than 130 studies have come to the consensus that the economic benefits of new stadiums fall far short of the public investment. Economists are skeptical of team projections of economic benefits, saying much of the spending on sports is simply shifted from what would otherwise be spent on other entertainment."

[WBWSF]

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

For those who don't have a Trib subscription, here are the key points from the article:

- Bears plan to publicly present their stadium plans (w/ Q&As) this fall and hope to break ground next spring.

- Legislative action to give the Bears power to negotiate property taxes is a long shot in the brief fall veto session and will have to be addressed next spring.  Legislator from Arlington Hts says they want to get the bill right, not get it done fast.

- Only 3 other NFL stadiums have been privately financed:  SoFi, MetLife, and Gillette.  Each are in the suburbs and have had help with tax breaks, tax-funded infrastructure, and/or a nearby entertainment zone.  Two of these three stadiums are shared by 2 teams.  

The Bears are going to get their new stadium in Arlington Heights. They might as well pass  the bills as soon as  possible. Then we can focus on getting a new White Sox stadium in the South Loop.

[WBWSF]

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I thought this also was impactful:

"Nationwide, from 1970 to 2020, taxpayers paid nearly three-quarters of the costs of sports venues that received public funding, according to research done by professors at Kennesaw State University, University of Maryland and West Virginia University. But more than 130 studies have come to the consensus that the economic benefits of new stadiums fall far short of the public investment. Economists are skeptical of team projections of economic benefits, saying much of the spending on sports is simply shifted from what would otherwise be spent on other entertainment."

Arlington Heights wants the new Bears stadium. The businesses there want the new stadium there in the worse way. Its going to happen.

[Lip Man 1]

1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

Arlington Heights wants the new Bears stadium. The businesses there want the new stadium there in the worse way. Its going to happen.

It probably will but stranger things have happened, let's put it this way I wouldn't bet your house on it.  

The White Sox may eventually get a new stadium once JR is gone and Ishbia is willing to pay for it...not until then. 

[77 Hitmen]

The Bears issue an open letter about their intention to build a stadium in Arlington Heights.  The letter suggests they could bid to host a Super Bowl as soon as 2031.

https://www.chicagobears.com/news/open-letter-regarding-arlington-heights-stadium-from-president-ceo-kevin-warren

[nrockway]

8 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I thought this also was impactful:

"Nationwide, from 1970 to 2020, taxpayers paid nearly three-quarters of the costs of sports venues that received public funding, according to research done by professors at Kennesaw State University, University of Maryland and West Virginia University. But more than 130 studies have come to the consensus that the economic benefits of new stadiums fall far short of the public investment. Economists are skeptical of team projections of economic benefits, saying much of the spending on sports is simply shifted from what would otherwise be spent on other entertainment."

130 studies written when? Tellin ya, this is not the common thinking nowadays. They're probably referencing a few specific people who write about this who 'changed their mind' according to new evidence.

edit...well I better read what you posted. 1970 is a weird timeline to do it from. 

Quote

Urban studies scholar Mark Rosentraub, an early critic of stadium-led economic development (Rosentraub 1997), later became a prominent skeptic of the economic consensus regarding the inefficacy of sports-focused economic development. In the 2000s, Rosentraub published a series of papers, often with coauthors, in which he argues that, while economic benefits may be difficult to quantify in standard economic outcome variables, stadiums ultimately benefit host communities economically, and thus the economic consensus on the inefficacy of sports-focused development is mistaken.

this is the guy to pay attention to. it depends how it's done. 

Quote

Rosentraub (2006) argues that findings of positive nonuse value of sports (Carlino and Coulson 2006; Swindell et al. 2008), reassessments including newer facilities (Santo 2005), and the importance of downtown central business districts to metropolitan areas (Nelson 2001a; Austrian and Rosentraub 2002) all support the use of public subsidies to build new sports facilities. Rosentraub further expounds on his optimism in a book-length treatment on the topic, in which he argues that academic economists studying sports faculties fundamentally misunderstand the broader long-term economic development impacts of sports-anchored development. He asserts that sports venues represent important financial and civic assets, which stadium development advocates 34 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4022547 properly understand. He states, “mayors and community leaders . . . ‘got it’ and understood what needed to be done long before many academicians gave them credit” (Rosentraub 2009, p. xiv).

So basically the Sox situation. Added benefit of much of the stadium land being publicly-owned. There's pretty good the Gulf states are doing all this 'sports-related development' stuff.

 

I don't think the author of the Trib article you're quoting even bothered to glance at the paper he cites.

Edited September 9 by nrockway

[77 Hitmen]

8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Hell, judging by how fair weather the Sox fan base is, making it easier to get to games by being in a transit friendly neighborhood, especially if a ballpark village type of situation happens, may actually be the best thing to ever happen to growing the fanbase, because as of now, Sox fans only show up to the current location after years of sustained winning.

