11 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

 

What does this mean  for a future White Sox stadium there.? There talking apartments around there and other things.

29 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

What does this mean  for a future White Sox stadium there.? There talking apartments around there and other things.

Jerry is likely still futiley working on getting a taxpayer-funded stadium before he agrees to chip in with the Fire.

45 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

What does this mean  for a future White Sox stadium there.? There talking apartments around there and other things.

I believe that apartments and such were always part of the original plan. The lot is still big enough to hold two stadiums and as of now the site hasn't been ruled out for a Sox stadium. They've been mum on it since a few months ago when they mentioned that they were still considering the site after the Fire announced their plans. I believe that the Fire plan to have the stadium opened in 2028, so they need to get going on construction and all that jazz.

56 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

What does this mean  for a future White Sox stadium there.? There talking apartments around there and other things.

According to the Crain's story: "(3rd Ward Ald. Pat) Dowell also restated that her support is contingent on the Fire stadium being the only one at the 78, addressing the lingering question of whether Related would continue to pursue a potential Chicago White Sox stadium at the 78 in the future."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/chicago-fire-related-midwest-win-ok-stadium-78

I think the 78 is out. Maybe they go to the Lincoln Yards site. I think most of the ownership has passed and they haven’t had anything there. Right next to the Kennedy and Metra stop. 

23 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

According to the Crain's story: "(3rd Ward Ald. Pat) Dowell also restated that her support is contingent on the Fire stadium being the only one at the 78, addressing the lingering question of whether Related would continue to pursue a potential Chicago White Sox stadium at the 78 in the future."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/chicago-fire-related-midwest-win-ok-stadium-78

You left out the next sentence, but the following few seem to be important as well.  TL:DR, they still seem to not be ruling it out as of now.

Quote

The developer and Major League Baseball team began publicly pitching plans for a ballpark at the 78 early last year, and Bailey has not precluded it from future plans.

Dowell said the rezoning amendment for the site includes language that ensures only one stadium can be constructed on the site "without coming back to (the Plan Commission) and the community."

Codifying that sends a message to Related about the prospect of a Sox stadium, though it leaves a path for Related to potentially pursue that in the future.

The Sox said publicly when the Fire unveiled the stadium vision in June that a baseball stadium could fit alongside the Fire venue. A source familiar with the Sox's plan said the team is "keeping all their options open" for their future home, whether that is at Rate Field in Bridgeport or elsewhere.

 

34 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

According to the Crain's story: "(3rd Ward Ald. Pat) Dowell also restated that her support is contingent on the Fire stadium being the only one at the 78, addressing the lingering question of whether Related would continue to pursue a potential Chicago White Sox stadium at the 78 in the future."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/chicago-fire-related-midwest-win-ok-stadium-78

If Ald, Dowell is opposed to a privately owned White Sox stadium at the 78 she should get a kick in her behind. I would think the City of Chicago would welcome  a privately owned baseball stadium with open arms.

38 minutes ago, waltwilliams said:

According to the Crain's story: "(3rd Ward Ald. Pat) Dowell also restated that her support is contingent on the Fire stadium being the only one at the 78, addressing the lingering question of whether Related would continue to pursue a potential Chicago White Sox stadium at the 78 in the future."

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/commercial-real-estate/chicago-fire-related-midwest-win-ok-stadium-78

And as soon as they get what they want on the next thing, they will be OK with it.  This is Chicago politics at its finest.

16 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

If Ald, Dowell is opposed to a privately owned White Sox stadium at the 78 she should get a kick in her behind. I would think the City of Chicago would welcome  a privately owned baseball stadium with open arms.

Tell me where and when has JR publicly said it will be "privately owned/funded?"

To the best of my knowledge he has not done so.  

He wants someone else to pay for it. That is a big hang up right now with many politicians understandably so.

 

3 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Tell me where and when has JR publicly said it will be "privately owned/funded?"

To the best of my knowledge he has not done so.  

He wants someone else to pay for it. That is a big hang up right now with many politicians understandably so.

 

Someone else is going to pay for it, the new owner. At least I hope so. I can't imagine the new owner wants to stay at the present location.

2 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Someone else is going to pay for it, the new owner. At least I hope so. I can't imagine the new owner wants to stay at the present location.

My point is until that "new owner" comes out and says he's paying for it, politicians aren't going to stick their necks out for JR.

You'll stay at the present location and like it! 😄

1 hour ago, Dick Allen said:

I think the 78 is out. Maybe they go to the Lincoln Yards site. I think most of the ownership has passed and they haven’t had anything there. Right next to the Kennedy and Metra stop. 

Is there really enough room there for a modern baseball stadium plus more?

On 9/17/2025 at 12:58 PM, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

How is Chicago declining? Cities are measured by the size of their metropolitan area population. Last year it went up .65%, which was up from .53 the year before and .4 the year after that.

Name a single "large media market" without a team. The top 14 markets in the country have baseball teams - it's one reason Tampa/St Pete have a team at all. The top 3 markets, of which Chicago is a part of, all have two teams at this point too.

