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

[southsider2k5]

23 minutes ago, tray said:

"I know the "fans won't drive" thing is going to be repeated ad naseum like soil samples and ingresses"

Environmental testing and soil borings confirmed the issues that some anticipated.  Stop repeating the old arguments that you lost.

Oh sure, ingress and egress is no problem at the Chicago Fire site. Maybe build another stadium on the surface parking lot shown in the approved plan.  No, that ship has sailed.  And why even suggest  that when  Rate Field is right off the expressway and the White Sox 35th street train stop  and is the White Sox historic home for  over 120 years? 

Why do you keep banging on Bridgeport? I doubt you know much about it. The area to the West of Rate to Halsted has  really gentrified over the past several years. You would have to drive or walk through there to get it. Did you go to the Ramova for Sox Fest? No.  But you know all about Bridgeport. 

And I doubt you have driven down to the Chicago Fire site based on your oversized opinions on this site (want to compare the amount of your posts to mine? Talk about ad nauseam.)

This is honestly hilarious.   I love that you are gatekeeping the city of Chicago when like three million other people live there, plus the millions who work there, visit there, etc.  I am sure you know more than the professional franchises who have done their own assessments which consist of a little more than a rando from the neighborhood drove by there before. It literally doesn't matter a microbe what you or I think of the neighborhood.  

Get out of your feels for once and look at the numbers. The Sox attendance and revenues are among the worst in baseball.  That is an indisputable fact.  Their attendance only bouncing up in extreme winning seasons,  and otherwise being near the bottom of baseball is also a fact.  Don't like it?  Look at the numbers and get over it.  Like it or not, where the White Sox are located does nothing for its overall fan base, as it is very clearly one of the smallest and least loyal through down years.  Again don't believe me, Look at the numbers. 

The team across town doesn't have these problems.  They also have basically have no surface parking and no ingress/regress, aren't near an expressway etc, to speak of either.  They get 40,000 people a night to that park, no matter what the teams record is, and they do it almost exclusively with mass transit. Tell me what the differences are between the Sox and Cubs are that explain this if it has nothing to do with stadium, location, and/or neighborhood, as the Cubs overcome every you are afraid of.

None of your arguments hold up to facts.

[WhiteSox2023]

3 hours ago, tray said:

I would think Tinley Park, in the heart of the White Sox South side fan base, might be better than a NW suburb. The 280 acre former Tinley Park Mental health property currently owned by the Village of Tinley Park would be one option. Needs some demo and environmental clean-up but Tinley only paid $1 for it.

https://www.tinleypark.org/government/current_projects/state_campus_property.php

Perhaps a deal for the Credit One theater property beginning in 2030 might also be brokered. 

Both locations right off I-80 and easily accessible to most Southsiders. 

Then the former Nascar race track property on Laraway in Joliet.  

Or better yet, just build it at the site of the White Sox historic home on 35th, site of two World Series championships and hopefully another. "Go ... you ... White Sox"  (Andy the Clown).

 

Problem is the Sox would still be the second best team in the city…

[WBWSF]

5 hours ago, tray said:

I would think Tinley Park, in the heart of the White Sox South side fan base, might be better than a NW suburb. The 280 acre former Tinley Park Mental health property currently owned by the Village of Tinley Park would be one option. Needs some demo and environmental clean-up but Tinley only paid $1 for it.

https://www.tinleypark.org/government/current_projects/state_campus_property.php

Perhaps a deal for the Credit One theater property beginning in 2030 might also be brokered. 

Both locations right off I-80 and easily accessible to most Southsiders. 

Then the former Nascar race track property on Laraway in Joliet.  

Or better yet, just build it at the site of the White Sox historic home on 35th, site of two World Series championships and hopefully another. "Go ... you ... White Sox"  (Andy the Clown).

 

Is there any  public transportation/Metra near the Tinley Park site?

[Sleepy Harold]

 

 

[Sleepy Harold]

30 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Is there any  public transportation/Metra near the Tinley Park site?

There's a Metra stop at 80th Ave which would be the closest. That entire area (Mental Health site) is set to be turned into parks/fields, sports complex already. https://abc7chicago.com/post/tinley-park-il-mental-health-center-district-michael-hastings/14471036/.

