55 minutes ago, nrockway said:

The City should make them. They already have a perfect site for innumerable reasons. If the federal government was still following normal procedures, Ishbia would not have been in a position to purchase that Amtrak site without a public review. For some reason, my friends at the UTC are carrying water for this guy.

"Make them"? Why? They obviously don't want to be there.

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

The City should make them. They already have a perfect site for innumerable reasons. If the federal government was still following normal procedures, Ishbia would not have been in a position to purchase that Amtrak site without a public review. For some reason, my friends at the UTC are carrying water for this guy.

People like this are the reason nothing gets done in the U.S. anymore and every project is so expensive.

1 hour ago, nrockway said:

The City should make them. They already have a perfect site for innumerable reasons. If the federal government was still following normal procedures, Ishbia would not have been in a position to purchase that Amtrak site without a public review. For some reason, my friends at the UTC are carrying water for this guy.

Just like last time in the late 80s when the City told the Sox the only stadium site they'd support is across from the existing ballpark? Look at how well that turned out for them. They have such a perfect site that people will only show up if the Sox are making a serious pennant run. Now the city should "make them" pick the same site again?

Edited Tuesday at 07:08 PM2 days by 77 Hitmen

I found this part interesting here, but lots info in the piece.

Included in the presentation were two slides depicting a riverfront ballpark, but the renderings are not up to date or representative of Ishbia’s vision, according to two sources.

But a new ballpark at the Amtrak site could come in a later phase if Ishbia takes control of the site, according to other sources familiar with his plans.

That ballpark would be positioned with a view of The Loop from home plate, placing the right field wall adjacent with the river. The right field area would have little to no seating because of the tight dimensions of the site, potentially allowing well-hit baseballs to find a new home in the Chicago River.

Edited Tuesday at 03:05 PM3 days by Sleepy Harold

9 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Just like last time in the late 80s when the City told the Sox the only stadium site they'd support is across from the existing ballpark? Look at how well that turned out for them. They have such a perfect site that people will only show up if the Sox are making a serious pennant run. Now the city should "make them" again?

The Sox have a chance to fix literally everything they screwed up in the late 80's. Stadium design, stadium location, activities around the stadium, stadium views, etc. Let's do this right.

6 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

I found this part interesting here, but lots info in the piece.

“It sounded like the stadium stuff, even if it were to come to fruition, would be eight to 10 years out,” he said.

I know projects of this size take time, but damn, wish it were quicker.

Edited Tuesday at 03:35 PM3 days by DoUEvenShift

37 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

I found this part interesting here, but lots info in the piece.

This is something I was really hoping for - home runs into the Chicago river. Seeing Bonds hit home runs into McCovey Cove was awesome.

Edited Tuesday at 03:40 PM3 days by ron883

59 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

I found this part interesting here, but lots info in the piece.

From the Crain's article:

The unexpected, and ultimately inaccurate, disclosure of those renderings is evidence of the delicate dance Ishbia must perform as he closes in on a property that could be anchored by the Chicago White Sox’s future home while the team’s current chairman, Jerry Reinsdorf, remains in control for another eight years and is pursuing his own stadium dreams across the river.

Wait, what? Ishbia and Reinsdorf are pursuing their own separate stadium plans?

And the following is bad news for many Sox fans, but short-term good news for our resident soil/ingress/bridge expert and self-appointed representative of the entire Sox fanbase:

Ald. Jason Ervin, 28th, said he met with Ishbia’s representatives and Amtrak about the plans, but the presentation was focused on an initial phase near Roosevelt Road centered around a Northwestern Medicine facility.

“It sounded like the stadium stuff, even if it were to come to fruition, would be eight to 10 years out,” he said.

6 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

From the Crain's article:

Wait, what? Ishbia and Reinsdorf are pursuing their own separate stadium plans?

And the following is bad news for many Sox fans, but short-term good news for our resident soil/ingress/bridge expert and self-appointed representative of the entire Sox fanbase:

Again, I think this is keeping up the show of "Jerry is in charge". Obviously we can see what is happening here.

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

From the Crain's article:

Wait, what? Ishbia and Reinsdorf are pursuing their own separate stadium plans?

And the following is bad news for many Sox fans, but short-term good news for our resident soil/ingress/bridge expert and self-appointed representative of the entire S

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

From the Crain's article:

Wait, what? Ishbia and Reinsdorf are pursuing their own separate stadium plans?

And the following is bad news for many Sox fans, but short-term good news for our resident soil/ingress/bridge expert and self-appointed representative of the entire Sox fanbase:

If the stadium was built there with a medical center would the property taxes be lower because of the medical center?

