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

[caulfield12]

7 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I agree that Rate isn't "must see". I agree with SS2k5 that it was out of style the day it opened. It's a perfectly passable game experience. It most likely is a bottom 5 (or worse) visit for the non-Sox fan. 

 

"Passable" isn't going to be good enough for the Ishbias...just look at his estate/mansion.

it's missing that sense of "awe/wonder" and history as well.

Same reason the second Arlington stadium (meant to evoke "The Natural" with its decking in the OF) and Atlanta downtown Olympic stadium didn't work.

 

 

Edited Tuesday at 02:38 AM by caulfield12

[77 Hitmen]

10 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I agree that Rate isn't "must see". I agree with SS2k5 that it was out of style the day it opened. It's a perfectly passable game experience. It most likely is a bottom 5 (or worse) visit for the non-Sox fan. 

 

I wish that wasn't the case.  I'm actually one of those fans who generally just wants to go to the park, see the game, and then go home.  But that's not what many people want in their gameday experience these days.  I haven't been to as many other ballparks as @southsider2k5, but I've been to enough to see how much of a difference location and ballpark design makes.   

What I'm rooting for is for the Sox to consistently draw well so that they can have the resources to become and stay competitive in MLB.  If they could do that at the current ballpark and location, that would be great.  But the current ballpark situation creates challenges to that.

Edited Tuesday at 02:40 AM by 77 Hitmen

[caulfield12]

5 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

I wish that wasn't the case.  I'm actually one of those fans who generally just wants to go to the park, see the game, and then go home.  But that's not what many people want in their gameday experience these days. 

What I'm rooting for is for the Sox to consistently draw well so that they can have the resources to become and stay competitive in MLB.  The current ballpark situation creates challenges to that.

JR has repeatedly said the Sox couldn't draw three million.

In the new park with diminished seating capacity, that would mean 37000 per game.

Even with SRO that's impossible to do at GRF.

Certainly not with Monday through Thursday games in April May and September.

[77 Hitmen]

16 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Last time I was following this story it was North Kansas City across the river bridge into that neighborhood area.

If they don't move with the Chiefs to KCK, it's going to be miles and miles of parking lots with nothing resembling an entertainment district like Power&Light.

Part of the reason why the Royals ballot initiative failed a couple of years ago was that downtown businesses were concerned about what a new ballpark would mean for them.  It sounds like they are now warming up to the idea of a downtown KC ballpark.

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/royals-stadium-talks-continue-as-some-in-kcmo-warm-to-washington-square-park-location

 

[southsider2k5]

47 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

I think this gets the whole "listicles" thing totally backwards.   It isn't that potential paying customers are just sitting back and waiting for some online ranking of ballparks to decide whether or not to catch a game at Rate Field.  It's that the rankings that are out there generally reflect what people think about MLB stadiums throughout the league.   

There's a reason why Rate Field is consistently ranked near the bottom, it's because that's how people outside of diehard Sox fans generally feel about the place.  It's one thing to convince people that the place is much better than it used to be (true), not as bad as people think (true), a nice enough place to see an MLB game (true), and that there's nothing "dangerous" about the neighborhood (true).  It's quite another to convince them that Rate Field is a must-see place that they want to devote their limited entertainment budget to (both money and time) unless the Sox are in contention for a pennant.  

Sure, you can find write ups out there that take unfair, ignorant swipes at Sox Park because they're just going on reputation.  But that isn't what's causing attendance problems for the Sox and they aren't the only ones ranking the place near the bottom of the league.  

I think the idea is completely backwards.  It's the people who haven't been to a lot of parks who don't get what holds Sox Park back.  Those who have been around MLB have seen it for themselves.   Much easier to convince the ignorant. 

[caulfield12]

21 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Part of the reason why the Royals ballot initiative failed a couple of years ago was that downtown businesses were concerned about what a new ballpark would mean for them.  It sounds like they are now warming up to the idea of a downtown KC ballpark.

https://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/royals-stadium-talks-continue-as-some-in-kcmo-warm-to-washington-square-park-location

 

You'd almost have to have home plate at the SE point of that park...facing to the north and west.

Roughly five acres.

Parking wouldn't be great, but you do have Crowne Center and Union Station.

Most importantly, not very far from the Plaza for shopping and restaurants.

Edited Tuesday at 03:08 AM by caulfield12

[bmags]

7 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I think the idea is completely backwards.  It's the people who haven't been to a lot of parks who don't get what holds Sox Park back.  Those who have been around MLB have seen it for themselves.   Much easier to convince the ignorant. 