[77 Hitmen]

8 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Especially if the Bears ultimately stay in Illinois, they will 100% throw billions at the White Sox.  We all know how much Uncle Jerry loves other people's money.  Keep in mind this is a team that hasn't been in the top half of the AL in attendance in a non-COVID season since Gordon Beckham was a starter.  I know the "fans won't drive" thing is going to be repeated ad naseum like soil samples and ingresses, but "fan's aren't driving" now to see the Sox in Bridgeport unless they think they are seeing a playoff team.  If you throw out the COVID years, the sox have been higher than 10th in the AL in attendance once since 2013.  That is fucking terrible for an original AL team.  Not sure what we are supposed to be scared of here, but low attendance is already here.

No need to stop at 2013.  You can go back all the way to 1995 - as soon as the new ballpark bounce ended.  The Sox have ranked higher than 15th in MLB attendance only once in those 3 decades - 2006 when they were reigning WS champs.  All the talk about how much fans just love having a stadium right off the expressway and surrounded by parking lots isn't supported by the numbers.

Which other teams are emulating even a single aspect of what the Sox have when designing their stadiums and surroundings in even the slightest way?  Absolutely none.   People can get apoplectic, resort to ad hominem arguments, and slap laugh emojis all over the forum to their hearts desire....it still doesn't change the reality of the Sox stadium situation.  Neither does anecdotal stories about how great the place is for individual fans.  

I used to be one of those fans with a huge chip on my shoulder whenever someone dissed Sox Park - blaming it on Cubs fans or people brainwashed by the Cub-loving, Sox-hating media.  At some point, I realized that "rest of the world is wrong and we die-hard Sox fans are right" way of thinking was just me living in denial.  

Edited yesterday at 05:16 AM by 77 Hitmen

[77 Hitmen]

3 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

 

Here's the story directly on the Fox 32 website.  You can download the slides too.

https://www.fox32chicago.com/news/exclusive-chicago-park-district-pitches-630-million-plan-post-bears-soldier-field

Sounds like a good use for Soldier Field after the Bears leave.  Already, there's more to its existence than 10-12 Bears games a year.  To be fair, some of those major acts they're relying on such as Taylor Swift and Beyonce concerts might take place at the Bears new dome stadium instead of Soldier Field, but there will still be interest in major acts performing right in the heart of Chicago.  

[NO!!MARY!!!]

15 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

No need to stop at 2013.  You can go back all the way to 1995 - as soon as the new ballpark bounce ended.  The Sox have ranked higher than 15th in MLB attendance only once in those 3 decades - 2006 when they were reigning WS champs.  All the talk about how much fans just love having a stadium right off the expressway and surrounded by parking lots isn't supported by the numbers.

Which other teams are emulating even a single aspect of what the Sox have when designing their stadiums and surroundings in even the slightest way?  Absolutely none.   People can get apoplectic, resort to ad hominem arguments, and slap laugh emojis all over the forum to their hearts desire....it still doesn't change the reality of the Sox stadium situation.  Neither does anecdotal stories about how great the place is for individual fans.  

I used to be one of those fans with a huge chip on my shoulder whenever someone dissed Sox Park - blaming it on Cubs fans or people brainwashed by the Cub-loving, Sox-hating media.  At some point, I realized that "rest of the world is wrong and we die-hard Sox fans are right" way of thinking was just me living in denial.  

The problem I have with this is the park has been getting terrible reviews since 1992 when Camden Yards went up. The team has done several things and effected several changes in order to remedy the situation. People moaned for green seats and got them. Seats were removed from the upper deck and the roof replaced with one to give it a cozier, old-timey feel. Other changes have been made to get rid of the “ball mall” feel and make it look more like a traditional park and it STILL ranks at the bottom and people still complain. At this point, is it truly THAT awful, or is it getting killed because of its past reputation?

I mention all this because they have changed the park and got nowhere. I honestly think if they build a new park it will be the same thing. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. 

Edited 10 hours ago by NO!!MARY!!!

[WestEddy]

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

The problem I have with this is the park has been getting terrible reviews since 1992 when Camden Yards went up. The team has done several things and effected several changes in order to remedy the situation. People moaned for green seats and got them. Seats were removed from the upper deck and the roof replaced with one to give it a cozier, old-timey feel. Other changes have been made to get rid of the “ball mall” feel and make it look more like a traditional park and it STILL ranks at the bottom and people still complain. At this point, is it truly THAT awful, or is it getting killed because of its past reputation?

