77 Hitmen Posted September 23 Share Posted September 23 (edited) 5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: Plus the risk/reward. Our fan base literally only shows up after long periods of winning. It's the very definition of a bandwagon fanbase, like it or not. What we did for the past 35 years absolutely, unequivocally did not work. The franchise did nothing to build a new and expanding fanbase at 35th and Shields, despite all of the plentiful parking. We see the 2025 model out there. This isn't like 1989 when we were literally the first franchise to build a new park in a long period of time, and couldn't have foreseen the shift. Today we can see the model for a getting fans to show up to the park even when the team is bad. It's right there in front of us. This isn't the Boomer era where 3 hours of baseball is enough. People want to make a day/evening experience out of this. They want dinner before hand, and drinks afterwards, with some entertainment in the middle. We see it all over baseball. At the absolute very least, even if they go back to the historic neighborhood, they have GOT to plow over some of these lots and do more than build a single game day bar. The answer is right in front of us. Something has to give, or what we have seen for the past few years will become more common place. Either you have a revenue base, or you serve as a minor league franchise for the Have's of MLB. This. The era of MLB owners like JR making a killing on low (or no) rent and parking lot fees is over. Since you mention Boomer era, all Boomers will be senior citizens when the current stadium lease is up. The oldest Gen Xers (as much as I hate to acknowledge this) are turning 60 this year. Even the oldest Millennials start turning 50(!) two years after the Sox lease is up. When looking at how people spend their time and money for sports entertainment these days and going forward, the next owners of this team aren't going to be looking at what worked with Boomers and Gen Xers 30 or 40 years ago. Edited September 23 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted September 23 Share Posted September 23 4 hours ago, Snopek said: The two that come to mind are the Angels (consistently ranked as a bottom 5 or so ballpark) and Royals (already planning a move to a new stadium). There is a massive 100-acre, $4B entertainment district being built within walking distance of Angel Stadium. https://www.anaheim.net/5157/Honda-Center-OC-Vibe This is being built by the owners of the Ducks and will surround the Honda Center. Angels owner Arte Moreno has nothing to do with this project and his previous efforts to develop the parking lots at Angel Stadium failed due to corruption. There are three people standing in the way of Moreno being the worst owner in MLB: John Fisher, Bob Nutting (Pirates), and Jerry Reinsdorf. And yes, the Royals are planning to move to a new stadium. With Missouri and Kansas bidding against each other and the team saying they'll provide $1B in private funding, I think this is very likely to happen. Wherever they land, it'll either be downtown or have significant development surrounding it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted September 25 Share Posted September 25 MLB owners have approved the sale of the Rays for $1.7B. An investor in the incoming ownership group is someone who was part of the Orlando Dreamers MLB expansion/relocation effort. The segment below discusses how this sale likely paves the way for a new stadium and entertainment district for the Rays somewhere on the Tampa side of the metro area. They also bring up an interesting point about possible future high-speed rail (Brightline) link to Orlando. Two of the main issues discussed with the current owner: he won't invest in payroll to keep/bring in high quality players and he won't commit enough private money to a new stadium. Hmmmm......sounds familiar. Where have I heard that before? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 The City Council approved the Chicago Fire Stadium. As of now, nothing has been done about the infrastructure around the stadium. I find it difficult to believe that over $900 million dollars of TIF money is going to be built for the infrastructure for 20 Soccor games a year. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted September 26 Share Posted September 26 7 hours ago, WBWSF said: The City Council approved the Chicago Fire Stadium. As of now, nothing has been done about the infrastructure around the stadium. I find it difficult to believe that over $900 million dollars of TIF money is going to be built for the infrastructure for 20 Soccor games a year. Your bulshit meter went off. Yea that thing makes no sense. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) 15 hours ago, WBWSF said: The City Council approved the Chicago Fire Stadium. As of now, nothing has been done about the infrastructure around the stadium. I find it difficult to believe that over $900 million dollars of TIF money is going to be built for the infrastructure for 20 Soccor games a year. Unfortunately I don't find this hard to believe at all. All TIF has done is channel money designed to assist the public into the hands of private real estate developers. B-b-b-but it's "privately financed!!". I think that's the only part City Council heard and cared about. It's an easy dub to tell constituents "you're not gonna pay a dime!". Unfortunately that's totally false, the project will, as you say, still be massively subsidized by public funds if it actually moves forward. The City will just see none of the financial rewards (if there are anyway) nor have democratic oversight over the project. And for a fucking soccer field, a sport nobody actually cares about in this country. This is genuinely the dumbest council Chicago has ever had made up of fake 'progressive' yuppies and corrupt dinosaurs. The other bit was about how they voted in unison to approve that new 'accessory dwellings unit' ordinance (there was no debate or dissent), how it's going to make housing more affordable despite plenty of evidence how such programs do absolutely nothing in that regard (see: California for instance, see the Reagan, Bush 1 and Clinton administrations more generally). The ADUs simply give homeowners an opportunity to become landlords and improve their property values by relaxing regulations, thinking it's 'dignified housing' for a family to live in a hastily-built shack on someone's half acre property or in their one-window attic. I'm sure CHA is licking their chops about it especially because they won't have to lift a finger. https://www.propublica.org/article/chicago-housing-authority-hud-transformation-plan Still waiting for CHA to rebuild all that housing they demolished near 30 years ago and promised to rebuild in a more 'humane' way. The best this progressive city can come up with is trickle down housing, 'granny flats', channeling public funds into the hands of billionaire investors in the hopes that, like, 20 'below market rate' units get built. North Side voters who live in a bubble definitely don't give a s%*#, they actually think they're being helpful. The policymakers have been brainwashed by 40 years of Ronald Reagan derived policymaking, that public investment is actually a nuisance and government only exists to facilitate the accumulation of investor/developer profit. 'Neoliberalism' is sort of a buzzword, but this is what it actually is in practice right before our eyes. Edited September 27 by nrockway 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcq Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 If you seriously think your team has the ability to put together anything other than a Lego version of a new stadium at the 78 site well they do not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted September 27 Share Posted September 27 (edited) On 9/26/2025 at 7:51 AM, WBWSF said: The City Council approved the Chicago Fire Stadium. As of now, nothing has been done about the infrastructure around the stadium. I find it difficult to believe that over $900 million dollars of TIF money is going to be built for the infrastructure for 20 Soccor games a year. The Fire's plan has nothing but surface lots on the part of the 78 that is south of the proposed soccer stadium, which is proposed to be placed between 13th and 14th St. Perhaps that's to keep the door open for the Sox for now. That doesn't mean the Sox WILL move there, but it does still appear to be an option for them if the new owners want to pay for a stadium there. And before anyone screams "Where Will People Park??!!", there is still space for parking garages no matter what is built there. No matter what happens, 10+ acres of surface lots doesn't seem to be an ideal use for such prime real estate in the heart of Chicago. Edited September 27 by 77 Hitmen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KennyPowers Posted September 28 Share Posted September 28 On 9/27/2025 at 1:26 PM, 77 Hitmen said: The Fire's plan has nothing but surface lots on the part of the 78 that is south of the proposed soccer stadium, which is proposed to be placed between 13th and 14th St. Perhaps that's to keep the door open for the Sox for now. That doesn't mean the Sox WILL move there, but it does still appear to be an option for them if the new owners want to pay for a stadium there. And before anyone screams "Where Will People Park??!!", there is still space for parking garages no matter what is built there. No matter what happens, 10+ acres of surface lots doesn't seem to be an ideal use for such prime real estate in the heart of Chicago. ding ding ding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted September 28 Share Posted September 28 On 9/27/2025 at 2:26 PM, 77 Hitmen said: The Fire's plan has nothing but surface lots on the part of the 78 that is south of the proposed soccer stadium, which is proposed to be placed between 13th and 14th St. Perhaps that's to keep the door open for the Sox for now. That doesn't mean the Sox WILL move there, but it does still appear to be an option for them if the new owners want to pay for a stadium there. And before anyone screams "Where Will People Park??!!", there is still space for parking garages no matter what is built there. No matter what happens, 10+ acres of surface lots doesn't seem to be an ideal use for such prime real estate in the heart of Chicago. Pretty sure nobody has considered the possibility of a multi-level parking infrastructure, judging by the way that people here talk about precious precious parking lots. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoUEvenShift Posted September 28 Share Posted September 28 2 minutes ago, JoeC said: Pretty sure nobody has considered the possibility of a multi-level parking infrastructure, judging by the way that people one person here talk about precious precious parking lots. Fixed it for you 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 (edited) On 9/27/2025 at 1:26 PM, 77 Hitmen said: The Fire's plan has nothing but surface lots on the part of the 78 that is south of the proposed soccer stadium, which is proposed to be placed between 13th and 14th St. Perhaps that's to keep the door open for the Sox for now. That doesn't mean the Sox WILL move there, but it does still appear to be an option for them if the new owners want to pay for a stadium there. And before anyone screams "Where Will People Park??!!", there is still space for parking garages no matter what is built there. No matter what happens, 10+ acres of surface lots doesn't seem to be an ideal use for such prime real estate in the heart of Chicago. No one is screaming about parking at a non-existent stadium. Just thinking about that though for a minute, parking garages could really be interesting at a facility where thousands of fans leave around the same time. It's bad enough now. LOL. I suspect from the content of your posts that you do not seem familiar with much at the site or the Fire plan to develop part of it, i.e., how to deal with the 3 Metra tracks (no indication of that on the Fire plan) , the elevated N/S Clark streets, the elevation difference between the 78 and Roosevelt road, and the limitations of ingress/egress there. Perhaps if you drive down to the "78" and try walking to anywhere beyond it, you might obtain a new perspective. I don't know, just a thought. IMO, the highest and best use of the site for City of Chicago residents does not comport with the financial aspirations and abject greed of the prior or current Owners from Rezko to Auchi. Never forget, IKEA, Amazon and U of I, all turned down or backed out of the 78. I don't know what the reasons were, but perhaps they developed some concerns. Edited September 29 by tray Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepy Harold Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 6 hours ago, tray said: No one is screaming about parking at a non-existent stadium. Just thinking about that though for a minute, parking garages could really be interesting at a facility where thousands of fans leave around the same time. It's bad enough now. LOL. I suspect from the content of your posts that you do not seem familiar with much at the site or the Fire plan to develop part of it, i.e., how to deal with the 3 Metra tracks (no indication of that on the Fire plan) , the elevated N/S Clark streets, the elevation difference between the 78 and Roosevelt road, and the limitations of ingress/egress there. Perhaps if you drive down to the "78" and try walking to anywhere beyond it, you might obtain a new perspective. I don't know, just a thought. IMO, the highest and best use of the site for City of Chicago residents does not comport with the financial aspirations and abject greed of the prior or current Owners from Rezko to Auchi. Never forget, IKEA, Amazon and U of I, all turned down or backed out of the 78. I don't know what the reasons were, but perhaps they developed some concerns. https://www.soxtalk.com/forums/search/?&q=parking&page=2&quick=1&author=tray&nodes=2&search_and_or=or&updated_after=1704067200&updated_before=1759104000&sortby=relevancy 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 6 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said: https://www.soxtalk.com/forums/search/?&q=parking&page=2&quick=1&author=tray&nodes=2&search_and_or=or&updated_after=1704067200&updated_before=1759104000&sortby=relevancy 😮 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 1 hour ago, Sleepy Harold said: https://www.soxtalk.com/forums/search/?&q=parking&page=2&quick=1&author=tray&nodes=2&search_and_or=or&updated_after=1704067200&updated_before=1759104000&sortby=relevancy [slow clap] 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 Of course, parking would be an issue because effective provisions for parking depend on a viable plan for reasonable ingress/egress for thousands of cars. Maybe study the Fire plan and actually drive down to the 78 before commenting. Note the ramp from Roosevelt down into a parking garage or the winding narrow road through Ping Tom Park. Imagine funneling Sox fans who drive from the suburbs to go to a night game into a large parking garage. Absurd. Does the plan include a wall or barrier all along the Metra tracks for safety of pedestrians? Where can vehicles cross over the Metra tracks and Clark street ? If you think you are making some kind of point by cutting and pasting my rebuttals to endless uninformed comments, OK, but you are wasting your time and failing to make a single point. Meanwhile, I will make certain that reasoned criticism and alternate opinions are expressed here, including my own, even in the face of a pooled effort to intimidate. When you are plain wrong there isn't strength in the numbers of those who agree with you. If you imagine there is, I have a few suggestions for some political media outlets that you can embroil yourself in. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 Tray it would be wonderful if you could have one disagreement on this board without calling the other person stupid. It’s just tiresome. All you do is accuse the other side of not reading or they need to go to school or get a job or have no idea what they are talking about or they should go be cubs fans. Just terrible argument skills 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tray Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 2 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Tray it would be wonderful if you could have one disagreement on this board without calling the other person stupid. It’s just tiresome. All you do is accuse the other side of not reading or they need to go to school or get a job or have no idea what they are talking about or they should go be cubs fans. Just terrible argument skills LOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 8 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said: Tray it would be wonderful if you could have one disagreement on this board without calling the other person stupid. It’s just tiresome. All you do is accuse the other side of not reading or they need to go to school or get a job or have no idea what they are talking about or they should go be cubs fans. Just terrible argument skills When literally all they need to do is quote his own damned posts to show he is wrong/lying. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 (edited) 8 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said: https://www.soxtalk.com/forums/search/?&q=parking&page=2&quick=1&author=tray&nodes=2&search_and_or=or&updated_after=1704067200&updated_before=1759104000&sortby=relevancy 6 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: [slow clap] This is what I have learned from some posters on this site: 1. The technology to stack parking lots on top of each other to create so-called "garages" is too difficult and inconvenient to work for the Sox fanbase even though it works for countless other sports teams. 2. There's no practical way with today's engineering technology to adjust the grade of train tracks to separate them from pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Cutting-edge engineers call such a thing an "underpass" or "overpass", but it will never work. 3. There are no American cities that have built major structures on infill land reclaimed from water. Not Boston or New York City and certainly this hasn't been done anywhere in Chicago. 4. Sox fans simply will not go to games unless their team's stadium is located immediately next to an expressway and has acres of surface lots. The history of Sox fans packing the current stadium through thick and thin and the failure of the 20+ MLB teams that lack this arrangement to attract enough fans to keep up with the White Sox juggernaut proves this point. Edited September 29 by 77 Hitmen 1 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 (edited) Bally's has announced plans for a hotel and entertainment district to be built around the A's new stadium in Vegas: https://www.reviewjournal.com/business/casinos-gaming/ballys-unveils-hotel-entertainment-complex-to-be-built-around-as-las-vegas-ballpark-3466824/amp/ https://thenevadaindependent.com/article/ballys-finally-shares-plans-for-retail-casino-outside-of-future-as-las-vegas-stadiumas-story-for-sunday Edited September 29 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeC Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said: 4. Sox fans simply will not go to games unless their team's stadium is located immediately next to an expressway and has acres of surface lots. The history of Sox fans packing the current stadium through thick and thin and the failure of the 20+ MLB teams that lack this arrangement to attract enough fans to keep up with the White Sox juggernaut proves this point. To be fair, have YOU gone to any Sox home games that aren't in a stadium that isn't located immediately next to an expressway and has acres of surface lots? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h. jones Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 It doesn't matter if there are Sox fans who will refuse to go to the 78 - those attendees will be replaced 1:1 by the residents of the developments of the 78 and any/all nearby walkable/transit neighborhoods, and tourists, etc. etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoUEvenShift Posted September 29 Share Posted September 29 4 minutes ago, h. jones said: It doesn't matter if there are Sox fans who will refuse to go to the 78 - those attendees will be replaced 1:1 by the residents of the developments of the 78 and any/all nearby walkable/transit neighborhoods, and tourists, etc. etc. I would even argue it would be higher than replacement level 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted September 30 Share Posted September 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, JoeC said: To be fair, have YOU gone to any Sox home games that aren't in a stadium that isn't located immediately next to an expressway and has acres of surface lots? Busted. You got me! Edited September 30 by 77 Hitmen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.