More relevant is the issue of whether or not to site a stadium on the canal - I suggest watching one of the White Sox games at Oracle Park (especially if you have never been to that stadium)...then tell us how situating a proposed stadium on a narrow polluted canal makes any sense whatsoever. As of now I do not think that any of the concepts to move the White Sox to the canal hold water. (i.e., building the stadium behind the soccer field and repurposing the railroad bridge for pedestrians to walk there?)

Perhaps the proposed future White Sox Chairman should take some time to consider all alternatives. Consider,for example, that moving the WSox could adversely impact attendance and in the long run, jeopardize the franchise. Does Ishbia think that most Sox fans will take mass transit or want to drive into the S Loop? Maybe sign a new 5 year lease with the ISFA instead of succumbing to what appears to be some self-imposed pressure to act immediately (like entering into a contingent contract with Amtrak not even considering how that would impact Bridgeport and Armor Park. Has Ishbia ever met with local residents and businesses about a potential move? At minimum, a new lease will provide enough time to calmly and properly consider alternatives including one that seems far more realistic and practical - i.e., building a new stadium on the site of the current Armor Square Fieldhouse on 33rd St.

I know, you (dislike) the current stadium and location. What area do you live in (how you do travel to the park (car, bus or train) how many games each year do you attend)?

Edited Saturday at 06:58 PM3 days by tray

1 hour ago, tray said:

More relevant is the issue of whether or not to site a stadium on the canal - I suggest watching one of the White Sox games at Oracle Park (especially if you have never been to that stadium)...then tell us how situating a proposed stadium on a narrow polluted canal makes any sense whatsoever. As of now I do not think that any of the concepts to move the White Sox to the canal hold water. (i.e., building the stadium behind the soccer field and repurposing the railroad bridge for pedestrians to walk there?)

Perhaps the proposed future White Sox Chairman should take some time to consider all alternatives. Consider,for example, that moving the WSox could adversely impact attendance and in the long run, jeopardize the franchise. Does Ishbia think that most Sox fans will take mass transit or want to drive into the S Loop? Maybe sign a new 5 year lease with the ISFA instead of succumbing to what appears to be some self-imposed pressure to act immediately (like entering into a contingent contract with Amtrak not even considering how that would impact Bridgeport and Armor Park. Has Ishbia ever met with local residents and businesses about a potential move? At minimum, a new lease will provide enough time to calmly and properly consider alternatives including one that seems far more realistic and practical - i.e., building a new stadium on the site of the current Armor Square Fieldhouse on 33rd St.

I know, you (dislike) the current stadium and location. What area do you live in (how you do travel to the park (car, bus or train) how many games each year do you attend)?

Sox attendance has historically been abysmal.

So what is it about the current location that you think is driving this?

2 hours ago, tray said:

More relevant is the issue of whether or not to site a stadium on the canal - I suggest watching one of the White Sox games at Oracle Park (especially if you have never been to that stadium)...then tell us how situating a proposed stadium on a narrow polluted canal makes any sense whatsoever. As of now I do not think that any of the concepts to move the White Sox to the canal hold water. (i.e., building the stadium behind the soccer field and repurposing the railroad bridge for pedestrians to walk there?)

Perhaps the proposed future White Sox Chairman should take some time to consider all alternatives. Consider,for example, that moving the WSox could adversely impact attendance and in the long run, jeopardize the franchise. Does Ishbia think that most Sox fans will take mass transit or want to drive into the S Loop? Maybe sign a new 5 year lease with the ISFA instead of succumbing to what appears to be some self-imposed pressure to act immediately (like entering into a contingent contract with Amtrak not even considering how that would impact Bridgeport and Armor Park. Has Ishbia ever met with local residents and businesses about a potential move? At minimum, a new lease will provide enough time to calmly and properly consider alternatives including one that seems far more realistic and practical - i.e., building a new stadium on the site of the current Armor Square Fieldhouse on 33rd St.

I know, you (dislike) the current stadium and location. What area do you live in (how you do travel to the park (car, bus or train) how many games each year do you attend)?

