4 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Again, the easiest thing would be just to stand pat on both accounts. He didn't stand pat with the Bulls. He also isn't standing pat with the Sox. He's taking on risk both on the west side of Chicago, and massive risk in the south Loop. The most simple thing to do would be the status quo in Bridgeport. He didn't do that, even before the sale announcement with looking for a new park in the 78. The next easiest thing to do would be to build new on site in Bridgeport. He didn't do that in the 78 pitch, nor does he appear to be doing that with the crazy complex transaction about to happen around the south loop. That is NOT the most simple explanation.

Nearly all of this consists of rebuttals that I’ve already provided reason or answer for in my prior comments, and it seems like this probably isn’t going to get anywhere. I say we just agree to disagree. Deal?

Just now, Mouthsider said:

Nearly all of this consists of rebuttals that I’ve already provided reason or answer for in my prior comments, and it seems like this probably isn’t going to get anywhere. I say we just agree to disagree. Deal?

Sure, but it doesn't actually agree with your premise. Easy is status quo.

14 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

Could you imagine if DeBartolo was allowed to buy the White Sox and JR wound up buying the Cubs a year later? They would have moved out of Wrigley. Old park, no lights at that time, and no parking lots as far as the eye can see. They would be playing in a suburban ballmall (one word Marriotti got right) with a Pittsburgh Pirates like payroll.

Rumor has it that the Tribune only bought the Cubs because they were afraid the team would leave WGN to join the Sox in on cable TV. I don't know if there's any truth to that, but can you imagine an alternate reality where the Cubs leave Wrigley Field and WGN just as it was becoming a nationwide superstation?

Latest rumor about the new Bears stadium is it will be built in Arlington Heights but the agreement won't come until after the November 2026 election. The politicians in Illinois will vote for it after the election is over with.

Edited September 1Sep 1 by WBWSF

40 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Latest rumor about the new Bears stadium is it will be built in Arlington Heights but the agreement won't come until after the November 2026 election. The politicians in Illinois will vote for it after the election is over with.

Can you link a source to this rumor please?

3 hours ago, kba said:

The feds have already committed $600 million to the Amtrak relocation, and Ishbia is kicking in another $125 million, so it's extremely unlikely that the city will walk away from that kind of investment (and the potential for billions of dollars more to redevelop the current Amtrak site.)

But in the event that happened, the original 78 site south of the soccer stadium could still be a possibility for a ballpark.

Good point. That's a lot of private and federal investment for an upgrade that Amtrak has said they need to make.

I suppose another potential point of failure is funding for the stadium itself. Surely Ishbia is well aware that the state (correctly) is saying No to taxpayer money going to building a stadium (not counting infrastructure) and that any new ballpark would need to be privately-financed (aside from infrastructure). But the only proposal that has gone public so far is JR's, which does ask for a substantial amount of taxpayer money.

1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

Latest rumor about the new Bears stadium is it will be built in Arlington Heights but the agreement won't come until after the November 2026 election. The politicians in Illinois will vote for it after the election is over with.

51 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Can you link a source to this rumor please?

To clarify, the Illinois General Assembly veto session isn't scheduled to start until after the election. So, unless they call for a special session, they wouldn't be going out of their way to delay action until after the election.

4 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Good point. That's a lot of private and federal investment for an upgrade that Amtrak has said they need to make.

I suppose another potential point of failure is funding for the stadium itself. Surely Ishbia is well aware that the state (correctly) is saying No to taxpayer money going to building a stadium (not counting infrastructure) and that any new ballpark would need to be privately-financed (aside from infrastructure). But the only proposal that has gone public so far is JR's, which does ask for a substantial amount of taxpayer money.

If Amtrak isn't able to upgrade in Bridgeport what other location would be feasible for them?

1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Good point. That's a lot of private and federal investment for an upgrade that Amtrak has said they need to make.

I suppose another potential point of failure is funding for the stadium itself. Surely Ishbia is well aware that the state (correctly) is saying No to taxpayer money going to building a stadium (not counting infrastructure) and that any new ballpark would need to be privately-financed (aside from infrastructure). But the only proposal that has gone public so far is JR's, which does ask for a substantial amount of taxpayer money.