Excellent point.  Seems like some people are acknowledging that Sox fans will only show up if they win big over multiple seasons.  Either Sox fans are fair weather fans (which they are not) or the current ballpark situation isn't working that well for them.  And maybe the answer will be staying at the current park but making major changes. 

Since you mentioned transit friendly, I wonder if there is current stadium in MLB that is as close to so many transit options as the 78 would be.  Within a ~20 minute walk from that site is a station for every CTA L line except the Yellow line, the LaSalle Street Metra station, and Union Station (if they do indeed extend the Riverwalk all the way down to that site).  I'm not even counting water taxis since I'm not sure how many people those could accommodate or how many fans would actually use them to get to games.  And yes, there would have to be parking available at the site since not everyone can or will take mass transit.

[tray]

sorry for double post

Edited September 9 by tray

[nrockway]

30 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Excellent point.  Seems like some people are acknowledging that Sox fans will only show up if they win big over multiple seasons.  Either Sox fans are fair weather fans (which they are not) or the current ballpark situation isn't working that well for them.  And maybe the answer will be staying at the current park but making major changes. 

Since you mentioned transit friendly, I wonder if there is current stadium in MLB that is as close to so many transit options as the 78 would be.  Within a ~20 minute walk from that site is a station for every CTA L line except the Yellow line, the LaSalle Street Metra station, and Union Station (if they do indeed extend the Riverwalk all the way down to that site).  I'm not even counting water taxis since I'm not sure how many people those could accommodate or how many fans would actually use them to get to games.  And yes, there would have to be parking available at the site since not everyone can or will take mass transit.

I think it's bold to assume people will actually walk 20 minutes. Sox-35th is a 2 minute walk and the Red Line can be connected to in multiple locations. Metra Rock Island stops in essentially the same place. Easy bus access. The freeway access is obviously easy, easier than the 78 site and it's frankly additional traffic I don't want to deal with around UIC. 

The 78 is basically a dead transit zone. It's a half mile walk from Roosevelt and you have to take some steps down (that don't exist yet as far as I can tell). Building a new station there would be such a waste of money. It's so close to Roosevelt and what would be the point of the investment to make that detour? It would just piss everybody else off who lives on the South Side, except the wealthy people who live in the South Loop. Really do not need an additional stop at 16th/Clark (or whatever) between Chinatown and Roosevelt is the point no one (not Sox fans) are discussing with this proposal.

Edited September 9 by nrockway

[tray]

I am not sure if you had a chance to study the plan for the Fire stadium but it all but eliminates the possibility to build another stadium at the 78 that provides reasonable vehicular and pedestrian access. Most of the parking is on a lot going into the Fire's stadium. No east / West streets cross the 3 Metra tracks.

I used Google maps to check your claim about the under 20 minute walking time, even starting out outside the 78 at Roosevelt and Clark and walking down Clark or down the river somehow.. Google maps comes up with 26-27 minutes, plus the time to get out of the park and out to that intersection.  So figure more like a half hour.

 

[nrockway]

6 minutes ago, tray said:

I am not sure if you had a chance to study the plan for the Fire stadium but it all but eliminates the possibility to build another stadium at the 78 that provides reasonable vehicular and pedestrian access. Most of the parking is on a lot going into the Fire's stadium. No east / West streets cross the 3 Metra tracks.

I used Google maps to check your claim about the under 20 minute walking time, even starting out outside the 78 at Roosevelt and Clark and walking down Clark or down the river somehow.. Google maps comes up with 26-27 minutes, plus the time to get out of the park and out to that intersection.  So figure more like a half hour.

 

I have to assume, if the 78 is actually developed, there would be some pathways built that would make the connection easier than what it shows on Google Maps. But it's a very steep grade down from Roosevelt. I've started walking past the 78 site more often to go to Roosevelt Green/Red from UIC rather than take the Halsted bus, mostly because this thread has inspired me to do so. But the public investment that is being asked to do that would be a total waste of money if you ask me. It would be technically challenging. A new stop has little use except for a new arena...but this infrastructure already exists one stop down!! It's redundant!

I think the 78 such a perfect place to put a park without spending a ton of money the city/state doesn't have for little to no economic benefit (I might assume considering the cost when you could invest....0 dollars in redundant transit infrastructure). The Ping Tom park is reasonably new and it's an awesome park. This would be a great extension of it and be part of an infrastructure to extend the riverwalk from the Loop to Chinatown. Maybe it could be the centerpiece of it. the morons who own the land would never go for that though, they'd rather it be a vacant wasteland.

[southsider2k5]

8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Excellent point.  Seems like some people are acknowledging that Sox fans will only show up if they win big over multiple seasons.  Either Sox fans are fair weather fans (which they are not) or the current ballpark situation isn't working that well for them.  And maybe the answer will be staying at the current park but making major changes. 

