1 hour ago, 77 Hitmen said:

He should be putting his energy into getting support from Springfield to renovate Soldier Field for its post-Bears era instead of making futile efforts to keep the Bears in the city. One way or another, the Bears are leaving the city limits.

Yea, turning it into more of an event center will help them a lot. The friends of the park wanted all that power well now you got it, and you don’t have the bears in the way anymore.

29 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

You need to make up your mind if you want to talk to me or not. I mean, it’s pretty obvious how you try and bait everything.

I'm not going to respond to any of your nonsense unless you direct something toward me personally, or, as you have done, indirectly try to criticize me or my opinions.

52 minutes ago, tray said:

I'm not going to respond to any of your nonsense unless you direct something toward me personally, or, as you have done, indirectly try to criticize me or my opinions.

Good! Then it is decided!

Bears stadium deal is being slowed down in Springfield by hopes from Chicago lawmakers that the team will reconsider a Chicago site.

I find this statement hard to believe:

Democratic state Sen. Bill Cunningham of Chicago said in an interview that he and some legislative colleagues learned a few weeks ago that the Bears had expressed a willingness to revisit a lakefront stadium with Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office, before the mayor’s team told Chicago-based lawmakers about that conversation.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/05/20/key-lawmaker-says-suburban-bears-stadium-deal-is-dragging-due-to-hopes-team-will-reconsider-chicago-site/

I read that the 101 project around the United Center was approved by the city council. I've read that most of the project eliminates the parking around the United Center. Where are the people going to park their cars when they go to the United Center? Are they going to build parking garages somewhere in the area?

8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Bears stadium deal is being slowed down in Springfield by hopes from Chicago lawmakers that the team will reconsider a Chicago site.

I find this statement hard to believe:

Democratic state Sen. Bill Cunningham of Chicago said in an interview that he and some legislative colleagues learned a few weeks ago that the Bears had expressed a willingness to revisit a lakefront stadium with Mayor Brandon Johnson’s office, before the mayor’s team told Chicago-based lawmakers about that conversation.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2026/05/20/key-lawmaker-says-suburban-bears-stadium-deal-is-dragging-due-to-hopes-team-will-reconsider-chicago-site/

It’s just….who cares? The Bears have eliminated Chicago from landing spot possibilities. Is Chicago going to offer to pay every cent of it? Because that’s probably what it would take, and that’s not a smart way to spend tax dollars. So what, you think they bears want to go back to testing multiple spots for suitability and put Arlington heights up for sale? Nobody wants to do that right now just because Chicago is trying to get back into the race when the two front runners can see the finish line

54 minutes ago, Kyyle23 said:

It’s just….who cares? The Bears have eliminated Chicago from landing spot possibilities. Is Chicago going to offer to pay every cent of it? Because that’s probably what it would take, and that’s not a smart way to spend tax dollars. So what, you think they bears want to go back to testing multiple spots for suitability and put Arlington heights up for sale? Nobody wants to do that right now just because Chicago is trying to get back into the race when the two front runners can see the finish line

You have Jerry's attention.

3 hours ago, WBWSF said:

I read that the 101 project around the United Center was approved by the city council. I've read that most of the project eliminates the parking around the United Center. Where are the people going to park their cars when they go to the United Center? Are they going to build parking garages somewhere in the area?

It doesn't "eliminate" the parking around the UC. According to AI:

1. Replacement Structures: Developers—led by the United Center Joint Venture—are actively shifting away from sprawling surface lots to denser parking facilities to preserve parking availability. A permit for the tower crane on the initial West Garage was issued in May, solidifying the first wave of parking infrastructure.

2. Capacity and Usage: Developers noted in zoning and city commission meetings that current surface parking lots only hit about 50% to 52% average usage. The planned garages will accommodate the required parking needs for the United Center while making room for the first phase of apartments, hotels, and over 25 acres of green space.

Parking usage has changed since the United Center and New Comiskey were built over 30 years ago.

3 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

It doesn't "eliminate" the parking around the UC. According to AI:

1. Replacement Structures: Developers—led by the United Center Joint Venture—are actively shifting away from sprawling surface lots to denser parking facilities to preserve parking availability. A permit for the tower crane on the initial West Garage was issued in May, solidifying the first wave of parking infrastructure.