Crain's Chicago Business did some good reporting on the various federal programs that Ishbia is trying to tap into to redevelop the current Amtrak site - and possibly the adjoining BNSF site - along the river. His company has applied for a $1.8 billion loan through the Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing (RRIF) program which offers friendly lending terms. There's also pending legislation in Congress that would make any Amtrak property exempt from property taxes and sales taxes on construction materials if it's redeveloped through the RRIF program.

So lots of opportunities here to get government help without making a substantial ask in the state legislature or city hall.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/real-estate/commercial/ccb-justin-ishbia-amtrak-south-loop-20260814/?utm_id=gfta-ur-260814&share-code=RSXFGSVDONBBLMWZF7I6IV2CEU&user_id=2284762&customer_secondary_source=ccb_articleGifting

A business partner and friend of mine who lives in Brighton Park is all for a proposed stadium at the Amtrak/BNSF site. He pointed out that it will be accessible to his neighborhood but even moreso to residents of Pilsen and Little Village. No trains needed. They can drive a short distance or come in on CTA buses down Cermak, 16th, 18th, 26th streets etc. A short hop. It's potentially going to be a positive for those neighborhoods - especially Pilsen. Los White Sox.

He did share a laugh at the expense of Cub fans. He told me that he went to one of the Crosstown games and sat near a section with some tough hombres. As he described it they took care of business when a couple of Cub fans got nasty.

Edited September 2Sep 2 by tray

14 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Good point. That's a lot of private and federal investment for an upgrade that Amtrak has said they need to make.

I suppose another potential point of failure is funding for the stadium itself. Surely Ishbia is well aware that the state (correctly) is saying No to taxpayer money going to building a stadium (not counting infrastructure) and that any new ballpark would need to be privately-financed (aside from infrastructure). But the only proposal that has gone public so far is JR's, which does ask for a substantial amount of taxpayer money.

I am guessing that Ishbia self finances and makes the stadium a team asset to drive valuation.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

I am guessing that Ishbia self finances and makes the stadium a team asset to drive valuation.

See Stan Kroenke/SoFi Stadium, and attached entertainment district project

Or an even more extreme example is Ricketts on the Northside.

Edited September 2Sep 2 by caulfield12

Remember when I said how the rules were written for railroads and by railroads?

I'll feel alot better about the new White Sox stadium in the South Loop when they start building it. I just saw on TV the new George Lucas museum that was built in LA. It looks spectacular both inside and outside. It should be a tremendous success. They're expecting millions of people to come see the museum. This same museum was originally suppose to be built in Chicago. Friends of the Park killed it. I would think the City of Chicago would have bent over backwords to get that museum built here. I'm sure they could have offered an alternative site to the lakefront. Opposing that museum being built here was crazy. It would have been a tremendous addition to the city.

3 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

I'll feel alot better about the new White Sox stadium in the South Loop when they start building it. I just saw on TV the new George Lucas museum that was built in LA. It looks spectacular both inside and outside. It should be a tremendous success. They're expecting millions of people to come see the museum. This same museum was originally suppose to be built in Chicago. Friends of the Park killed it. I would think the City of Chicago would have bent over backwords to get that museum built here. I'm sure they could have offered an alternative site to the lakefront. Opposing that museum being built here was crazy. It would have been a tremendous addition to the city.

Except that is the way the law is written in Grant Park. It's almost impossible to build there due to people like Montgomery. Friends of the Park is just standing up for those rules.

50 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

If anyone here has a gift link to that Crain’s article and would care to share or is willing to copy/paste the article, it would be very appreciated.

Nevermind. Here’s a free link.

Edited September 2Sep 2 by Mouthsider

29 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Except that is the way the law is written in Grant Park. It's almost impossible to build there due to people like Montgomery. Friends of the Park is just standing up for those rules.

I would think that finding another site would have been the way to go. That museum was built with private money. The taxpayers in LA didn't pay anything for the museum.

6 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said:

So, why in the world would Amtrak voluntarily submit to city zoning review when 1) they don’t have to and 2) Ald Lee has said she’ll block the project NO MATTER WHAT? Am I missing something? To avoid angering residents? The residents who are saying they just want this killed period no matter what?

I think they’d be absolutely crazy to agree to voluntarily do this when the city official has said she’ll fight to kill this no matter what Amtrak might say about mitigation measures.