How stupid do you think Sox fans are that they can't figure out how get get a whole 2.6 miles further north than they have been going for the last 125 years?

46 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

How stupid do you think Sox fans are that they can't figure out how get get a whole 2.6 miles further north than they have been going for the last 125 years?

Or maybe we’ve been too dumb to figure out those 2.5 miles the other way, judging by our attendance figures.

The obsession with parking and public transit makes no sense. Firstly, there will be some sort of White Sox-controlled parking. Even the Cubs have multiple lots in Lakeview which they own, and its a much denser neighborhood than the south loop. Then, anyone else who wants to drive and park will have many options from all the private garages and lots in the area. White Sox fans are not as stupid as the poster above seems to think. Also, the comment on the previous page that fans from the SW suburbs will be "less safe" if they have to take the train into the city is laughable. Its actually the complete opposite. How many people have died riding the Metra over the last twenty years vs driving on the Dan Ryan?? There literally isn't a safer way to get around.

21 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

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.

And don't forget that in 1986 he wanted to move the team to Addison, which last I heard is not on the south side or the south suburbs. He's never wanted to stay in Bridgeport. They only ended up there for New Comiskey because that was the city's take-it-or-leave-it offer for land for a taxpayer-funded stadium.

Edited Sunday at 02:53 PM2 days by 77 Hitmen

21 hours ago, tray said:

More relevant is the issue of whether or not to site a stadium on the canal - I suggest watching one of the White Sox games at Oracle Park (especially if you have never been to that stadium)...then tell us how situating a proposed stadium on a narrow polluted canal makes any sense whatsoever.

Not exactly sure what you’re trying to say here. I’ve been to Oracle. It’s amazing. And the logistics are not disrupted by the canal/bay in any way.

20 hours ago, JoeC said:

Sox attendance has historically been abysmal.

So what is it about the current location that you think is driving this?

Since 1995, they've only been above 15th in MLB attendance once - when they were reign WS champs in 2006. 2008: 89 wins, division champs, 3 years removed from '05, much of the '05 core still around.....16th in attendance. 2010: 88 wins....17th in attendance. 2012: 85 wins....24th in attendance. 2022: 81 wins and coming off the first back-to-back playoff appearances in team history....19th in attendance.

I wasn't counting 2021 because all teams had attendance caps due to Covid. But even then: 93 wins, made the playoffs the year before.....14th in attendance.

This one-person narrative that Sox fans will only show up to games with a stadium right off the expressway and surrounded by surface lots is, once again, fiction.

Bottom line is the Sox draw well at Armour Square when they are winning, when they’re not winning attendance figures are just a bit better than the Florida teams and the A’s. Sox fans will not support losing baseball at Armour Square, the big question is will they support losing baseball at the 78. My guess is attendance will pick up a bit from tourists as we draw just about no one from out of town at 35th and Shields, they should also draw a bit from the downtown workers and locals visiting the Loop and maybe the museums. If the Sox start winning they might pick up some casual fans. As far as loyal Sox fans who support the team win or lose, IMO there will be no difference between Armour Square and the 78, l know if I was still living up there it would make no difference, I supported the team whether they won ot lost. One thing, we moved out to DuPage county from the city in 1972 and if the Sox had moved to Addison we would have attended even more games.

All this being said I’m not sure attendance at the 78 will appreciate all that much unless Ishbia changes things drastically and gives Chicago a constant playoff team and a culture of winning, if that happens there might be a few Cub fans who switch sides as that franchise has never been compared to the Yankees and Dodgers, there will probably also be youngsters who become White Sox fans as nothing beats following a winning baseball team. When Ishbia takes over, the ball will be in his court and somehow he must grow the fan base, it will be interesting to see what he does.

Edited Sunday at 04:11 PM2 days by The Mighty Mite

The bottom line is the White Sox have a small fan base. They have managed to grow it insofar as the attendance figures of the past several seasons are ones that the Allyns or Bill Veeck would have gladly taken during their ownership tenures. It isn’t enough to keep up with the rest of baseball, though.