2. Capacity and Usage: Developers noted in zoning and city commission meetings that current surface parking lots only hit about 50% to 52% average usage. The planned garages will accommodate the required parking needs for the United Center while making room for the first phase of apartments, hotels, and over 25 acres of green space.

Parking usage has changed since the United Center and New Comiskey were built over 30 years ago.

The weird fear of public transit is wild to watch. I mean being born and raised in NWI, obviously car culture is a thing, but everytime I travel for work to Chicago, NYC, DC, etc, outside of a trip to the airport, the public transit systems in those cities are so superior to any other mode of moving around, why WOULDN'T you use them if possible? Between the Jerry Reinsdorf parking tax at the parks, the price of gas, tolls, congestions and everything else that goes with it, if you get me within a few blocks on cheap convenient transit, I am in.

Just off some basic Google Earth measurements I did yesterday, the stadium will have to be similar to Fenway with the Green Monster due to the width of property. There is a little more room than what Fenway has, 50' or so if I recall. I think everybody already expected this though based on early renderings.

1 hour ago, ron883 said:

Just off some basic Google Earth measurements I did yesterday, the stadium will have to be similar to Fenway with the Green Monster due to the width of property. There is a little more room than what Fenway has, 50' or so if I recall. I think everybody already expected this though based on early renderings.

Let's just go for it.

First over-the-water right field. Instead of grass, it's a glass floor in right field. Make outfielders choose between spikes and rubber sole shoes. Make it icy in cold weather.

Or a right field that elevates into a foot bridge. Like that Houston CF hill, but on a larger scale.

Any more bad ideas out there?

16 minutes ago, JoeC said:

Let's just go for it.

First over-the-water right field. Instead of grass, it's a glass floor in right field. Make outfielders choose between spikes and rubber sole shoes. Make it icy in cold weather.

Or a right field that elevates into a foot bridge. Like that Houston CF hill, but on a larger scale.

Any more bad ideas out there?

Just let right field extend into the river. Don't have to worry about running into a wall, gotta swim for some deep fly outs.

25 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said:

Just let right field extend into the river. Don't have to worry about running into a wall, gotta swim for some deep fly outs.

Ice skates are in play.

I really hope they don't lower the seating capacity of the stadium any further, although that seems likely. If the Sox are ever competitive again, tickets will be really expensive in a 30,000 seat stadium.

Bad ideas? They abound now that a Billionaire owner, not familiar with SS Sox fans has decided to move mountains (so to speak) to do whatever it takes to move the White Sox from their historical home. He risks ruining South side neighborhoods that have been gentrifying for years North and East of the park. Instead, he proposes moving an Amtrak rail yard there, leaving empty surface lots and a stadium that will need to be demolished. Great urban planning buddy, but who cares from your vantage point on the North shore?

Allegedly, Jerry is Greedy but Ishbia is not. Yep, got that from Ishbia's Winnetka project. The "78" preliminary plans do not include adequate surface parking. No tail-gaiting just get the fans into the stadium asap to eat and drink more. Keep the fans in their seats, like at Wrigley. No room for expansive outfield concourses like the Rate has. A view of the Loop from your seat? Probably not. I digress....years ago the beloved Jack Brickhouse used to enjoy announcing home runs as fans watched Ernie's HR bound out of the park. That very special feature of Wrigley was erased when Ricketts decided to block views from inside and from outside the park with several scoreboards, including that monstrosity in LF. Another bad idea - back some proposed stadium up to the canal. The canal is not a river. Google "Bubbly Creek." That section of the canal is probably still not safe to swim in or fall into. It's dark, silty, stagnant water with decaying organic sludge at the bottom. If you have ever been to Oracle Park you would laugh at the notion that the sanitary canal would be comparable to McCovey Cove in any way, shape or form. But dream on.

Someone suggested that fans abandon their old habits of driving to the park with family and friends and instead drive to train stations. Another bad idea that makes traveling more time consuming, less convenient and less safe for many fans, especially in the far SW suburbs. That idea could very well lead to less attendance in the long run ... a lot less.

Anyway, as mere fans, let's not get to sappy about the proposed stadiums. The stadium issues for the Bears and the White Sox are mostly about billionaire money and greed - priorities which always trump anything else.