The statistical area is shrinking...it just is. You can measure it a couple different ways.

Chicagoland might boom in population following climate apocalypse as another poster alluded to. Although, the southern shore of Lake Superior seems to be the most resilient place to climate change. Duluth and Marquette might become major urban centers if, like, California and Florida sink into the ocean.

Anyway, my point isn't to say that Chicago can't handle two teams, it's that there are plenty of other markets in which to make money if the deal is sweet enough.

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

The statistical area is shrinking...it just is. You can measure it a couple different ways.

Chicagoland might boom in population following climate apocalypse as another poster alluded to. Although, the southern shore of Lake Superior seems to be the most resilient place to climate change. Duluth and Marquette might become major urban centers if, like, California and Florida sink into the ocean.

Anyway, my point isn't to say that Chicago can't handle two teams, it's that there are plenty of other markets in which to make money if the deal is sweet enough.

Name the ways. I just presented facts that the Chicago metro area is continuing to grow and expand. Please show me one statistic that says Chicago is shrinking. Ive heard a lot of this bs narrative that doesnt align with actual population growth. 

I dont think you understand how large Chicago is relative to other markets. You compared it to Nashville which is laughable.

Edited September 18, 2025Sep 18 by Look at Ray Ray Run

7 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Name the ways. I just presented facts that the Chicago metro area is continuing to grow and expand. Please show me one statistic that says Chicago is shrinking. Ive heard a lot of this bs narrative that doesnt align with actual population growth. 

I dont think you understand how large Chicago is relative to other markets. You compared it to Nashville which is laughable.

The City of Chicago?  Shrinking.   

The Metro Area?  No.

3 hours ago, Dick Allen said:

I think the 78 is out. Maybe they go to the Lincoln Yards site. I think most of the ownership has passed and they haven’t had anything there. Right next to the Kennedy and Metra stop. 

Lincoln Yards North got bought and is being developed by a different developer. They already have a plan for it. 

Is Lincoln Yards South really big enough for a stadium? Feels like it would be a really tight squeeze. Not much room for parking or anything else. 

1 hour ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Is there really enough room there for a modern baseball stadium plus more?

I don't think so. I've walked Lincoln Yards. I guess it's hard to gauge when it is a vacant lot - but it doesn't feel all that big. I think you could fit the stadium, but not much more. 

7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The City of Chicago?  Shrinking.   

The Metro Area?  No.

Yup, which for a baseball team doesnt really matter. What matters is population that is around the team. TV markets dont care if youre in city limits or metro limit.

1 hour ago, WhiteSox2023 said:

Is there really enough room there for a modern baseball stadium plus more?

Not without realigning Cortland, and even then it would be an awkard fit for the lot and the location. I imagine the Cubs would not be happy and would lobby alderman to nix the plan. A Fire stadium maybe, but certainly not for the Sox. 

6 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

Name the ways. I just presented facts that the Chicago metro area is continuing to grow and expand. Please show me one statistic that says Chicago is shrinking. Ive heard a lot of this bs narrative that doesnt align with actual population growth. 

I dont think you understand how large Chicago is relative to other markets. You compared it to Nashville which is laughable.

Ok here's one: the US Census.

April 1, 2020 Estimates Base	Population Estimate (as of July 1)
	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024

 

.Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN Metro Area

9,454,363

9,439,531

9,362,043

9,310,017

9,337,814

9,408,576

 

.Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metro Area

7,638,258

7,667,594

7,776,611

7,973,603

8,166,110

8,344,032

.San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA Metro Area

4,753,655

4,745,673

4,621,751

4,599,793

4,609,445

4,648,486

..Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley, CA Metro Division

 

..Oakland-Fremont-Berkeley, CA Metro Divisionoak

2,848,279

2,846,779

2,807,669

2,795,989

2,800,321

2,821,667

 

.Las Vegas-Henderson-North Las Vegas, NV Metro Area

2,266,452

2,275,970

2,296,651

2,321,961

2,354,285

2,398,871

.Nashville-Davidson--Murfreesboro--Franklin, TN Metro Area

2,014,425

2,021,825

2,033,685

2,077,922

2,113,986

2,150,553

Virginia Beach-Chesapeake-Norfolk, VA-NC Metro Area

1,780,046

1,781,773

1,785,817

1,785,895

1,788,412

1,794,278

.Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI Metro Area

1,574,735

1,574,565

1,563,631

1,564,152

1,567,889

1,574,452

.Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metro Area

6,245,017

6,242,286

6,254,431

6,252,024

6,280,902

6,330,422

I've accidentally deleted this post, like, 5 times trying to fix the formatting...and all of the commentary removed as well. CMD+shift+z is just deleting everything...still better formatting than most PHPBB boards.

The idea is that the North is literally shrinking and people are moving south...but also, the Brewers somehow double the Sox attendance and the Phillies triple it. Population isn't everything. But your point is that the region is growing...it isn't. It's stagnant or shrinking. In terms of longer term growth rates, Chicagoland is basically just "people having babies" whereas most of the South is simply booming. This is a concern of local policymakers, all the people leaving Chicago and going South.

