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

[chitownsportsfan]

14 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

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

I know as a facility it has issues but it would bum me out seeing the Bears move out of the water front. To me that is just an iconic view with the park, museums, stadium and skyline. It's one of my favorite views of any city in the world and I know I'm not alone in that.

[nrockway]

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

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?  

Yeah after looking at the map, it doesn’t bear east until it’s above 15th street. Is that where the station is being discussed? So no detour necessarily or likely digging. I’d have to look into this more. 

[waltwilliams]

45 minutes ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I know as a facility it has issues but it would bum me out seeing the Bears move out of the water front. To me that is just an iconic view with the park, museums, stadium and skyline. It's one of my favorite views of any city in the world and I know I'm not alone in that.

The national media will certainly miss Soldier Field. The backdrop of the lakefront, the park surrounding the stadium and the skyline backdrop is a staple for every Bears telecast -- it's unlike any other backdrop in pro football. Last night, it seems like they spent half the game with beautiful aerial shots showing off the surroundings.

[77 Hitmen]

3 hours ago, nrockway said:

Yeah after looking at the map, it doesn’t bear east until it’s above 15th street. Is that where the station is being discussed? So no detour necessarily or likely digging. I’d have to look into this more. 

Yes, that's my understanding - the Red Line already runs below where a 15th and Clark subway station has been proposed.   Otherwise, as you had suggested, the cost to re-route the line would be insane.

[77 Hitmen]

3 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said:

I know as a facility it has issues but it would bum me out seeing the Bears move out of the water front. To me that is just an iconic view with the park, museums, stadium and skyline. It's one of my favorite views of any city in the world and I know I'm not alone in that.

 

2 hours ago, waltwilliams said:

The national media will certainly miss Soldier Field. The backdrop of the lakefront, the park surrounding the stadium and the skyline backdrop is a staple for every Bears telecast -- it's unlike any other backdrop in pro football. Last night, it seems like they spent half the game with beautiful aerial shots showing off the surroundings.

Agreed.  I don't think enough people outside of Chicago realize how beautiful the view of the skyline next to the lakefront is, but they sure get to see it when the Bears are playing on a national telecast.  Yesterday's shots were stunning.    A domed stadium complex at Arlington Park would be great for the team and I expect would be a top-notch facility, but it would be a shame to lose those "money shots". 

[nrockway]

5 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

Agreed.  I don't think enough people outside of Chicago realize how beautiful the view of the skyline next to the lakefront is, but they sure get to see it when the Bears are playing on a national telecast.  Yesterday's shots were stunning.    A domed stadium complex at Arlington Park would be great for the team and I expect would be a top-notch facility, but it would be a shame to lose those "money shots". 

If/when the Bears move, I actually really like Soldier Field as a potential SoxPark. Keep some of the key, historic architectural elements, consider the lake and the views of the skyline and it's an incredibly imageable ballpark, could be genuinely one of the best in the MLB. Those features are more important to a baseball park than a football stadium IMO. Have a sort of McCovey Covey but also excellent views of the best skyline in America. The 78 and the current 35th/Shields site are pretty much just plots of land. Whereas the 'Museum Campus' lakefront has so much going for it for both locals and out of towners. Check out some of the best museums in the world then go to a ballgame 81 times a year. Transportation remains an issue. It's not easy to get to.

[Lip Man 1]

14 minutes ago, nrockway said:

If/when the Bears move, I actually really like Soldier Field as a potential SoxPark. Keep some of the key, historic architectural elements, consider the lake and the views of the skyline and it's an incredibly imageable ballpark, could be genuinely one of the best in the MLB. Those features are more important to a baseball park than a football stadium IMO. Have a sort of McCovey Covey but also excellent views of the best skyline in America. The 78 and the current 35th/Shields site are pretty much just plots of land. Whereas the 'Museum Campus' lakefront has so much going for it for both locals and out of towners. Check out some of the best museums in the world then go to a ballgame 81 times a year. Transportation remains an issue. It's not easy to get to.

I'm guessing the lakefront groups and conservation groups will start to petition for Soldier Field to be torn down after the Bears leave, save for the columns and turned into parks and so forth. 

[nrockway]

31 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I'm guessing the lakefront groups and conservation groups will start to petition for Soldier Field to be torn down after the Bears leave, save for the columns and turned into parks and so forth. 

