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

[Kyyle23]

Gotta say I got a genuine chuckle out of “I’m not mad!  You are mad”

[Sambuca]

7 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

Gotta say I got a genuine chuckle out of “I’m not mad!  You are mad”

[southsider2k5]

17 hours ago, Kyyle23 said:

Gotta say I got a genuine chuckle out of “I’m not mad!  You are mad”

And calling people names at the top of your lungs IS NOT an effective way of portraying NOT being mad.

[southsider2k5]

23 hours ago, WestEddy said:

And at this point, it's the regional fanbase teams try to cultivate, not part of one city. The Cards' base stretches well into KY, TN and AK. Cubs draw from IA, MI, IN. When the Cubs had a team in Peoria, there were lots of Cub and Cardinal hats at the game. The Sox get into the South, SW suburbs, and Indiana. They really have to grab fans' imagination to battle with the Tigers, Brewers, Cubs and Cards to get households. 

Baseball tourism IS a large part of the Cubs fan base.  That is NOT happening right now for the White Sox, and neither is the fan looking to make a day out of going to a ball game by having a game day experience of bars, clubs, and whatever else is around the park.  For the history Sox fan base, the model is currently "Show up when they look like they might do something big", and that leads to huge drop offs when things aren't good.  That's where we are today.  This is a failing model, and seeing where we rank among our peers both in attendance and love of stadium in MLB, it's pretty easy to figure out why.  This is a franchise that NEEDS to do more with it's game day experience, and what we have done the past 35 years and 35th and Shields isn't it.  It's a sterile ballpark with its most prominent feature being "it's not bad".  It's a neighborhood with no real easy access to game day entertainment before and after the game, and definitely not a volume of easy options, as is happening intentionally these days in places like Atlanta and Arlington, and historically in baseball entertainment friendly neighborhoods like Wrigley and Fenway.  

If we want the White Sox to exist in 50 years, we need to realize the historic fan base is currently fleeing Chicago and the Chicago burbs and think about what Sox fans will look like in 2075, not what they looked like in 1975.  The trend is greater than just showing up for 3 hours of baseball in a generic building, and the teams that realize that?  Those are the franchises doing the best right now.

[Rowand44]

On 10/3/2025 at 4:48 PM, southsider2k5 said:

Let's be real.  While there are some much older people in the Sox fan base, for the vast majority of it, they don't remember the 1950's or 1960's.  The median age right now in the US is 38.7 years.  Somewhere around 5 out of 6 people in the US right now are under 65.

I'm not middle aged, I'm median aged!  At least that's what I'm going to start telling people now.

[southsider2k5]

41 minutes ago, Rowand44 said:

I'm not middle aged, I'm median aged!  At least that's what I'm going to start telling people now.

I'm second standard deviation!

[77 Hitmen]

On 10/5/2025 at 9:15 AM, southsider2k5 said:

I will even tack on to this, Jerry bought the team in April 1980.

In his first full (non-strike) season as owner the White Sox averaged 19,316 per game.

This year the Sox averaged 17,849.  The only teams behind the White Sox?  They are playing in literal Minor League ballparks and are looking at potential moves.

It's the same location since 1910.

It's the same owner since 1980.

It's the same park since 1991.

Tell me again how all of these things are soooo important to a franchise whose fanbase is shrinking and among the smallest in baseball. 

I'll also add that the only potential new stadium site that is being discussed by the team is only 2 miles, 2 L stops, and a 5 minute drive from their current home.   We're not talking about Arlington Heights, Tinley Park, or even the West Side here.   

 

[77 Hitmen]

6 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Baseball tourism IS a large part of the Cubs fan base.  That is NOT happening right now for the White Sox, and neither is the fan looking to make a day out of going to a ball game by having a game day experience of bars, clubs, and whatever else is around the park.  For the history Sox fan base, the model is currently "Show up when they look like they might do something big", and that leads to huge drop offs when things aren't good.  That's where we are today.  This is a failing model, and seeing where we rank among our peers both in attendance and love of stadium in MLB, it's pretty easy to figure out why.  This is a franchise that NEEDS to do more with it's game day experience, and what we have done the past 35 years and 35th and Shields isn't it.  It's a sterile ballpark with its most prominent feature being "it's not bad".  It's a neighborhood with no real easy access to game day entertainment before and after the game, and definitely not a volume of easy options, as is happening intentionally these days in places like Atlanta and Arlington, and historically in baseball entertainment friendly neighborhoods like Wrigley and Fenway.  