So, Mayor Johnson basically killed the Bears stadium deal (likely sending them out of state) because he thinks the team should stay in Chicago even though the team doesn’t want to stay. Now Ald Lee wants to kill a Sox stadium plan because she thinks the team should stay in Bridgeport even though they don’t want to stay.

The fact that the city is so willing to kill $700M in federal money and a chance to modernize Amtrak operations here really says a lot about why this city is in such a downward spiral and has trouble keeping businesses.

Edited September 3Sep 3 by 77 Hitmen

In other stadium news, it looks like the Angels will indeed get a new ballpark under the new ownership. I posted this in the Angels Sold thread, but posting it here for people who don’t look at the Diamond Club forum.

Stan Kroenke Reportedly Plans to Build New $2.5B Angels S...

Stan Kroenke reportedly isn't going to wait long to make significant changes surrounding the Los Angeles Angels after purchasing the team.

35 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

In other stadium news, it looks like the Angels will indeed get a new ballpark under the new ownership. I posted this in the Angels Sold thread, but posting it here for people who don’t look at the Diamond Club forum.

Stan Kroenke Reportedly Plans to Build New $2.5B Angels S...

Stan Kroenke reportedly isn't going to wait long to make significant changes surrounding the Los Angeles Angels after purchasing the team.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/angels-may-be-stan-kroenke-s-team-but-land-could-be-real-prize/ar-AA2brpei?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Looks unlikely the Angels would be moved anywhere near SoFi/entertainment district...proximity to Disneyland just as important, even though the City of Anaheim actually owns the land.

17 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/angels-may-be-stan-kroenke-s-team-but-land-could-be-real-prize/ar-AA2brpei?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Looks unlikely the Angels would be moved anywhere near SoFi/entertainment district...proximity to Disneyland just as important, even though the City of Anaheim actually owns the land.

The Angels were drawing 3M a year before Covid. Post Covid, they’ve dropped to the 2.5M range, but they’ve also lost at least 89 games every year post covid and going for over 100 losses this year

The location has worked well for them. The problem is an aging, bland ballpark that is surrounded by acres of surface lots. There’s probably enough room on those lots to build a new stadium next to the old one. As the article says, the city could sell the land, but the previous attempt with Moreno got stalled because of corruption charges.

.

17 hours ago, WBWSF said:

I'll feel alot better about the new White Sox stadium in the South Loop when they start building it. I just saw on TV the new George Lucas museum that was built in LA. It looks spectacular both inside and outside. It should be a tremendous success. They're expecting millions of people to come see the museum. This same museum was originally suppose to be built in Chicago. Friends of the Park killed it. I would think the City of Chicago would have bent over backwords to get that museum built here. I'm sure they could have offered an alternative site to the lakefront. Opposing that museum being built here was crazy. It would have been a tremendous addition to the city.

California deserves to at least have one thing go their way besides the weather...seems every other article recently is about people leaving the state for AZ NM TX CO Idaho Utah Montana Wyoming Nevada...or Nashville lol.

4 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/general/angels-may-be-stan-kroenke-s-team-but-land-could-be-real-prize/ar-AA2brpei?ocid=BingNewsSerp

Looks unlikely the Angels would be moved anywhere near SoFi/entertainment district...proximity to Disneyland just as important, even though the City of Anaheim actually owns the land.

The Anaheim Ducks are actually looking to build out a hockey village just across the expressway already. It seems Kroenke may want to get in on that action via adding baseball village.

Depending on the timelines, those two developments may provide us with a good model for what to expect from any potential White Sox and Fire collaborations for their respective stadium districts.

42 minutes ago, Mouthsider said:

The Anaheim Ducks are actually looking to build out a hockey village just across the expressway already. It seems Kroenke may want to get in on that action via adding baseball village.

Depending on the timelines, those two developments may provide us with a good model for what to expect from any potential White Sox and Fire collaborations for their respective stadium districts.

Yep, OC Vibe - a 100 acre entertainment district. It sounds bigger than the 1901 Project. It’s right across I-5 from Angel Stadium.

Urbanize LA

Another batch of renderings revealed for the massive OC V...

The slow trickle of eye candy continues for the sprawling OC Vibe development in Anaheim.

Edited September 3Sep 3 by 77 Hitmen