Climate apocalypse might help tho!!

The other idea is 'rates of change of growth' (think back to your high school calculus class). Chicagoland has "grown" since 2010, but at what rate? How does that compare to southern markets and what does that imply about the future? 

Nashville is booming, so are parts of Florida, and people in Nashville have money. Nashville's median income is, like, 1.7 times higher than in Chicago. And we're talking about the South Side team...how does it compare to the North Side? I'm not willing to compile the averages for CMAP data on a forum post...but it's lower than the North Side...what can you charge for a ticket in Nashville? 

Again, I don't think this is happening, but it's goofy to just rule it out entirely.

Edited September 19, 2025Sep 19 by nrockway

19 minutes ago, nrockway said:

The other idea is 'rates of change of growth' (think back to your high school calculus class). Chicagoland has "grown" since 2010, but at what rate? How does that compare to southern markets and what does that imply about the future? 

Nashville is booming, so are parts of Florida, and people in Nashville have money. Nashville's median income is, like, 1.7 times higher than in Chicago. And we're talking about the South Side team...how does it compare to the North Side? I'm not willing to compile the averages for CMAP data on a forum post...but it's lower than the North Side...what can you charge for a ticket in Nashville? 

Again, I don't think this is happening, but it's goofy to just rule it out entirely.

You think Nashville has more money than Chicago? Nashville is 20% the size of Chicago. The estimated value of a Nashville start up franchise is 1 billion..the Sox are worth twice that much. What you are saying is simply not feasible from a business perspective. Ive explained this before, but ishbia wouldnt buy in at a franchise valuation around 2 billion and cut his investment value in half by moving the team.

Also, why are you posting aged estimates for population? 

Glad to see you admitted its grown after proclaiming its shrinking.

Chicagos metro median income is 4k higher than nashville's too so no idea what youre talking about with nashville being 1.7× higher. 

Edited September 19, 2025Sep 19 by Look at Ray Ray Run

12 minutes ago, Look at Ray Ray Run said:

You think Nashville has more money than Chicago? Nashville is 20% the size of Chicago. The estimated value of a Nashville start up franchise is 1 billion..the Sox are worth twice that much. What you are saying is simply not feasible from a business perspective. Ive explained this before, but ishbia wouldnt buy in at a franchise valuation around 2 billion and cut his investment value in half by moving the team.

Also, why are you posting aged estimates for population? 

Glad to see you admitted its grown after proclaiming its shrinking.

Chicagos metro median income is 4k higher than nashville's too so no idea what youre talking about with nashville being 1.7× higher. 

I said it's 'grown' over a certain period of time. But you can look at the recent data (that I posted, did you even look at it?) and it's shrinking, my guy. 

The average Nashville resident has more money than your average Chicago resident. Particularly your average South Side/south suburbs resident. You only need to sell, like, 20,000 seats out of a population of millions.

One might think that 'investors' are thinking about future trends.

I dunno where you got those median income numbers. Turns out I was also wrong and median household income is roughly the same at $80k per the Census. Good reason not to trust the google AI...after some actual digging:

https://data.census.gov/profile/Nashville-Davidson_metropolitan_government_(balance),_Tennessee?g=160XX00US4752006

https://data.census.gov/profile?q=chicago+illinois

 

Discussion is good. Thanks for checking me. I'm not embarrassed to be wrong and change my point of view.

Four times higher though...wut

Edited September 19, 2025Sep 19 by nrockway

4 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I said it's 'grown' over a certain period of time. But you can look at the recent data (that I posted, did you even look at it?) and it's shrinking, my guy. 

The average Nashville resident has more money than your average Chicago resident. Particularly your average South Side/south suburbs resident. You only need to sell, like, 20,000 seats out of a population of millions.

One might think that 'investors' are thinking about future trends.

I dunno where you got those median income numbers. Turns out I was also wrong and median household income is roughly the same at $80k per the Census. Good reason not to trust the google AI...after some actual digging:

https://data.census.gov/profile/Nashville-Davidson_metropolitan_government_(balance),_Tennessee?g=160XX00US4752006

https://data.census.gov/profile?q=chicago+illinois

 

Discussion is good. Thanks for checking me. I'm not embarrassed to be wrong and change my point of view.

Four times higher though...wut

Census data is old. Not sure if you understand..chicago metro has had a higher income growth rate over the past 5 years which is how I got my numbers. Because it turns out the cost of labor on chicago is higher than the cost of labor in Nashville. I know this as a fact, hence how I knew your median income number was complete nonsense. 

Just like your population numbers were estimates and wrong, so were your median income numbers.

You seem to have a hard time understanding that the goal is to have more people so you need less of them to attend to fill the stadium 

Nashville is not a serious market for the White Sox, and your trend assessments are comical. Nashville would have to grow at 500% the rate chicago has been growing each year for 20 years to even match half the population. Obviously that isnt happening and no one thinks it will.

I said $4000 higher too pal, not 4x higher. Very big difference.