If we want the White Sox to exist in 50 years, we need to realize the historic fan base is currently fleeing Chicago and the Chicago burbs and think about what Sox fans will look like in 2075, not what they looked like in 1975.  The trend is greater than just showing up for 3 hours of baseball in a generic building, and the teams that realize that?  Those are the franchises doing the best right now.

Regardless of how people feel, some sort of change is almost certainly coming.  The ballpark lease is up in 2029, the current owner turns 90 in less than 6 months, and he's set up a framework for handing over the team to a new owner as soon as 2029.   That could mean building a new stadium at the 78 or it could mean major changes to the ballpark experience at 35th St.  But with all you describe, I just have a hard time believing that the next 30 years under a new ownership is just going to be a continuation of the same old, same old "it's not as bad as people think" and "the parking is great" ballpark experience.  

Chicago just had a record-setting year for tourism.  That shows that there is a market for people who want to experience some of the great things the city has to offer in the summer.  So yeah, the same 1960s and 70s model of relying on people who just drive up to the stadium, see the game, do nothing else, and drive back home is outdated.  

Edited October 6 by 77 Hitmen

[southsider2k5]

52 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I'll also add that the only potential new stadium site that is being discussed by the team is only 2 miles, 2 L stops, and a 5 minute drive from their current home.   We're not talking about Arlington Heights, Tinley Park, or even the West Side here.   

 

It's like literally 20 blocks, but the access to people is completely different, being on the edge of the financial district and in one of the fastest growing residential areas of the city.

[pcq]

On 10/6/2025 at 3:04 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

Regardless of how people feel, some sort of change is almost certainly coming.  The ballpark lease is up in 2029, the current owner turns 90 in less than 6 months, and he's set up a framework for handing over the team to a new owner as soon as 2029.   That could mean building a new stadium at the 78 or it could mean major changes to the ballpark experience at 35th St.  But with all you describe, I just have a hard time believing that the next 30 years under a new ownership is just going to be a continuation of the same old, same old "it's not as bad as people think" and "the parking is great" ballpark experience.  

Chicago just had a record-setting year for tourism.  That shows that there is a market for people who want to experience some of the great things the city has to offer in the summer.  So yeah, the same 1960s and 70s model of relying on people who just drive up to the stadium, see the game, do nothing else, and drive back home is outdated.  

Worst org ever only gets Generica Park. No one wants to lobby for this putrid team. The issue is not the park or location it's the team. No village for you cuz we have a village idiot in charge. 

[pcq]

On 10/2/2025 at 6:39 AM, soxrwhite said:

It would bother me if they moved. I want my White Sox here in Chicago. No two ways about it

They are not financially committed to winning. Not a great loss. 

[WhiteSox2023]

On 10/6/2025 at 2:28 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

I'll also add that the only potential new stadium site that is being discussed by the team is only 2 miles, 2 L stops, and a 5 minute drive from their current home.   We're not talking about Arlington Heights, Tinley Park, or even the West Side here.   

 

I think I’d rather see them in Arlington Heights.  Maybe being direct neighbors with the Bears would create more Sox fans, attendance, and money to spend, but if they continue to suck, none of that will happen regardless of their location.

[pcq]

On 10/2/2025 at 8:01 PM, tray said:

IMO....that would be a miscalculation that could have unintended consequences including reducing attendance and fan support to the point that the WSox franchise in Chicago could really be in jeopardy.