I honestly don’t know what Ishbia can do differently that will magic fans out of nowhere. Being Not Jerry Reinsdorf might work for one or maybe two seasons, but that honeymoon will end quickly.

Just now, NO!!MARY!!! said:

The bottom line is the White Sox have a small fan base. They have managed to grow it insofar as the attendance figures of the past several seasons are ones that the Allyns or Bill Veeck would have gladly taken during their ownership tenures. It isn’t enough to keep up with the rest of baseball, though.

I honestly don’t know what Ishbia can do differently that will magic fans out of nowhere. Being Not Jerry Reinsdorf might work for one or maybe two seasons, but that honeymoon will end quickly.

You’re 100 correct on the fan base but things can change fast, Cub fans didn’t support losing either, remember what Lee Elia said. During the Go Go Sox years we outdrew the Cubs almost every year sometimes by a 2-1 ratio. I was a 16 year old vendor in 1962 at both parks selling Cokes or peanuts, I did well at Comiskey but things were so bad at Wrigley I stopped working there in June and would go back to my job as a caddie at Edgewater Golf in Rogers Park when the Cubs were at home and the Sox on the road.

As far as Ishbia, as I stated in my previous post, there must a drastic change with Ishbia spending whatever it takes to bring a culture of winning for an extended period of time and grow that fan base.

Edited Sunday at 04:33 PM2 days by The Mighty Mite

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

The bottom line is the White Sox have a small fan base. They have managed to grow it insofar as the attendance figures of the past several seasons are ones that the Allyns or Bill Veeck would have gladly taken during their ownership tenures. It isn’t enough to keep up with the rest of baseball, though.

I honestly don’t know what Ishbia can do differently that will magic fans out of nowhere. Being Not Jerry Reinsdorf might work for one or maybe two seasons, but that honeymoon will end quickly.

Hopefully new ownership will spend money on free agents. Also build a stadium in the South Loop that fans want to go to. I would think this will bring alot of out of state fans into the new stadium. I've read a number of times that 20% of Cubs attendance comes from people who live out of state. Out of state fans rarely show up at the Rate.

2 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Hopefully new ownership will spend money on free agents. Also build a stadium in the South Loop that fans want to go to. I would think this will bring alot of out of state fans into the new stadium. I've read a number of times that 20% of Cubs attendance comes from people who live out of state. Out of state fans rarely show up at the Rate.

That 20% are there to see Wrigley Field.

1 hour ago, The Mighty Mite said:

Bottom line is the Sox draw well at Armour Square when they are winning, when they’re not winning attendance figures are just a bit better than the Florida teams and the A’s. Sox fans will not support losing baseball at Armour Square, the big question is will they support losing baseball at the 78. My guess is attendance will pick up a bit from tourists as we draw just about no one from out of town at 35th and Shields, they should also draw a bit from the downtown workers and locals visiting the Loop and maybe the museums. If the Sox start winning they might pick up some casual fans. As far as loyal Sox fans who support the team win or lose, IMO there will be no difference between Armour Square and the 78, l know if I was still living up there it would make no difference, I supported the team whether they won ot lost. One thing, we moved out to DuPage county from the city in 1972 and if the Sox had moved to Addison we would have attended even more games.

All this being said I’m not sure attendance at the 78 will appreciate all that much unless Ishbia changes things drastically and gives Chicago a constant playoff team and a culture of winning, if that happens there might be a few Cub fans who switch sides as that franchise has never been compared to the Yankees and Dodgers, there will probably also be youngsters who become White Sox fans as nothing beats following a winning baseball team. When Ishbia takes over, the ball will be in his court and somehow he must grow the fan base, it will be interesting to see what he does.

In my opinion, Sox fans will come out for a .500 club because that keeps you in the hunt for a playoff spot pretty late into the season.

Sox fans will not support a lousy team...nor should they outside of just wanting to go to a ballgame once in awhile.

16 minutes ago, wegner said:

In my opinion, Sox fans will come out for a .500 club because that keeps you in the hunt for a playoff spot pretty late into the season.