I mention all this because they have changed the park and got nowhere. I honestly think if they build a new park it will be the same thing. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. 

Most of the listicles I see takes swipes at the park that tell me the writer hasn't visited. They describe it as crumbling, dangerous. Newspapers are laying off writers or just closing the doors. Like eHow is going to pay somebody to visit 30 ballparks and rank them? I'm sure most of the criticism comes from people reading previous reviews and regurgitating. 

[WBWSF]

1 hour ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

The problem I have with this is the park has been getting terrible reviews since 1992 when Camden Yards went up. The team has done several things and effected several changes in order to remedy the situation. People moaned for green seats and got them. Seats were removed from the upper deck and the roof replaced with one to give it a cozier, old-timey feel. Other changes have been made to get rid of the “ball mall” feel and make it look more like a traditional park and it STILL ranks at the bottom and people still complain. At this point, is it truly THAT awful, or is it getting killed because of its past reputation?

I mention all this because they have changed the park and got nowhere. I honestly think if they build a new park it will be the same thing. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. 

The stadium is 2 different ballparks. The lower deck is great. The upper deck is horrendous. I've been a season ticket holder for over 30 years. I wouldn't sit in the upper deck for nothing.

[Sleepy Harold]

5 hours ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

The problem I have with this is the park has been getting terrible reviews since 1992 when Camden Yards went up. The team has done several things and effected several changes in order to remedy the situation. People moaned for green seats and got them. Seats were removed from the upper deck and the roof replaced with one to give it a cozier, old-timey feel. Other changes have been made to get rid of the “ball mall” feel and make it look more like a traditional park and it STILL ranks at the bottom and people still complain. At this point, is it truly THAT awful, or is it getting killed because of its past reputation?

I mention all this because they have changed the park and got nowhere. I honestly think if they build a new park it will be the same thing. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. 

There's nothing about the current stadium that sets itself apart from other venues. It's fine and much improved from the concrete monstrosity it was initially, but being "fine" with nothing to do in the immediate surrounding area isn't going to vault you up many rankings lists either. If they build a new stadium and learn nothing from their (JR) past mistakes then sure, it won't make a difference. I'd have to imagine that the new leadership will not be following in the footsteps of the old regime so I'd bet they're focused on what the best location for a new venue would be plus what would optimize the pre/post and in-game experience. 

Edited 4 hours ago by Sleepy Harold

[southsider2k5]

45 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

Most of the listicles I see takes swipes at the park that tell me the writer hasn't visited. They describe it as crumbling, dangerous. Newspapers are laying off writers or just closing the doors. Like eHow is going to pay somebody to visit 30 ballparks and rank them? I'm sure most of the criticism comes from people reading previous reviews and regurgitating. 

I have been to about 20 different MLB ballparks over the years.  I think this typical praise of "it's not that bad" is remarkably accurate for it.  It's not terrible, but it is absolutely nothing special.  If you think of all of the typical things that make stadiums stand out, it has none of them.  There is no special attraction, there is no skyline views, there is no activity around the ballpark besides the game (unless you want to drink at your parking place) and definitely none after the game, you enter at the very bottom of the stadium, giving an experience of everything being very high, even if it isn't that much different from low seat to high seat.  The stadiums layering has no overlapping, which also makes the upper levels feel even more detached from playetc.  It's a lazy attempt to disqualify those things as "listicles" instead of realizing that they are just easy ways to tell ballparks apart.  The new park was a vast improvement over the 70's generic ballpark experience, but when the "new" park building phase really took hold, Sox Park got left behind.  It just happened that the Sox went first in building their new park, and didn't have the 20/20 vision of seeing what others had done, that even 5 to 10 years of extra time would have given us.

[Snopek]

1 hour ago, NO!!MARY!!! said:

The problem I have with this is the park has been getting terrible reviews since 1992 when Camden Yards went up. The team has done several things and effected several changes in order to remedy the situation. People moaned for green seats and got them. Seats were removed from the upper deck and the roof replaced with one to give it a cozier, old-timey feel. Other changes have been made to get rid of the “ball mall” feel and make it look more like a traditional park and it STILL ranks at the bottom and people still complain. At this point, is it truly THAT awful, or is it getting killed because of its past reputation?

