poppysox Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 7 hours ago, tray said: It is axiomatic that buildings need to rest on footings with proper load bearing. The prior river bed running through the site almost certainly make construction of buildings on it more costly. I don't believe that is even debatable. The main issue I saw/see with this site is the lack of meaningful ingress and egress. Glaringly, the developer has failed to provide a site plan that makes any sense. I have been down to the site and believe me, it is hard to even get to it. My own personal view is based on my life as a Sox fan and knowing so many other fans over the years. I am sure others have their own opinions and, I suppose, age is one thing that might influence those opinions. From my perspective, I just don't see the point of moving the White Sox away from their historic home on 35th street to get to a substandard low lying lot that only has a tangential connection to the City. Congratulations on getting axiomatic into your reply. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltwilliams Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 8 hours ago, tray said: It is axiomatic that buildings need to rest on footings with proper load bearing. The prior river bed running through the site almost certainly make construction of buildings on it more costly. I don't believe that is even debatable. The main issue I saw/see with this site is the lack of meaningful ingress and egress. Glaringly, the developer has failed to provide a site plan that makes any sense. I have been down to the site and believe me, it is hard to even get to it. My own personal view is based on my life as a Sox fan and knowing so many other fans over the years. I am sure others have their own opinions and, I suppose, age is one thing that might influence those opinions. From my perspective, I just don't see the point of moving the White Sox away from their historic home on 35th street to get to a substandard low lying lot that only has a tangential connection to the City. Totally agree with this. And regarding their present location, remember that the state of Illinois and the White Sox completely leveled an entire neighborhood (South Armour Square) to build current Rate Field in 1989-91, displacing hundreds of people/businesses. There is absolutely no reason that a deep-pocketed developer couldn't build an entire new community on the site of Old Comiskey and on the parking lots just behind it (adjacent to Armour Park) to create the Ballpark Village/Neighborhood that they need/desire. And you'd still have the parking to the west and south of the park, which has traditionally been the tailgaters spot. Hell, they could tear down the Tinkertoy signage in the bleachers, and put a couple of hotels in that space behind the back of the stadium (near Wentworth) to create an effect of buildings in the background, a la Wrigley. This is the great thing about 35th and Shields -- in addition to the history (no MLB team has played longer at the same location), it's a blank slate with regards to development. And the transportation/infrastructure is already there. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nardiwashere Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 9 hours ago, tray said: It is axiomatic that buildings need to rest on footings with proper load bearing. The prior river bed running through the site almost certainly make construction of buildings on it more costly. I don't believe that is even debatable. The main issue I saw/see with this site is the lack of meaningful ingress and egress. Glaringly, the developer has failed to provide a site plan that makes any sense. I have been down to the site and believe me, it is hard to even get to it. My own personal view is based on my life as a Sox fan and knowing so many other fans over the years. I am sure others have their own opinions and, I suppose, age is one thing that might influence those opinions. From my perspective, I just don't see the point of moving the White Sox away from their historic home on 35th street to get to a substandard low lying lot that only has a tangential connection to the City. Are you an engineer? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 I would feel alot better about this situation if JR announced what he was going to do. Whether it be a new stadium at some location or stay at the present location or whatever else. I'm really starting to worry about this team staying in the Chicagoland area. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteSox2023 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 hour ago, WBWSF said: I would feel alot better about this situation if JR announced what he was going to do. Whether it be a new stadium at some location or stay at the present location or whatever else. I'm really starting to worry about this team staying in the Chicagoland area. Send more letters in to Jerry, ASAP. I’d like to see what you can do over Getz. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) Here's a Trib article talking about the possibility of the Sox moving to The 78 along with the Fire: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/04/white-sox-stadium-fire-78/ From the article: "As part of the proposed development, the Fire are buying 9 acres of land at The 78, the team and developer confirmed. That leaves plenty of room for the White Sox to build an adjacent ballpark, Ganis said" And this might not sit well with some Sox fans, but also from the article: “Even when the Cubs stink on the field, they still draw” about 3 million people in the stands most seasons, Ganis said. “That is something the White Sox are sorely missing, and it’s because of the location of their stadium and how walled off it is from where people live, work and play.” As we've all agreed countless times, it'll depend on whether the Sox are willing to commit a significant amount of private money toward a new stadium. We all know the state isn't going to give them $1B for the ballpark itself and JR's offer to pay $200M toward a new ballpark isn't even close to enough. But the Fire building on this site does not kill the opportunity for the Sox to also move there. Edited June 4 by 77 Hitmen 