Sox fans will not support a lousy team...nor should they outside of just wanting to go to a ballgame once in awhile.

The Sox were a .500 ballclub in 2022 and were coming off back to back playoff appearances, including a 93-win, division title season the year before ........and still were only 19th in MLB in attendance. Not my opinion, it's the actual numbers.

2022 Major League Baseball Attendance & Team Age | Baseba...

Edited Sunday at 08:11 PM2 days by 77 Hitmen

On 8/30/2025 at 12:16 PM, nrockway said:

The 'ballpark district' (the mallpark) is seemingly the correct model at least in terms of mutually beneficial public-private partnerships (not correct if you deplore a culture of consumption, but that's a different story). Every team is basically doing this nowadays in pretty much every sport. They don't just build a new ballpark, but an integrated system of hotels, restaurants, condos, offices etc. Real estate development is a profitable business and why shouldn't sport franchises get into the game especially if the public might subsidize it? 

I think the logic of 'public investment' into ballparks has changed because of this model. It might actually generate tax revenue greater than the investment. It can be a good source of urban development as far as the public is considered aside from a billionaire making a bunch of money. Mark Rosentraub seems to be the foremost expert on this topic, for a long time, and his analyses of "does the public get anything in return for their investment?" have evolved in light of this model.

Here's a short blurb he offered in 2015 about it: https://www.marketplace.org/story/2015/08/13/sports-arena-investment-or-subsidy

Since 2015, we've seen some pretty good examples of it. It works well in San Diego, St Louis, Minneapolis for sure. I seem to recall reading that the suburban sites in Atlanta and Arlington are not great examples of it.

 

So I think the debate for the Sox is the current site or 'the 78' and not the suburbs. I prefer the current site for a variety of reasons, but the notable thing is that the land adjacent to the park (the parking lots) is publicly owned (by Illinois Sports Facilities Authority) and it's essentially a blank canvas to build upon. The team and the public can simply work together and not have to deal with ROOSEVELT CLARK PTNRS (the landowner of 'the 78') or any other private entity. The parking lots comprise roughly 70 acres of land which is a larger area than the 78. It already has a CTA stop and easier expressway access. The surrounding community is not as wealthy as South Loop residents, but the area is gentrifying on both sides of the expressway and I have to think there is demand for retail, restaurants, amenities etc that didn't necessarily exist when new SoxPark was built in 1991. Certainly, some formal analysis should be done.

There's almost certainly demand for it at the 78, but the public investment would probably be larger if they're going to build a transit stop and I'd wonder what the return on that investment would actually be. For the Sox, I don't know why they would want to cut into their profits by involving another corporation. However, the land is almost certainly more valuable at the 78 owing to its downtown proximity, you'd likely get a lot more tourists and north siders visiting. 

From a 'social' standpoint, the key thing to me, I reckon some other entity will eventually develop the 78. It isn't the Sox or nothing. Some developer could just build a bunch of condos and be done with it. There could be some kind of 'research center'. They could just build a mall regardless without an 'anchor tenant'. Turn it into a big, wooded park is my thinking. That would probably do wonders to adjacent property values and be a really nice oasis near to downtown.

Whereas if the Sox move from their current site, what is really going to happen to all that now vacant land? It probably just gets added into the City's "Dollar Lot" inventory or some such program. Vacant lots that are not exactly being gobbled up and developed on the South and West Sides. It would be a massive blow to the community to simply add dozens of acres of vacant lots and it would also be a contradiction of city and state investments into the region. It would be bad urban planning, simply.

Thank you !

On 8/28/2025 at 12:54 PM, WhiteSox2023 said:

Damn, it looks like you could literally hop the rail and ride for free.  🤣

The station was gone by the time I was born and I remember when I was around 4 walking with my Mom a half block over to State Street and taking one of the old Red Rocket street cars to the Loop for shopping and a movie.

52 minutes ago, The Mighty Mite said:

That 20% are there to see Wrigley Field.