I mention all this because they have changed the park and got nowhere. I honestly think if they build a new park it will be the same thing. They are damned if they do and damned if they don’t. 

All of the changes you mention did improve the park, but they weren't major enough to vault it into an upper tier of parks or anything. It was basically outdated as soon as it was built and those changes probably should've been part of the original design.

One of the main knocks on the park has always been that it's just fine and nothing special, which is too low of a bar for a MLB park. Stadiums have evolved quite a bit over the years, especially with an emphasis on the ballpark village type of areas immediately surrounding stadiums these days.

This is all why it'll remain at the bottom of lists. It wasn't great when it was built, hasn't aged well in the grand scheme of things, and is now being left even further behind as trends change and the idea of what makes a good park continues to evolve. 

[WestEddy]

10 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

I have been to about 20 different MLB ballparks over the years.  I think this typical praise of "it's not that bad" is remarkably accurate for it.  It's not terrible, but it is absolutely nothing special.  If you think of all of the typical things that make stadiums stand out, it has none of them.  There is no special attraction, there is no skyline views, there is no activity around the ballpark besides the game (unless you want to drink at your parking place) and definitely none after the game, you enter at the very bottom of the stadium, giving an experience of everything being very high, even if it isn't that much different from low seat to high seat.  The stadiums layering has no overlapping, which also makes the upper levels feel even more detached from playetc.  It's a lazy attempt to disqualify those things as "listicles" instead of realizing that they are just easy ways to tell ballparks apart.  The new park was a vast improvement over the 70's generic ballpark experience, but when the "new" park building phase really took hold, Sox Park got left behind.  It just happened that the Sox went first in building their new park, and didn't have the 20/20 vision of seeing what others had done, that even 5 to 10 years of extra time would have given us.

I agree that sitting in Safeco is breath-taking, or the skyline from Jacobs' Field (Progressive Field?) Park rankings are listicles. And most of them are by people who haven't visited all 30 parks. I make the assiduous decision to stop reading the ones that describe parks that have nothing to do with what they purport to be describing. And many of these take lazy whacks at Rate by calling it "crumbling" or "dangerous". 

[southsider2k5]

25 minutes ago, WestEddy said:

I agree that sitting in Safeco is breath-taking, or the skyline from Jacobs' Field (Progressive Field?) Park rankings are listicles. And most of them are by people who haven't visited all 30 parks. I make the assiduous decision to stop reading the ones that describe parks that have nothing to do with what they purport to be describing. And many of these take lazy whacks at Rate by calling it "crumbling" or "dangerous". 

Crumbling?

[caulfield12]

About the best you can say is it's Kauffman without the fountains/astroturf (originally)...or about as disappointing as the 2010 Twins' facility.

Maybe better than the Astrodome (hate all domed parks tbh), older stadiums in Cleveland/Pitt/Cincy/Philly that were all replaced by MUCH nicer modernized "palaces," etc.

Perhaps older folks would hate the newer Marlins stadium (original version) or Chase Field...but there's just no way it's NOT somewhere in the bottom 3-5 facilities existing today.

Rays Stadium?  Well that's going to be gone soon, too.

 

If it was sold out every game and just gave you that incredible home field or court advantage...psychologically, the perceived fan experience or perception would be markedly improved.

For example, Busch Stadium wasn't all that great, but StL fans always packed it on weekends, so it felt like a fun place to go as a teenager in the 80s.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by caulfield12

[WestEddy]

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Crumbling?

Yes, I have seen one of these describe it as crumbling. 

[southsider2k5]

1 hour ago, WestEddy said:

Yes, I have seen one of these describe it as crumbling. 

Where?

[caulfield12]

 

Crumbling Concrete Near White Sox Stadium Could Put Fans In Harm's ...

www.cbsnews.com › ... › Local News

May 11, 2018 · CHICAGO (CBS) -- A CBS 2 original report of the potential dangers White Sox fans could be facing as they walk to Guaranteed Rate Field.

 

What's wrong with our stadium? : r/whitesox - Reddit

www.reddit.com › whitesox › comments

May 11, 2024 · If it wasn't literally crumbling apart, they might still be using it today. ... Guaranteed rate field has always been an awful stadium compared to ..