I always wonder about how many years would have to go by until the rate comes out the other side as charming and antiquated - or if it’d always be boring as hell.

 

If they could have somehow retrofit more suites into old comiskey and renovated, wonder what changes with two classic parks in Chicago.

[caulfield12]

You'd definitely have the 100th anniversary of the 1933 All Star Game played there...might still get it in Chicago with a new stadium.

[77 Hitmen]

6 hours ago, bmags said:

I always wonder about how many years would have to go by until the rate comes out the other side as charming and antiquated - or if it’d always be boring as hell.

 

If they could have somehow retrofit more suites into old comiskey and renovated, wonder what changes with two classic parks in Chicago.

 

6 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

You'd definitely have the 100th anniversary of the 1933 All Star Game played there...might still get it in Chicago with a new stadium.

Angel Stadium turns 60 this year and I have never heard a soul fawn over it as a charming, classic stadium because of its age.  I don't expect the Sox can just wait a few more decade for Rate Field suddenly be considered a revered classic.  Camden Yards is only 1 year newer than Rate Field with Coors Field ('95), Oracle Park ('00), and PNC Park ('01) being built all within a decade of "New Comiskey".  I cannot envision a scenario were Rate Field leapfrogs those facilities to achieve such a venerated status based on its age.  

As far as the 2033 ASG goes, the Sox certainly have to be frontrunners to get that no matter where they play.  They got the 50th game and it'll have been 30 years since the last time they hosted at that point.  No doubt the Ishbias and MLB would much rather the team have a new ballpark to showcase by then.  The A's, Rays, and Royals will be waiting their turn to host the ASG at their new parks.  But that's 7 years off - plenty of time to build a new stadium by then.  

Edited Tuesday at 05:12 PM by 77 Hitmen

[NO!!MARY!!!]

21 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

Angel Stadium turns 60 this year and I have never heard a soul fawn over it as a charming, classic stadium because of its age.  I don't expect the Sox can just wait a few more decade for Rate Field suddenly be considered a revered classic.  Camden Yards is only 1 year newer than Rate Field with Coors Field ('95), Oracle Park ('00), and PNC Park ('01) being built all within a decade of "New Comiskey".  I cannot envision a scenario were Rate Field leapfrogs those facilities to achieve such a venerated status based on its  age.

It happened to the old park. During its lifetime Comiskey Park was never accorded the venerated status of Tiger, Wrigley and Fenway. Good example was a 1990 Sporting News article that trashed it and the surrounding neighborhood, and got a bunch of quotes from players who also trashed it. Now that it’s gone, it suddenly has become one of those lost Cathedrals of Baseball, at least on social media. 
 

That being said, I don’t see it happening with this park. 

[bmags]

36 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

 

Angel Stadium turns 60 this year and I have never heard a soul fawn over it as a charming, classic stadium because of its age.  I don't expect the Sox can just wait a few more decade for Rate Field suddenly be considered a revered classic.  Camden Yards is only 1 year newer than Rate Field with Coors Field ('95), Oracle Park ('00), and PNC Park ('01) being built all within a decade of "New Comiskey".  I cannot envision a scenario were Rate Field leapfrogs those facilities to achieve such a venerated status based on its age.  

As far as the 2033 ASG goes, the Sox certainly have to be frontrunners to get that no matter where they play.  They got the 50th game and it'll have been 30 years since the last time they hosted at that point.  No doubt the Ishbias and MLB would much rather the team have a new ballpark to showcase by then.  The A's, Rays, and Royals will be waiting their turn to host the ASG at their new parks.  But that's 7 years off - plenty of time to build a new stadium by then.  

yeah that stadium is a snoozer. Sox park though, you never know. Maybe people do a bunch of dumb crap with stadiums over the next 3 decades and in 2070 everyone loves 'the rate' named after a time when companies brokered mortgage deals for 'houses'. All very charming.

[bmags]

15 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

It happened to the old park. During its lifetime Comiskey Park was never accorded the venerated status of Tiger, Wrigley and Fenway. Good example was a 1990 Sporting News article that trashed it and the surrounding neighborhood, and got a bunch of quotes from players who also trashed it. Now that it’s gone, it suddenly has become one of those lost Cathedrals of Baseball, at least on social media. 
 

That being said, I don’t see it happening with this park. 

