4 minutes ago, almagest said:

Is Bridgeport really gentrifying? Because it's been "gentrifying" since I was at IIT in the early 2000s, and not much has changed whenever I've visited friends when back in town or gone to Sox games. It also doesn't have great public transportation access unless you live near Sox/35th red line stop or the Ashland Orange Line stop.

Seems like most of the serious gentrification over the past couple decades has been along the N Milwaukee corridor.

It's nothing like what has become of Wicker Park, Logan Square, those places along the Milwaukee corridor. More family-oriented. And Chinese. Not as wealthy or yuppy. But home prices are high, crime is basically non-existent and it would hard to see that trend not continuing. Smacking down a big industrial site in place of an entertainment venue wouldn't help. Chinatown is definitely yuppified and spreading out. I live east of the Dan Ryan and I probably would not have even 10 years ago.

East-west public transit isn't great but it's not phenomenal on the north side either. Orange and Red lines (and Green, how could I forget Green...it's redundant to me) are pretty easily accessible as well as express buses to take you to the Loop.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by nrockway

3 minutes ago, Mouthsider said:

I do think there’s a fine line to walk in which this move, though puzzling, could still serve to positively develop Bridgeport in some ways. h. jones raised some good points regarding concessions:

Things like that would be great for the neighborhood, and would definitely help to make lemonade out of Amtrak’s lemons. However, unless prodded by relevant politicians, I’m not sure of Amtrak will do that out of the kindness of their hearts.

I’m pulling for Bridgeport. After all, we wouldn’t be the “South Siders” without our south side neighborhoods.

I'm concerned that this public review doesn't actually get done and concessions aren't made. The land is already sold, right. This federal administration is running amok with our public assets and this is just a local example of it, I feel.

11 minutes ago, nrockway said:

I'm concerned that this public review doesn't actually get done and concessions aren't made. The land is already sold, right. This federal administration is running amok with our public assets and this is just a local example of it, I feel.

Fair points. I’m just spitballing out of wishful thinking. The next residential meeting is the 26th, so I guess we’ll get our answers then.

But at least it's not an even more evil data center...?

https://nypost.com/2026/08/21/sports/mets-fans-startled-by-hand-creeping-through-hole-in-citi-field-stands-to-snag-peanuts-hot-dog/

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by caulfield12

Oh, for the days when mere billionaires were hated...did it all start with Mr. Potter in Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life"?

Now you pretty much have to be a deca-billionaire or PE behemoth to even register on the public radar.

You've recently got the likes of Bezos and the Kushners with pretty much zero knowledge of sports collecting teams like trophies just for prestige or as a cocktail party talking point.

They only look at it as a way to diversify their portfolios/tax write off and way to potentially out return index funds...as long-term bond markets start to crash in the face of another yet $20+ trillion in crushing debt added in the past decade.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by caulfield12

1 hour ago, Mouthsider said:

I think this is exactly the problem. Bridgeporters can’t even afford to be upset about losing the Sox; they’ve been ambushed by plans of turning a significant amount of their neighborhood into a railyard/maintenance center. Nobody wants to see that type of industrial development grafted into a thriving neighborhood, let alone the residents. It’s gonna be interesting to see what (if anything) is done to placate the mob.

You know that the land they're looking at is currently a freight yard? It's not going to be all that different to be honest.

5 minutes ago, ron883 said:

You know that the land they're looking at is currently a freight yard? It's not going to be all that different to be honest.

Exactly.

Honestly nothing could be more distortionary than Soxmachine giving voice to the people that show up to meetings like these.

As someone that goes to many of them as a freak that actually believes towns and cities can change in good and bad ways, it is always the same thing:
1) Change is proposed that will be broadly beneficial but narrowly, minorly painful, and never to their explicit property
2) Small group of people show up from the narrowly painful group
3) They claim that everything is moving too fast, no matter how fast it is moving
4) They claim they will need more studies because of noise, shadows, the environment and no amount of studies are never enough
5) They stall and cry that it is being done against the will of the people and try to get a referendum set-up for off-election waves
6) They scream to anyone they can listen to about how it will ruin everything, how no one has considered anything, and try to get it to stall and stall and stall

7) And boy do they vote.

This is particularly annoying to me because, on net, if you lived in bridgeport and expect to keep working for the sox - this is...not losing you much in terms of jobs or commute? In fact perhaps a net-new for jobs when combined with the chicago Fire.

The proposed land, as ever, is never raising historical artifacts, it's just repurposing a railway.

Now bridgeport is no longer dealing with gameday traffic, and can infill with more year round businesses or park space, and likely could get a decent bit of investment to do so (university nearby/highway).