This is perhaps my preferred choice, but I think the site has such a great sports history that it would be a shame for it to disappear entirely. Especially in the context of all the other attractions around there. I have mixed feelings. I don't want the Sox to move and I think there could be some really neat design ideas that incorporate Northerly Island as well, and preserve or even enhance the landscape, but I don't think it's a large enough area to be a 'conservation area' of sorts. I think the former US Steel site further south might be a preferable site... or even the 78. The 78 could be a wonderful oasis and testament to remediating industrial sites into something ecologically healthy that we human beings can enjoy too. Dan Ryan Woods is a decent example. If you walk by the 78 as it is, it's actually a pretty interesting ecosystem. Overgrown with a lot of nice plants. Lots of good bird and bug activity in the midst of all the concrete. Leaving it alone isn't the worst idea, but these things could be developed into something that is ecologically beneficial and also enjoyable to the general public. Perhaps educational or provide some fun opportunities to kids. I'll try to take some pictures soon. 

[77 Hitmen]

12 hours ago, nrockway said:

If/when the Bears move, I actually really like Soldier Field as a potential SoxPark. Keep some of the key, historic architectural elements, consider the lake and the views of the skyline and it's an incredibly imageable ballpark, could be genuinely one of the best in the MLB. Those features are more important to a baseball park than a football stadium IMO. Have a sort of McCovey Covey but also excellent views of the best skyline in America. The 78 and the current 35th/Shields site are pretty much just plots of land. Whereas the 'Museum Campus' lakefront has so much going for it for both locals and out of towners. Check out some of the best museums in the world then go to a ballgame 81 times a year. Transportation remains an issue. It's not easy to get to.

You're last sentence is a huge issue and IMO a deal breaker for any notion of having the Sox build a baseball stadium on the site of Soldier Field.  Also, they better build a retractable roof there with that cold wind blowing right off the lake.

[77 Hitmen]

11 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

I'm guessing the lakefront groups and conservation groups will start to petition for Soldier Field to be torn down after the Bears leave, save for the columns and turned into parks and so forth. 

Soldier Field just hosted 5 sold-out concerts in 5 consecutive days.  Those aren't the only concerts held there, either.

https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/unprecedented-soldier-field-hosts-5-back-to-back-sold-out-shows/

Groups can petition all they want, I don't see the park district rushing to tear down a facility that can host such money-making events.   I suppose all the big acts/events could shift to the new domed stadium in Arlington Heights, but I would think there'd still be a demand for big acts to perform right in the heart of the city.  

[waltwilliams]

22 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Soldier Field just hosted 5 sold-out concerts in 5 consecutive days.  Those aren't the only concerts held there, either.

https://wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/unprecedented-soldier-field-hosts-5-back-to-back-sold-out-shows/

Groups can petition all they want, I don't see the park district rushing to tear down a facility that can host such money-making events.   I suppose all the big acts/events could shift to the new domed stadium in Arlington Heights, but I would think there'd still be a demand for big acts to perform right in the heart of the city.  

Soldier Field generated $54 million in revenue for the city last year, only $7 million came from the Bears: https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears-stadium/2025/08/15/soldier-field-future-chicago-bears-arlington-heights-stadium-brandon-johnson

The city is already talking about Soldier Field post-Bears, but tearing it down is not a part of that equation. According to the article above, without the Bears, they can attract more Big 10 games during the fall (neutral sites) without the Bears blacking out the period between September and January. More music is part of the equation as well.

Transportation issues would not lend itself being a good location for the Sox and their 81 games. The city wouldn't want them there anyway, because they'd have a situation where the premium summer earning months (with concerts, etc.) would be blocked by the robust MLB scheduling of games.

 

Edited September 10 by waltwilliams

[waltwilliams]

Meanwhile, in 78 news, the alderman (Pat Dowell) representing the South Loop supports the Fire stadium, but only if a second (Sox) stadium is NOT part of the equation. The alderperson's blessing puts the development on track for consideration by the city's Plan Commission on Sept. 18 and possibly the full City Council the following week:  https://www.chicagobusiness.com/sports/fire-south-loop-soccer-stadium-wins-aldermans-blessing-if-sox-stay-away?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter-breaking-news-20250910&utm_term=

[Ducksnort]

3 hours ago, waltwilliams said:

Meanwhile, in 78 news, the alderman (Pat Dowell) representing the South Loop supports the Fire stadium, but only if a second (Sox) stadium is NOT part of the equation. The alderperson's blessing puts the development on track for consideration by the city's Plan Commission on Sept. 18 and possibly the full City Council the following week:  https://www.chicagobusiness.com/sports/fire-south-loop-soccer-stadium-wins-aldermans-blessing-if-sox-stay-away?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter-breaking-news-20250910&utm_term=

Just stay at the Rate. The location is fine. Develop the parking lots. Rename the field to something actually decent. Call it good.