Edited Thursday at 07:57 PM5 days by tray

Just now, tray said:

Bad ideas? They abound now that a Billionaire owner, not familiar with SS Sox fans has decided to move mountains (so to speak) to do whatever it takes to move the White Sox from their historical home. He risks ruining South side neighborhoods that have been gentrifying for years North and East of the park. Instead, he proposes moving an Amtrak rail yard there, leaving empty surface lots and a stadium that will need to be demolished. Great urban planning buddy, but who cares from your vantage point in Arizona[on the North shore]?

Allegedly, Jerry is Greedy but Ishbia is not. Yep, got that from Ishbia's Winnetka project. The "78" preliminary plans do not include adequate surface parking. No tail-gaiting just get the fans into the stadium asap to eat and drink more. Keep the fans in their seats, like at Wrigley. No room for expansive outfield concourses like the Rate has. A view of the Loop from your seat? Probably not. I digress....years ago the beloved Jack Brickhouse used to enjoy announcing home runs as fans watched Ernie's HR bound out of the park. That very special feature of Wrigley was erased when Ricketts decided to block views from inside and from outside the park with several scoreboards, including that monstrosity in LF. Another bad idea. Another one - back some proposed stadium up to the canal. The canal is not a river. Google "Bubbly Creek." That section of the canal is probably still not safe to swim in or fall into. It's stagnant water with decaying organic sludge at the bottom. If you have ever been to Oracle Park you would laugh at the notion that the sanitary canal would be comparable to McCovey Cove in any way, shape or form. But dream on.

Someone suggested that fans abandon their old habits of driving to the park with family and friends and instead drive to train stations. Another bad idea that risks makes traveling more time consuming, less convenient and less safe for fans. That could very well lead to less attendance in the long run.

Anyway, as mere fans, let's not get to sappy about the proposed stadiums. The stadium issues for the Bears and the White Sox are mostly about billionaire money and greed - priorities which always trump anything else.

Boy, make this one change and you are talking about Jerry circa 1988 when he got Tampa to already build him a stadium in another state and was set to leave for it if he didn't get a fully paid with other people's money for a taxpayer stadium he was demanding.

3 hours ago, ron883 said:

Just off some basic Google Earth measurements I did yesterday, the stadium will have to be similar to Fenway with the Green Monster due to the width of property. There is a little more room than what Fenway has, 50' or so if I recall. I think everybody already expected this though based on early renderings.

I had wondered the same thing. The Amtrak land is only ~500 ft. wide and looking at some other ballparks, I'd guess that they could squeeze in a ballpark w/ a MINIMUM 600 ft. width, but that leaves them at least 100 ft. short. A Green Monster-type set up would totally wall off the ballpark from the river and that's not acceptable IMO.

But @kba pointed out that part of Target Field is actually built over some train tracks (see image below). So, something like this could work on the Amtrak site by building over the active Metra tracks. This must be what Ishbia's team is envisioning because otherwise a ballpark wouldn't fit there.

On 4/23/2026 at 1:25 PM, kba said:

Two tracks run underneath the 3rd base seats at Target Field.

Edited Thursday at 09:36 PM5 days by 77 Hitmen

4 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

The weird fear of public transit is wild to watch. I mean being born and raised in NWI, obviously car culture is a thing, but everytime I travel for work to Chicago, NYC, DC, etc, outside of a trip to the airport, the public transit systems in those cities are so superior to any other mode of moving around, why WOULDN'T you use them if possible? Between the Jerry Reinsdorf parking tax at the parks, the price of gas, tolls, congestions and everything else that goes with it, if you get me within a few blocks on cheap convenient transit, I am in.

I've taken a light rail/subway to a night game at DC, NY (Citi Field), SF, and SD with my family. Also did the same in Boston and Seattle w/out kids. At no time did I ever feel that we were not safe and the trains were packed with other fans. It's just nonsense to think that the most of the Sox fan base will be too scared to take the Metra to a Sox night game if they move to the South Loop.

If the Bulls and Hawks have determined they don't need all that parking when they play in the dead of winter and 3 miles from downtown because more and more fans are taking transit or rideshare, why is this going to be so problematic for the Sox, who play in warm weather months and are looking at a site just at the edge of downtown?

And finally, parking will still exist at the UC, McDonald's Park, and if the Sox move to the South Loop for fans who drive to games because not everyone is going to take mass transit or a rideshare to the game.