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chitownsportsfan Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 20 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: Here's a Trib article talking about the possibility of the Sox moving to The 78 along with the Fire: https://www.chicagotribune.com/2025/06/04/white-sox-stadium-fire-78/ From the article: "As part of the proposed development, the Fire are buying 9 acres of land at The 78, the team and developer confirmed. That leaves plenty of room for the White Sox to build an adjacent ballpark, Ganis said" And this might not sit well with some Sox fans, but also from the article: “Even when the Cubs stink on the field, they still draw” about 3 million people in the stands most seasons, Ganis said. “That is something the White Sox are sorely missing, and it’s because of the location of their stadium and how walled off it is from where people live, work and play.” As we've all agreed countless times, it'll depend on whether the Sox are willing to commit a significant amount of private money toward a new stadium. We all know the state isn't going to give them $1B for the ballpark itself and JR's offer to pay $200M toward a new ballpark isn't even close to enough. But the Fire building on this site does not kill the opportunity for the Sox to also move there. If JR was more of a forward thinker he'd see this as a golden opportunity to salvage his rep and at the same time cement new revenue sources around the park far into the future for his family. But he's never been one to spend money to make money, at least not in the last 15 or so years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lip Man 1 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 1 hour ago, chitownsportsfan said: If JR was more of a forward thinker he'd see this as a golden opportunity to salvage his rep and at the same time cement new revenue sources around the park far into the future for his family. But he's never been one to spend money to make money, at least not in the last 15 or so years. JR is always willing to spend other peoples money though! 😆 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 11 hours ago, tray said: Honestly and as respectfully as I can be, I don't think you know much about this topic so I will not respond to your post. These are literal facts. From about Michigan Ave over is reclaimed land that is loaded with skyscrapers. The WTC is also on historically reclaimed lands. These are facts you can look up. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 4 hours ago, chitownsportsfan said: If JR was more of a forward thinker he'd see this as a golden opportunity to salvage his rep and at the same time cement new revenue sources around the park far into the future for his family. But he's never been one to spend money to make money, at least not in the last 15 or so years. If JR were a forward thinker, it would have been New Comiskey Park that ushered in the golden age of new, charming "retro" ballparks instead of Camden Yards. Instead, he rejected plans for a retro park in favor of a soulless, generic ballpark with two levels of skyboxes below the upper deck that required $68M to retrofit some charm into about a decade later. And yes, he's always been penny wise and dollar foolish as far as the White Sox go. It'll be up to the new owners after his passing (probably the Ishbia brothers) to spend money on either a new ballpark at the 78 or to redevelop most of the parking around the current park into some sort of entertainment district that will draw more fans to keep up with today's realities of MLB teams getting people through the turnstiles. Edited June 4 by 77 Hitmen 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 11 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said: These are literal facts. From about Michigan Ave over is reclaimed land that is loaded with skyscrapers. The WTC is also on historically reclaimed lands. These are facts you can look up. And since you do don't believe in factual sources, I will provide mine, if you actually read open-mindedly. https://www.911memorial.org/learn/resources/digital-exhibitions/world-trade-center-history/shaping-lower-manhattans-skyline Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nrockway Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Just now, Nardiwashere said: Are you an engineer? I promise you don't need to be a civil engineer to comprehend this. The developers aren't engineers, the financiers aren't engineers, the construction workers aren't. You might be amazed to know that human beings built structures in generally smart places before the field existed. The guy kinda just said common sense things. What are you disputing? I'd also note that that it's a brownfield and the remediation can be costly. The A's definitely didn't want to do environmental remediation on that Howard Brown Terminal site (a far better location for a ballpark than the 78). The site is clearly cursed and you have one liar after another (probably different aspects of the same liar, Related Morons) telling us for the last 50 years that something wonderful is coming there. It's never gonna happen. Plant some trees and be done with it. Just south is a really great park, they ought to extend it A process that would be (relatively) inexpensive, ecologically productive, generally good for surrounding property values. Everybody wins except the Related Companies. Cermak to Polk has a really nice (east bank) riverfront already, I think they ought to plan the area for families, a consistent tax base, rather than for people from outside the city to come in for the day, clog up the roads, then drunk drive home. Particularly when we already have a place like that (SoxPark) and it's perfectly fine, inarguably better situated for regional access. Any governmental official calling for a new ballpark, even if it's entirely privately funded, is a bozo who is contradicting stated Illinois/Chicago policy goals. Disinvesting from the south and west sides is only going to create further problems for everyone in the city. They've "transformed" the Loop over the last decade into a neighborhood with bars, restaurants, expensive condos and now I never want to be in the Loop, particularly after the sun has set. Someone is making some money off these ventures, I'm dubious that it's the City. Giving real estate developers carte blanche to produce urban form and develop the city further toward consumption and waste should not be the governmental perspective. And if you're going to develop a 'megaproject' like this 78 abomination, there absolutely needs to be democratic oversight extending beyond the aldermanic level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptatc Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 2 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said: JR is always willing to spend other peoples money though! 