It's just the wrapped upper deck, basically. If they bring that back, we'll miss the integrated skyline views of some stadiums. ALways be trading on nostalgia, but you do have to get to the nostalgia age.

[southsider2k5]

23 minutes ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

It happened to the old park. During its lifetime Comiskey Park was never accorded the venerated status of Tiger, Wrigley and Fenway. Good example was a 1990 Sporting News article that trashed it and the surrounding neighborhood, and got a bunch of quotes from players who also trashed it. Now that it’s gone, it suddenly has become one of those lost Cathedrals of Baseball, at least on social media. 
 

That being said, I don’t see it happening with this park. 

Except that park was literally falling apart.  It was unique and fun, but it probably would have taken more to restore it than to build new.

[Lip Man 1]

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears-stadium/2026/02/24/soldier-field-renovation-post-chicago-bears-era-illinois-general-assembly

[35thstreetswarm]

2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears-stadium/2026/02/24/soldier-field-renovation-post-chicago-bears-era-illinois-general-assembly

Bring on the Chicago Jaguars.

[soxrwhite]

11 hours ago, 35thstreetswarm said:

Bring on the Chicago Jaguars.

Grizzlies

[77 Hitmen]

On 2/23/2026 at 8:33 PM, caulfield12 said:

"Passable" isn't going to be good enough for the Ishbias...just look at his estate/mansion.

it's missing that sense of "awe/wonder" and history as well.

Same reason the second Arlington stadium (meant to evoke "The Natural" with its decking in the OF) and Atlanta downtown Olympic stadium didn't work.

 

 

This is why I'll be very surprised if the Ishbias decide to just stick with There's Nothing Wrong with It Field long-term and let the team continue to be an afterthought in Chicago.

The Ballpark at Arlington didn't last because playing outdoors in the intense summer heat in Texas turned out to be problematic for them as far as getting fans to come out to the game when it's 100 out.  

This video gives a pretty good explanation of why Turner Field didn't last.  Lack of things to do around the stadium was part of it, but accessibility was a problem too.  It also explains why a new ballpark out in the suburbs works for Atlanta and I don't think the same applies to Chicago.

 

Edited Wednesday at 04:33 PM by 77 Hitmen

[Kyyle23]

 

[southsider2k5]

30 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

This is why I'll be very surprised if the Ishbias decide to just stick with There's Nothing Wrong with It Field long-term and let the team continue to be an afterthought in Chicago.

The Ballpark at Arlington didn't last because playing outdoors in the intense summer heat in Texas turned out to be problematic for them as far as getting fans to come out to the game when it's 100 out.  

This video gives a pretty good explanation of why Turner Field didn't last.  Lack of things to do around the stadium was part of it, but accessibility was a problem too.  It also explains why a new ballpark out in the suburbs works for Atlanta and I don't think the same applies to Chicago.

 

Honestly it was a great park, all except for the office building in LF blocked the airflow of moving air into the stadium.  Having sat in the first two Arlington Stadiums for games, the first was was 70's generic, but at least when it was 105, the air moved.  That didn't happen in Part 2.  If the back of the stadium had been open to moving air, it probably drops the temp on the field 10 to 15 degrees.

[southsider2k5]

15 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

 

Yep, the Bears got what they wanted from Indiana.  

[ptatc]

12 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yep, the Bears got what they wanted from Indiana.  

I'm shocked! 😁

[hogan873]

26 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Yep, the Bears got what they wanted from Indiana.  

You'd think even the folks in Indiana knew what the Bears were doing.  They want to be in Arlington Heights, the state wants them in Illinois.  The Bears played the game and will most likely get what they want.

[southsider2k5]

3 minutes ago, hogan873 said:

You'd think even the folks in Indiana knew what the Bears were doing.  They want to be in Arlington Heights, the state wants them in Illinois.  The Bears played the game and will most likely get what they want.

Oh they did.  Even sticking Illinois with a bigger bill is a win to them.  Plus they get all of the free publicity.

[ptatc]

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Oh they did.  Even sticking Illinois with a bigger bill is a win to them.  Plus they get all of the free publicity.

Yes, its a political win for Indiana showing how they are trying to help the economy in the area with no real risk.

[Harry Chappas]

3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Oh they did.  Even sticking Illinois with a bigger bill is a win to them.  Plus they get all of the free publicity.

The Bears and Indiana did exactly what they needed to do.  I am still not certain this gets through the Illinois politics and passes.  As long as Indiana keeps moving things along there is always a chance Illinois drops the ball.