Personally, I am concerned about a move from the WSox historic location on the South side. I have experienced and indeed befriended a few generations of WSox fans....some now proud parents and grandparents...many originally from the South side neighborhoods and parishes (which I was very proud to be part of even though I am not Catholic).  Been to more than a dozen South side Irish parades down Western where the camaraderie among Sox fans is thick. Attended games at Comiskey including many memorable games in 70's watching the South Side Hitmen, in the 80's with Fisk, Kittle and them and the magical 2005 WS Championship year. Yea, I was at the Disco Dem. game and left after they cancelled game 2.  Met my old buddies at Shinnicks for drinks before every home opener at Comiskey.  Walked through the old neighborhood past sis Daley's house on Lowe on the way to games. And I have watched the Bridgeport neighborhood to the West of the park gentrify with upscale homes, condos and apartments. Been one of the thousands of Sox fans who take tailgating to another level with our grills and drinks for everybody. 

That isn't just my history with the team, its the history of the WSox playing for their fans at Comiskey I and II for over a hundred years. There really is a South side WSox culture built up over decades that, IMO, will largely be lost if the team moves away from their historic home on 35th street. By comparison, the Cubs are every man's team, not just the North sides' since Harry Carey and Ch 9 made them into the media force they have become. 

Move the Sox anywhere else and a lot of the culture and camaraderie of South side WSox fans will diminish and dissipate as well as the identity of the WSox as our South side team. 

Others, especially those who have not shared my experiences over the years will no doubt have a different opinion.  Yes, I know that winning is paramount in sports, but no team wins every year. There is a lot more to it that's hard to explain, but anyway, I tried. Even Schriff gets the love we have for the Sox on the South side.

History. 

https://chicagology.com/skyscrapers/skyscrapers128/

There must be dozens of fans like this maybe 75. I don't even know the players after losing tv this year. 

[Lip Man 1]

2 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

I think I’d rather see them in Arlington Heights.  Maybe being direct neighbors with the Bears would create more Sox fans, attendance, and money to spend, but if they continue to suck, none of that will happen regardless of their location.

Absolutely correct. White Sox fans have shown over the years they will not support garbage and expect ownership to make a solid good faith effort to at least be competitive. If ownership doesn't, the fan base basically says 'the hell with them...'

As they should in my opinion. 

[southsider2k5]

28 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Absolutely correct. White Sox fans have shown over the years they will not support garbage and expect ownership to make a solid good faith effort to at least be competitive. If ownership doesn't, the fan base basically says 'the hell with them...'

As they should in my opinion. 

Which is exactly why the Sox want to grow the fan base beyond the bandwagon. 

[77 Hitmen]

The Rays' new owners met with reporters for the first time.   One of their priorities is to have a "world class ballpark" ready to open by 2029.  The location has not been determined, but they intended to develop the area around the new stadium with restaurants, bars, retail, music venue, etc. 

https://baynews9.com/fl/tampa/news/2025/10/07/tampa-bay-rays-new-owners-outline-future-for-team--hopes-for-stadium

 

"So let us look at the Battery. We think the Battery is the gold standard of what we want to we want to build and develop here in Tampa Bay.”

"So it’s not just, 'This is 500 acres, 30 miles outside of Tampa.' That’s not what we’re looking for. Great location and as much land as we can get.”

Edited October 8 by 77 Hitmen

[tray]

On 10/6/2025 at 9:50 AM, southsider2k5 said:

Baseball tourism IS a large part of the Cubs fan base.  That is NOT happening right now for the White Sox, and neither is the fan looking to make a day out of going to a ball game by having a game day experience of bars, clubs, and whatever else is around the park.  For the history Sox fan base, the model is currently "Show up when they look like they might do something big", and that leads to huge drop offs when things aren't good.  That's where we are today.  This is a failing model, and seeing where we rank among our peers both in attendance and love of stadium in MLB, it's pretty easy to figure out why.  This is a franchise that NEEDS to do more with it's game day experience, and what we have done the past 35 years and 35th and Shields isn't it.  It's a sterile ballpark with its most prominent feature being "it's not bad".  It's a neighborhood with no real easy access to game day entertainment before and after the game, and definitely not a volume of easy options, as is happening intentionally these days in places like Atlanta and Arlington, and historically in baseball entertainment friendly neighborhoods like Wrigley and Fenway.  