Since you mentioned transit friendly, I wonder if there is current stadium in MLB that is as close to so many transit options as the 78 would be.  Within a ~20 minute walk from that site is a station for every CTA L line except the Yellow line, the LaSalle Street Metra station, and Union Station (if they do indeed extend the Riverwalk all the way down to that site).  I'm not even counting water taxis since I'm not sure how many people those could accommodate or how many fans would actually use them to get to games.  And yes, there would have to be parking available at the site since not everyone can or will take mass transit.

I do wonder why the assumption is we shouldn't mess with things comes from.  We just turned in the worst Sox single attendance season in decades.   Looking at adding more walk up fans makes tons of sense.

[tray]

I'm not suggesting that WSox could have packed the stadium but for the weather, but there were several games that I planned on attending that I cancelled because of cold and/or rainy weather this year.

Roger Bossard said that this was the worst weather for games that he could recall in 40 years. He cited the record amount of times he had to deploy the tarp. A few more terrible weather seasons and a retractable roof stadium might be considered. You really have to bundle up for early season night games and at some point, cold / wet Spring weather deters attendance. 

[77 Hitmen]

11 hours ago, nrockway said:

I think it's bold to assume people will actually walk 20 minutes. Sox-35th is a 2 minute walk and the Red Line can be connected to in multiple locations. Metra Rock Island stops in essentially the same place. Easy bus access. The freeway access is obviously easy, easier than the 78 site and it's frankly additional traffic I don't want to deal with around UIC. 

The 78 is basically a dead transit zone. It's a half mile walk from Roosevelt and you have to take some steps down (that don't exist yet as far as I can tell). Building a new station there would be such a waste of money. It's so close to Roosevelt and what would be the point of the investment to make that detour? It would just piss everybody else off who lives on the South Side, except the wealthy people who live in the South Loop. Really do not need an additional stop at 16th/Clark (or whatever) between Chinatown and Roosevelt is the point no one (not Sox fans) are discussing with this proposal.

Fair enough about whether people would walk.  Some would.  Right now, some people do walk 15 minutes to/from Union Station to catch the Red Line to a Sox or Cubs game.  Do people walk 20 minutes to events/attractions downtown anymore?  I don't know, maybe someone who spends more time at events there can weigh in.

What do you mean by "make that detour"?  Do you mean for a possible Red Line stop at 15th and Clark?  

Edited September 9 by 77 Hitmen

[DoUEvenShift]

Does anyone know anything about this empty plot of land just north of the 78 site?

 

 

d

 

Size/dimensions seem similar to current lots A/C/G. You could probably get a ton of parking right there with a garage

[77 Hitmen]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I do wonder why the assumption is we shouldn't mess with things comes from.  We just turned in the worst Sox single attendance season in decades.   Looking at adding more walk up fans makes tons of sense.

It would be interesting to see a breakdown by age group of Sox fans who strongly believe the status quo of current stadium design and surroundings (namely, tons of surface lots) should remain vs. those who would be in favor of building on most of those lots or even a new South Loop stadium.  Change is difficult and I get that.   Anyone on this site is probably not a good person to ask, either, because we're all diehards who still care enough about this team to be here.  

At any rate, even though I (obviously) am a big proponent of a new ballpark at the 78, I'm more and more thinking that the likeliest outcome is for the team to stay at the current stadium.  Even with the Ishbias' deep pockets, $1B+ for a new stadium really is a LOT of money after paying JR $2B(?) or so for the franchise itself.  If so, we'll see what they have planned for the next 30 years or so as the team's current lease ends.  I just hope there are some improvements coming.  

 

Edited September 9 by 77 Hitmen

[Princess Dye]

21 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said:

Does anyone know anything about this empty plot of land just north of the 78 site?

 

 

d

 

Size/dimensions seem similar to current lots A/C/G. You could probably get a ton of parking right there with a garage

Yermin could totally do some autograph signing appearances at that Victoria Secret next door.

[WBWSF]

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

It would be interesting to see a breakdown by age group of Sox fans who strongly believe the status quo of current stadium design and surroundings (namely, tons of surface lots) should remain vs. those who would be in favor of building on most of those lots or even a new South Loop stadium.  Change is difficult and I get that.   Anyone on this site is probably not a good person to ask, either, because we're all diehards who still care enough about this team to be here.  

At any rate, even though I (obviously) am a big proponent of a new ballpark at the 78, I'm more and more thinking that the likeliest outcome is for the team to stay at the current stadium.  Even with the Ishbias' deep pockets, $1B+ for a new stadium really is a LOT of money after paying JR $2B(?) or so for the franchise itself.  If so, we'll see what they have planned for the next 30 years or so as the team's current lease ends.  I just hope there are some improvements coming.  

 

I'm  just worried about the team moving out of state. After paying $2 billion for the team and paying another $1billion for a new stadium is rather expensive. If some other city offers the new owner a sweetheart deal he might be tempted to take the deal. I just wish  that something is announced one way or another about a new stadium  or staying where they're at now.