😆 As a good business man should. That's the best way to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) Speculation on Youtube channel that if the Rays don't go to Orlando the White Sox are being mentioned for Orlando. The Youtube channel is Brodie Brazil. Edited June 4 by WBWSF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 12 minutes ago, WBWSF said: Speculation on Youtube channel that if the Rays don't go to Orlando the White Sox are being mentioned for Orlando. The Youtube channel is Brodie Brazil. A San Jose Sharks employee is 100% the guy you should trust and not the fact that the Ishbias bought a significant chunk of the team after having the Twins in the palm of their hands. 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBWSF Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 16 minutes ago, Quin said: A San Jose Sharks employee is 100% the guy you should trust and not the fact that the Ishbias bought a significant chunk of the team after having the Twins in the palm of their hands. I'm just bringing the video to everybodys attention on this site. I think there is a better chance of Portland getting a team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 37 minutes ago, Quin said: A San Jose Sharks employee is 100% the guy you should trust and not the fact that the Ishbias bought a significant chunk of the team after having the Twins in the palm of their hands. Did you watch the video though? It was one of the major investors trying to bring a team to Orlando that said the Sox are in play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 19 minutes ago, fathom said: Did you watch the video though? It was one of the major investors trying to bring a team to Orlando that said the Sox are in play. Isn't Barry Larkin one of the main guys down there with the Orlando effort now? Nashville has basically been crickets. The idea of the White Sox as a complementary entertainment option to Disney Universal Sea World etc. almost beggars belief. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
77 Hitmen Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 (edited) 42 minutes ago, fathom said: Did you watch the video though? It was one of the major investors trying to bring a team to Orlando that said the Sox are in play. What did he base that on? I did watch the video and he gave no details of why he thinks the White Sox are in play. And if he's an investor, how does he fit in if Jerry Reinsdorf isn't selling the Sox and very likely he has Justin Ishbia lined up as the next owner after he passes? If the Rays stay in Tampa, I find it very, very, very hard to believe that MLB will want to put another major league team in nearby Orlando. The YouTube video also incorrectly suggests that the Fire's plan to build on The 78 means any hope of the Sox moving there is dead since the Fire took that location. Not true. Edited June 4 by 77 Hitmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fathom Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 9 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said: What did he base that on? I did watch the video and he gave no details of why he thinks the White Sox are in play. And if he's an investor, how does he fit in if Jerry Reinsdorf isn't selling the Sox and very likely he has Justin Ishbia lined up as the next owner after he passes? If the Rays stay in Tampa, I find it very, very, very hard to believe that MLB will want to put another major league team in nearby Orlando. The YouTube video also incorrectly suggests that the Fire's plan to build on The 78 means any hope of the Sox moving there is dead since the Fire took that location. Not true. I only watched the first minute, but he sure seemed to think those are the two teams in play Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 Florida can hardly support one team, let alone three. With Texas only having two...where all the population growth is trending? 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tnetennba Posted June 4 Share Posted June 4 3 hours ago, southsider2k5 said: These are literal facts. From about Michigan Ave over is reclaimed land that is loaded with skyscrapers. The WTC is also on historically reclaimed lands. These are facts you can look up. Basically all of Streeterville and Lakeshore East are skyscrapers built on lakebed infill. I’m no structural engineer, but building a stadium on former riverbed seems like child’s play in comparison. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 17 minutes ago, Tnetennba said: Basically all of Streeterville and Lakeshore East are skyscrapers built on lakebed infill. I’m no structural engineer, but building a stadium on former riverbed seems like child’s play in comparison. If they can built on 1776 foot tower on the reclaimed Hudson River, they can built a baseball stadium on the reclaimed Chicago River. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaleAleSox Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 51 minutes ago, fathom said: I only watched the first minute, but he sure seemed to think those are the two teams in play He can think whatever he wants. A lot of rich people think stupid things. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caulfield12 Posted June 5 Share Posted June 5 https://www.amazon.com/Great-Bridge-Story-Building-Brooklyn/dp/067145711X#:~:text=The dramatic and enthralling story of the building,and determination%2C told by master historian David McCullough. I think they can somehow manage to build on a riverbed from a century ago... 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.