If we want the White Sox to exist in 50 years, we need to realize the historic fan base is currently fleeing Chicago and the Chicago burbs and think about what Sox fans will look like in 2075, not what they looked like in 1975.  The trend is greater than just showing up for 3 hours of baseball in a generic building, and the teams that realize that?  Those are the franchises doing the best right now.

You describe the Cub fan experience in Wrigleyvlle after day games.  Sox play night games for the most part, and their fan base for the most part enjoy watching and/or going to games at night. tailgating before games, and for those who want to go out after the game ends and they get to their cars around, 11 p.m with wife and kids, there are plenty of bars and restaurants open. My guess is that most fans head home at that time, especially those with kids. Wrigleyville has a different demographic.

Citing Wrigley bars is just part of a failed Cubs/Sox analogy.  The WSox are a Southside team, and the 78, is not in a Southside neighborhood. It  would be a stretch to claim it is on the South Side as South siders well understand.

Not sure if you are very familiar with the abandoned 78 tract. It is 20 feet under the grade of Roosevelt road. I don't get where the Fire conceptual plan provides enough vehicular or pedestrian access.  I would not be surprised if Mansueto becomes just the latest in a long line of potential tenants to drops out. The writing for that is on the wall. 

These billionaires are not foolish.  And don't believe all the hype that you read. 

 

Edited October 8 by tray

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, tray said:

You describe the Cub fan experience in Wrigleyvlle after day games.  Sox play night games for the most part, and their fan base for the moist part enjoy watching and/or going to games at night. tailgating before games, and for those who want to go out after the game ends and they get to their cars around, 11 p.m with wife and kids, there are plenty of bars and restaurants open. My guess is that most fans head home at that time, especially those with kids. Wrigleyville has a different demographic.

Citing Wrigley bars is just part of a failed Cubs/Sox analogy.  The WSox are a Southside team, and the 78, is not in a Southside neighborhood. It  would be a stretch to claim it is on the South Side as South siders well understand.

Not sure if you are very familiar with the abandoned 78 tract. It is 20 feet under the grade of Roosevelt road. I don't get where the Fire conceptual plan provides enough vehicular or pedestrian access.  I would not be surprised in Mansueto becomes just the latest in a long line of potential tenants to drops out.

These billionaires are not foolish. 

 

Wrigley Field is FAR from the only team in this bucket, though it appears to be the one you chose to focus one.  How about Atlanta?  How about Boston?  How about Arlington?  How about St Louis?

Have you ever stopped to think that if your theory about the Sox limiting their own fan base to only the favored ethnic groups you pointed out, and limiting themselves only to a certain segment of the city is actually hurting the team by robbing it of revenues that could be used to improve the team on a year to year basis when the bandwagon empties out?

Nah.  It has plenty of parking, who cares.

[tray]

37 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Wrigley Field is FAR from the only team in this bucket, though it appears to be the one you chose to focus one.  How about Atlanta?  How about Boston?  How about Arlington?  How about St Louis?

Have you ever stopped to think that if your theory about the Sox limiting their own fan base to only the favored ethnic groups you pointed out, and limiting themselves only to a certain segment of the city is actually hurting the team by robbing it of revenues that could be used to improve the team on a year to year basis when the bandwagon empties out?

Nah.  It has plenty of parking, who cares.

SS2K : I am going to disengage on this and let you have the last word there.  Have a nice evening sir. 

[WhiteSox2023]

The Sox play night games because they don’t draw enough for more day games like the Cubs.  It’s as simple as that.  It’s not that Sox fans enjoy night games more.  Jerry is all about the dollar.  He’s not worried about what Sox fans want.  If Jerry truly cared about what fans think, he wouldn’t be throwing a team out there that is almost perpetually rebuilding and that has lost 100+ games in 3 straight seasons.

Like you said, “These billionaires are not foolish.”  That includes Jerry.