Love to see a new stadium North a few blocks from the Rate. Model a brick retro stadium using architectural elements from the original Wrigley and the original Comiskey. Swap the South Lot off 39th St with the Chicago Park District for the Armor Park Fieldhouse and fund a green space for the Park District there. Not sure what the current utility of the Armor Fieldhouse is, but I have driven by it a thousand times and have never seen much activity there.

Edited Sunday at 06:45 PM2 days by tray

21 hours ago, Green Line said:

The obsession with parking and public transit makes no sense. Firstly, there will be some sort of White Sox-controlled parking. Even the Cubs have multiple lots in Lakeview which they own, and its a much denser neighborhood than the south loop. Then, anyone else who wants to drive and park will have many options from all the private garages and lots in the area. White Sox fans are not as stupid as the poster above seems to think. Also, the comment on the previous page that fans from the SW suburbs will be "less safe" if they have to take the train into the city is laughable. Its actually the complete opposite. How many people have died riding the Metra over the last twenty years vs driving on the Dan Ryan?? There literally isn't a safer way to get around.

Chicago has one of the most extensive, robust public transit systems in the US. The L and Metra systems are probably 2nd only to NYC's subway and commuter rail systems. The idea that the Sox fan base is an island within a metro area full of mass transit commuters who are too afraid or stubborn to take the train stretches credulity.....especially at a location that is walking distance to the Red, Orange, and Green lines and, at worst, a short shuttle bus ride away to Union Station and LaSalle St stations. Plus, as you said, there WILL be parking if they move there for people who drive. The Fire is already planning to have at least 2000 parking spots available.

I'll also note that Gen Z is driving less than previous generations. In 2034, which apparently might be the timeframe for any new Sox stadium in the South Loop, the oldest Gen Z will be closing in on age 40 (a scary thought!). Which generations' driving habits will be a factor in planning any new ballpark? Boomers, who will be age 70-88 in 2034? Or Gen Z and Gen Alpha?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/05/17/gen-z-less-likely-get-drivers-license/73678202007/

Edited Monday at 04:28 AM2 days by 77 Hitmen

29 minutes ago, tray said:

No Love to see a new stadium North a few blocks from the Rate. Model a brick retro stadium using architectural elements from the original Wrigley and the original Comiskey. Swap the South Lot off 39th St with the Chicago Park District for the Armor Park Fieldhouse and fund a green space for the Park District there. Not sure what the current utility of the Armor Fieldhouse is, but I have driven by it a thousand times and have never seen much activity there.

That’s where Phillip Bess wanted to build that retro park which was a smaller version of the Polo Grounds.

Edited Sunday at 08:06 PM2 days by The Mighty Mite

This didn't really "fit" anywhere but I thought it was interesting and may be a possible outcome when Ishbia takes control:

Awful Announcing

Suns owner Mat Ishbia defends keeping local broadcasts ov...

Phoenix Suns owner Mat Ishbia defended keeping local game broadcasts on free, over-the-air television rather than cable.

Perhaps the Ishbia's aren't as 'bad' as some seem to think they are?

4 minutes ago, Lip Man 1 said:

This didn't really "fit" anywhere but I thought it was interesting and may be a possible outcome when Ishbia takes control:

Awful Announcing

Suns owner Mat Ishbia defends keeping local broadcasts ov...

Phoenix Suns owner Mat Ishbia defended keeping local game broadcasts on free, over-the-air television rather than cable.

Perhaps the Ishbia's aren't as 'bad' as some seem to think they are?

They’re incredible to their fans

9 minutes ago, fathom said:

They’re incredible to their fans

They have a $2 value menu.

https://www.nba.com/suns/news/phoenix-suns-expand-2-value-menu-options-adding-tacos-and-sweet-treat

24 minutes ago, JTB said:

They have a $2 value menu.

https://www.nba.com/suns/news/phoenix-suns-expand-2-value-menu-options-adding-tacos-and-sweet-treat

Jerry would be appalled by this idea.

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

This didn't really "fit" anywhere but I thought it was interesting and may be a possible outcome when Ishbia takes control:

Perhaps the Ishbia's aren't as 'bad' as some seem to think one poster constantly says they are?

Fixed it for ya.