 

 

Now search crumbling and Wrigley lol...

Edited 5 hours ago by caulfield12

[southsider2k5]

11 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

 

Crumbling Concrete Near White Sox Stadium Could Put Fans In Harm's ...

www.cbsnews.com › ... › Local News

May 11, 2018 · CHICAGO (CBS) -- A CBS 2 original report of the potential dangers White Sox fans could be facing as they walk to Guaranteed Rate Field.

 

What's wrong with our stadium? : r/whitesox - Reddit

www.reddit.com › whitesox › comments

May 11, 2024 · If it wasn't literally crumbling apart, they might still be using it today. ... Guaranteed rate field has always been an awful stadium compared to ..

 

 

Now search crumbling and Wrigley lol...

The viaduct IS crumbling,  but is NOT the stadium.  

I can't even figure out what the second thing is, but it appears to be talking about the original stadium. Are you referencing just a reddit commentor?

[caulfield12]

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The viaduct IS crumbling,  but is NOT the stadium.  

I can't even figure out what the second thing is, but it appears to be talking about the original stadium. Are you referencing just a reddit commentor?

I couldn't even open it on my phone.

Yes assuming that it has to do with either the original stadium or some crack about the upper deck in GRF.

Or maybe it's just crumbling infrastructure in that area of the city.. although that feels more like an 80s and 90s jab, with most of those high rises having been demolished.

[77 Hitmen]

4 hours ago, WestEddy said:

Most of the listicles I see takes swipes at the park that tell me the writer hasn't visited. They describe it as crumbling, dangerous. Newspapers are laying off writers or just closing the doors. Like eHow is going to pay somebody to visit 30 ballparks and rank them? I'm sure most of the criticism comes from people reading previous reviews and regurgitating. 

 

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

I have been to about 20 different MLB ballparks over the years.  I think this typical praise of "it's not that bad" is remarkably accurate for it.  It's not terrible, but it is absolutely nothing special.  If you think of all of the typical things that make stadiums stand out, it has none of them.  There is no special attraction, there is no skyline views, there is no activity around the ballpark besides the game (unless you want to drink at your parking place) and definitely none after the game, you enter at the very bottom of the stadium, giving an experience of everything being very high, even if it isn't that much different from low seat to high seat.  The stadiums layering has no overlapping, which also makes the upper levels feel even more detached from playetc.  It's a lazy attempt to disqualify those things as "listicles" instead of realizing that they are just easy ways to tell ballparks apart.  The new park was a vast improvement over the 70's generic ballpark experience, but when the "new" park building phase really took hold, Sox Park got left behind.  It just happened that the Sox went first in building their new park, and didn't have the 20/20 vision of seeing what others had done, that even 5 to 10 years of extra time would have given us.

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.  

[77 Hitmen]

2 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

About the best you can say is it's Kauffman without the fountains/astroturf (originally)...or about as disappointing as the 2010 Twins' facility.

Maybe better than the Astrodome (hate all domed parks tbh), older stadiums in Cleveland/Pitt/Cincy/Philly that were all replaced by MUCH nicer modernized "palaces," etc.

Perhaps older folks would hate the newer Marlins stadium (original version) or Chase Field...but there's just no way it's NOT somewhere in the bottom 3-5 facilities existing today.

Rays Stadium?  Well that's going to be gone soon, too.

 

If it was sold out every game and just gave you that incredible home field or court advantage...psychologically, the perceived fan experience or perception would be markedly improved.

For example, Busch Stadium wasn't all that great, but StL fans always packed it on weekends, so it felt like a fun place to go as a teenager in the 80s.

 

The Royals want out of Kauffman Stadium.  I know the stadium issue has been a bit of a debacle in KC, but I'd be shocked if they're still at Kauffman after their lease is up in 2030.  

It also looks like they've ruled out a potential suburban stadium location on a huge campus in Overland Park and that their focus now is to build something in downtown KC.

[WestEddy]

8 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 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. 

 

[caulfield12]

4 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

The Royals want out of Kauffman Stadium.  I know the stadium issue has been a bit of a debacle in KC, but I'd be shocked if they're still at Kauffman after their lease is up in 2030.  

It also looks like they've ruled out a potential suburban stadium location on a huge campus in Overland Park and that their focus now is to build something in downtown KC.

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.