Edited October 9 by WhiteSox2023

[77 Hitmen]

3 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

The Sox play night games because they don’t draw enough for more day games like the Cubs.  It’s as simple as that.  It’s not that Sox fans enjoy night games more.  Jerry is all about the dollar.  He’s not worried about what Sox fans want.  If Jerry truly cared about what fans think, he wouldn’t be throwing a team out there that is almost perpetually rebuilding and that has lost 100+ games in 3 straight seasons.

Like you said, “These billionaires are not foolish.”  That includes Jerry.

As far as I know, all MLB teams play mostly night games except for Sundays, some Saturdays, and a few weekday "get away games."  The reason why the Cubs play mostly day games is because there is a city ordinance restricting them to only 35 night games per season, though I think they are allowed up to 43 night games to accommodate network telecasts (ESPN, Fox)

https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1488/Supreme-Court-History-Turning-on-the-lights-at-Wrigley-Field/news-detail/

[WhiteSox2023]

32 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

As far as I know, all MLB teams play mostly night games except for Sundays, some Saturdays, and a few weekday "get away games."  The reason why the Cubs play mostly day games is because there is a city ordinance restricting them to only 35 night games per season, though I think they are allowed up to 43 night games to accommodate network telecasts (ESPN, Fox)

https://www.illinoiscourts.gov/News/1488/Supreme-Court-History-Turning-on-the-lights-at-Wrigley-Field/news-detail/

I believe teams can actually request to play more day games but it is ultimately up to the MLB to approve scheduling.  It’s all in the CBA.  Night games obviously make more money which is why they are the majority.  But day games at The Rate are like a ghost town.

Edited October 9 by WhiteSox2023

[southsider2k5]

10 hours ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

I believe teams can actually request to play more day games but it is ultimately up to the MLB to approve scheduling.  It’s all in the CBA.  Night games obviously make more money which is why they are the majority.  But day games at The Rate are like a ghost town.

And it completely ignores the fact that the Cubs are FAR from the only team who has a ballpark village type of game day experience.  You don't need to be playing day games for this to happen.  Hell it is public record as to how much Atlanta is raking in doing just this.  

[77 Hitmen]

22 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Wrigley Field is FAR from the only team in this bucket, though it appears to be the one you chose to focus one.  How about Atlanta?  How about Boston?  How about Arlington?  How about St Louis?

Have you ever stopped to think that if your theory about the Sox limiting their own fan base to only the favored ethnic groups you pointed out, and limiting themselves only to a certain segment of the city is actually hurting the team by robbing it of revenues that could be used to improve the team on a year to year basis when the bandwagon empties out?

Nah.  It has plenty of parking, who cares.

 

5 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

And it completely ignores the fact that the Cubs are FAR from the only team who has a ballpark village type of game day experience.  You don't need to be playing day games for this to happen.  Hell it is public record as to how much Atlanta is raking in doing just this.  

Looking at it another way, there are only a few teams that don't have much going on around their ballpark aside from surface lots.   Dodgers, Angels, Brewers, and White Sox.   Am I missing anyone?    

The Royals are trying to leave their ballpark because they don't believe the expressway/parking lots and not much else nearby model will work for them going forward.  For the Angels, the NHL's Anaheim Ducks are developing a massive $4B entertainment district near Angel Stadium.  

It would be one thing if Sox fans could say "don't mess with success" because they are packing in the stadium through thick and thin.  I wish that were the case, but 30 years of attendance data has shown it isn't.

Edited October 9 by 77 Hitmen

[kba]

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Looking at it another way, there are only a few teams that don't have much going on around their ballpark aside from surface lots.   Dodgers, Angels, Brewers, and White Sox.   Am I missing anyone?    

The Phillies, Mets, and Rangers, but they're all trying to build entertainment districts on their parking lots. 

l can think of a few parks that aren't necessarily surrounded by parking lots, but still aren't really walkable to a downtown or to an entertainment district - Miami, Toronto, Yankee Stadium. Houston used to be like that, but it looks like that part of downtown has grown up since I was there last.