2 hours ago, h. jones said:

Particularly with railroads (who control their right of way and very flexible rights to build upon their property), it's a far wiser strategy for residents/neighbors to coalesce around a list of requested enhancements to a project (i.e., please build this sound-buffering wall; we'd like a pedestrian/bicycle overpass/walkway; can you add more greenery to the borders for aesthetics; please donate $x to the community park in the neighborhood, etc.) than to think for a moment that opposing it will do anything at all.

Also, it's changing from a freight yard to a larger passenger service facility building/yard - far less pollution, far less danger of hazardous materials handling; if I lived in the area, I would view that as a huge positive change.

You strike me as somebody who is familiar with how this stuff works. Are/were you in any of the industries that are involved in land transactions like this?

Piggybacking on what you said - a maintenance facility is easily preferable to a freight yard from an environmental standpoint. You'll get much less diesel exhaust and particulate matter emissions from commuter trains compared to all that freight traffic. That's by far the most impactful thing to the health of residents. The maintenance facility will have petroleum products and solvents and such, but we don't drink the groundwater here so it doesn't really matter.

19 minutes ago, ron883 said:

You know that the land they're looking at is currently a freight yard? It's not going to be all that different to be honest.

I know it’s currently a railyard, but it’s specifically a mostly unused railyard that’s a world away from what Amtrak is describing as its replacement. I’m not anti-Amtrak by any means, but residents are justified in worrying about the effects of a 24/7 maintenance facility going up right next to them.

This next part is a bit speculative, but Amtrak is already saying that Lots C and G will be required to construct the facility. There’s been some wonder as to what’s going to happen to those lots after the Sox move. It seems that writing is starting to appear on the wall.

Honestly? A few of you need to read up on property law and how much influence the railroads had on things like immement domain and the legal authority has to seize private property and call it "improvement" so it's perfectly legal. It's been codified by the Supreme Court in recent decades too.

If a railroad wants to do something it is legally near impossible to stop.

51 minutes ago, ron883 said:

You know that the land they're looking at is currently a freight yard? It's not going to be all that different to be honest.

Which also goes a long way towards neighborhood effects conversations.

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Honestly? A few of you need to read up on property law and how much influence the railroads had on things like immement domain and the legal authority has to seize private property and call it "improvement" so it's perfectly legal. It's been codified by the Supreme Court in recent decades too.

If a railroad wants to do something it is legally near impossible to stop.

I don’t see anyone is claiming that what Amtrak’s doing is illegal. The closest thing I see to that is users, myself included, worrying about the potential effect(s) this will have on Bridgeport and/or wondering the possible benefits Bridgeporters could negotiate for. All of that is perfectly legal.

Edited 45 minutes ago45 min by Mouthsider

5 minutes ago, Mouthsider said:

I don’t see anyone is claiming that what Amtrak’s doing is illegal. The closest thing I see to that is users, myself included, worrying about the potential effect(s) this will have on Bridgeport and/or wondering the possible benefits Bridgeporters could negotiate for. All of that is perfectly legal.

All of the discussions about "legal review" etc are completely and utterly a wasted circle jerk.

2 hours ago, tray said:

Neighborhood residents should do everything they can to stop Ishbia from destroying their neighborhood, like local residents have done to stop the building of AI power centers and ICE detention centers. The appearance of a 4 story train warehouse right on 35th street? You git to be kidding me. Noise , rumbling and pollution from diesel engines? Vermin from stagnant rail cars? The destruction of the Armor Fieldhouse and Rate Field with nothing even proposed to replace them? Fine urban planning from the man from Detroit who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth. I mean, fvk him.

But Ishbia is Chicago's Trump, a guy who seeks to do whatever he, in his sole discretion wants to do. You want ballroom and big Arch? You get ballroom and big Arch. From his overblown mansion in Winnetka, Ishbia has nothing in common with the White Sox fan base or middle class people from the South side of Chicago or Southwest suburbs. He is more powerful than a speeding locomotive, faster than a speeding bullet. Need Kryptonite to stop this greedy billionaire from taking the South side permanently out of the White Sox.

Yup, nothing more representative of the Chicago working man than New York Jerry…lol. This has to be one of the most unhinged posts in board history.

4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

All of the discussions about "legal review" etc are completely and utterly a wasted circle jerk.

Again, I don’t see that. I just searched this topic for “legal” and the only comments I see from the past week are mine and yours from this exchange (outside of another related to the Bears’ stadium, not the Sox’s). I think everyone’s on the same page that this is happening.

I don’t mean to be pedantic with this, but I genuinely don’t know what you’re getting at.