[southsider2k5]

18 minutes ago, Ducksnort said:

Just stay at the Rate. The location is fine. Develop the parking lots. Rename the field to something actually decent. Call it good.

They have had almost 40 years to do that, and they still have not.  Pretty clear it isn't going to happen.

[Sleepy Harold]

 

[Ducksnort]

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

They have had almost 40 years to do that, and they still have not.  Pretty clear it isn't going to happen.

New ownership might

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, Ducksnort said:

New ownership might

New ownership might also want a more integrated neighborhood. 

[tray]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

New ownership might also want a more integrated neighborhood. 

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ewokpelts]

On 9/9/2025 at 4:44 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

Yes, that's my understanding - the Red Line already runs below where a 15th and Clark subway station has been proposed.   Otherwise, as you had suggested, the cost to re-route the line would be insane.

The idea floated around is a transit center at 15th and Clark with access to both the metra and red line. 

[ewokpelts]

On 9/10/2025 at 2:49 PM, Ducksnort said:

Just stay at the Rate. The location is fine. Develop the parking lots. Rename the field to something actually decent. Call it good.

Yeah but Jerry wants a billion dollars to help him sell his team for more than what he said the ishiba boys can buy it for. 

[ewokpelts]

On 9/10/2025 at 11:05 AM, waltwilliams said:

Meanwhile, in 78 news, the alderman (Pat Dowell) representing the South Loop supports the Fire stadium, but only if a second (Sox) stadium is NOT part of the equation. The alderperson's blessing puts the development on track for consideration by the city's Plan Commission on Sept. 18 and possibly the full City Council the following week:  https://www.chicagobusiness.com/sports/fire-south-loop-soccer-stadium-wins-aldermans-blessing-if-sox-stay-away?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Newsletter-breaking-news-20250910&utm_term=

Is Pat dowell stupid? You don’t want two stadiums in your Ward?!

[nrockway]

14 minutes ago, ewokpelts said:

Is Pat dowell stupid? You don’t want two stadiums in your Ward?!

Alder Nicole Lee was very supportive of the Sox leaving her ward but thankfully changed her position. 

Two stadiums might be a tough sell for the current residents. Lot of traffic. Then again, I'm not sure who actually lives in the South Loop. People do apparently. I think Dowell is genuinely pretty good and pretty responsive to what her district wants. Kinda forgot the 78 was in Ward 3. 

17 minutes ago, ewokpelts said:

The idea floated around is a transit center at 15th and Clark with access to both the metra and red line. 

This seems so unnecessary. A Rock Island station could be a nice addition at Roosevelt though. Cermak/21st would be even better. 

Edited September 11 by nrockway

[ewokpelts]

On 9/10/2025 at 11:01 AM, waltwilliams said:

Soldier Field generated $54 million in revenue for the city last year, only $7 million came from the Bears: https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears-stadium/2025/08/15/soldier-field-future-chicago-bears-arlington-heights-stadium-brandon-johnson

The city is already talking about Soldier Field post-Bears, but tearing it down is not a part of that equation. According to the article above, without the Bears, they can attract more Big 10 games during the fall (neutral sites) without the Bears blacking out the period between September and January. More music is part of the equation as well.

Transportation issues would not lend itself being a good location for the Sox and their 81 games. The city wouldn't want them there anyway, because they'd have a situation where the premium summer earning months (with concerts, etc.) would be blocked by the robust MLB scheduling of games.

 

The bears rent check is to ISFA, not the city or the park district. 

[ewokpelts]

43 minutes ago, nrockway said:

Alder Nicole Lee was very supportive of the Sox leaving her ward but thankfully changed her position. 

Two stadiums might be a tough sell for the current residents. Lot of traffic. Then again, I'm not sure who actually lives in the South Loop. People do apparently. I think Dowell is genuinely pretty good and pretty responsive to what her district wants. Kinda forgot the 78 was in Ward 3. 

This seems so unnecessary. A Rock Island station could be a nice addition at Roosevelt though. Cermak/21st would be even better. 

What residents?! The 78 is a landlocked parcel surrounded by water and rail!

 

as for the rock island, you need it at 15th to justify the spending for the Cta station. The more agencies the better chance it gets built.  

Edited September 11 by ewokpelts

[ewokpelts]

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.

The city is NOT going to dollar lot the 35th street site. Mainly because they don’t own it  ISFA does  

 

 

the likelihood is that the stadium is repurposed for music or soccer and they attract the red stars there with cheap rent. Followed by redeveloping the lots to the south for housing  

 

Dollar lots! Jesus Christ!