Edited Thursday at 09:36 PM5 days by 77 Hitmen

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears-stadium/2026/05/21/bears-stadium-megaprojects-bill-arlington-heights-obstacles-brandon-johnson-jb-pritzker-northwest-indiana

8 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

[Sad Trombone]

22 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Boy, make this one change and you are talking about Jerry circa 1988 when he got Tampa to already build him a stadium in another state and was set to leave for it if he didn't get a fully paid with other people's money for a taxpayer stadium he was demanding.

Jerry and Eddie thought moving the Sox to Tropicana Field would be a gold mine. Look at how well that turned out for the Rays despite the fact that they often field a very competitive team. But they got IL taxpayers to give them New Comiskey and then they went on to botch the design of the stadium in their quest to focus mostly on potential corporate clients. Now, he wants taxpayers to build him another stadium while Ishbia seems to be quietly working to privately finance one. Time and again, JR has proven that he's greedy and tone deaf.

There's certainly a lot to unpack in the post you quoted. Ironic that someone is lecturing us to "Google Bubbly Creek" when they apparently are clueless to where it is. Okay, here's what Google says about the infamous "Bubbly Creek." It's nowhere close to the 78. Also, if the waterway at the 78 is so toxic that it's unsafe to fall into, why does the Park District list Ping Tom Park as one of its fishing areas? I suppose the river is safe downtown, where they've had Swim the River events, requires a hazmat suit once you go south of Roosevelt, and then is safe enough to fish out of south of 16th St?

Urban Rivers

Bubbly Creek — Urban Rivers

Edited Saturday at 04:12 PM3 days by 77 Hitmen

7 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Jerry and Eddie thought moving the Sox to Tropicana Field would be a gold mine. Look at how well that turned out for the Rays despite the fact that they often field a very competitive team. But they got IL taxpayers to give them New Comiskey and then they went on to botch the design of the stadium in their quest to focus mostly on potential corporate clients. Now, he wants taxpayers to build him another stadium while Ishbia seems to be quietly working to privately finance one. Time and again, JR has proven that he's greedy and tone deaf.

There's certainly a lot to unpack in the post you quoted. Ironic that someone is lecturing us to "Google Bubbly Creek" when they apparently are clueless to where it is. Okay, here's what Google says about the infamous "Bubbly Creek." It's nowhere close to the 78. Also, if the waterway at the 78 is so toxic that it's unsafe to fall into, why does the Park District list Ping Tom Park as one of its fishing areas? I suppose the river is safe downtown, where they've had Swim the River events, requires a hazmat suit once you go south of Roosevelt, and then is safe enough to fish at south of 16th St?

Urban Rivers

Bubbly Creek — Urban Rivers

And here is the craziest thought of all... if something is a brown site, why wouldn't you want it cleaned up and usable again? But then this whole thread has been one weird sense of one absurdity after another.

21 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

And here is the craziest thought of all... if something is a brown site, why wouldn't you want it cleaned up and usable again? But then this whole thread has been one weird sense of one absurdity after another.

Brownfield redevelopment has been a major initiative both at the local and federal level for at least 30 years. It's a great way to promote urban re-development. Land that used to be heavy industry (and had much worse toxic pollution than rail yards) are often redeveloped through brownfield initiatives.

https://www.cookcountyil.gov/service/brownfield-redevelopment
https://www.epa.gov/brownfields

It also sounds like Amtrak already has wanted to move their maintenance yard about a mile further south to the current Union Pacific yard for system modernization purposes. The idea that Ishbia is the one who is "moving" them to a new site for his own nefarious purposes (as if he has some sort of eminent domain power over the federally-owned Amtrak) is just another piece of absurd fan fiction.

38 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Brownfield redevelopment has been a major initiative both at the local and federal level for at least 30 years. It's a great way to promote urban re-development. Land that used to be heavy industry (and had much worse toxic pollution than rail yards) are often redeveloped through brownfield initiatives.

https://www.cookcountyil.gov/service/brownfield-redevelopment
https://www.epa.gov/brownfields

It also sounds like Amtrak already has wanted to move their maintenance yard about a mile further south to the current Union Pacific yard for system modernization purposes. The idea that Ishbia is the one who is "moving" them to a new site for his own nefarious purposes (as if he has some sort of eminent domain power over the federally-owned Amtrak) is just another piece of absurd fan fiction.

At worst this is a marriage of convenience that gets both parties what they really want, and I promise you, after Jerry almost moved the team in 1988, he is fine with moving the team two whole miles north.