14 hours ago, Sleepy Harold said:

No surprise there, this is the "infrastructure" part that we always hear legislators say they are willing to pay for.

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48560636/royals-hallmark-unveil-ballpark-plan-downtown-kansas-city

3 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/48560636/royals-hallmark-unveil-ballpark-plan-downtown-kansas-city

This article includes some renderings of the new Royals ballpark. They want to have it ready for the 2030 season.

https://fox4kc.com/news/first-look-royals-hallmark-share-photos-of-downtown-baseball-stadium/

The IL House has passed the "megaprojects" bill. It now goes to the IL Senate for their vote.

ABC7 Chicago

Amended 'megaprojects' bill passes Illinois House, could...

Illinois lawmakers advanced a Chicago Bears stadium "megaprojects" bill out of the Illinois House Wednesday, and it will now go to an Illinois Senate vote.

10 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

The IL House has passed the "megaprojects" bill. It now goes to the IL Senate for their vote. https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-bears-stadium-news-illinois-lawmakers-expected-vote-wednesday-bill/1894021

The language in the legislation extending the tax breaks to "blighted or underused railyards." Seems like this would include the Amtrak site but not the land at the 78. Also interesting that air rights over railroad tracks are included, perhaps in case the Ishbia project ends up capping the adjoining tracks to the west.

Edited yesterday at 11:45 AM1 day by kba

4 hours ago, kba said:

The language in the legislation extending the tax breaks to "blighted or underused railyards." Seems like this would include the Amtrak site but not the land at the 78. Also interesting that air rights over railroad tracks are included, perhaps in case the Ishbia project ends up capping the adjoining tracks to the west.

The ONE Central project next to Soldier Field is part of this and would need air rights over the metra tracks to proceed.

4 hours ago, kba said:

The language in the legislation extending the tax breaks to "blighted or underused railyards." Seems like this would include the Amtrak site but not the land at the 78. Also interesting that air rights over railroad tracks are included, perhaps in case the Ishbia project ends up capping the adjoining tracks to the west.

If Ishbia indeed intends to build a ballpark on the Amtrak site, it looks to me like building over part of the Metra property would be a must. An MLB park will need a MINIMUM of 600 ft width. Wrigley is at around 600 ft. Oracle Park is around 600 ft at it's narrowest where the RF fence is up against the water and it's wider in other places. Here's 600 ft at the Amtrak site. The green/purple/blue lines are the active Metra lines and west of that is the Metra yard, so the Amtrak property alone isn't wide enough.

@Green Line is right, too - the main project they have in mind is that proposed One Central development, but it certainly can apply to the Amtrak site, too.

19 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

If Ishbia indeed intends to build a ballpark on the Amtrak site, it looks to me like building over part of the Metra property would be a must. An MLB park will need a MINIMUM of 600 ft width. Wrigley is at around 600 ft. Oracle Park is around 600 ft at it's narrowest where the RF fence is up against the water and it's wider in other places. Here's 600 ft at the Amtrak site. The green/purple/blue lines are the active Metra lines and west of that is the Metra yard, so the Amtrak property alone isn't wide enough.

@Green Line is right, too - the main project they have in mind is that proposed One Central development, but it certainly can apply to the Amtrak site, too.

Be interesting to see if they do something quirky to build around it (like the warehouse in BAL, or the Monster in BOS) or if they move the tracks further to make it work.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

Be interesting to see if they do something quirky to build around it (like the warehouse in BAL, or the Monster in BOS) or if they move the tracks further to make it work.

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

Sleepy Harold said:

"I found this part interesting here, but lots info in the piece.

Quote

Included in the presentation were two slides depicting a riverfront ballpark, but the renderings are not up to date or representative of Ishbia’s vision, according to two sources.

But a new ballpark at the Amtrak site could come in a later phase if Ishbia takes control of the site, according to other sources familiar with his plans.

That ballpark would be positioned with a view of The Loop from home plate, placing the right field wall adjacent with the river. The right field area would have little to no seating because of the tight dimensions of the site, potentially allowing well-hit baseballs to find a new home in the Chicago River.

A possible acquisition on the NE corner of 18th and Canal, which I opined on earlier, may indeed satisfy Justin Ishbia's requirements. The architectural rendering was not realistic in some respects, particularly with respect to the depiction of the RR bridges. For example, the bridge deck is about 23-25 feet above the elevation of the river and maybe 20 feet above grade. in order to accommodate foot traffic, a substantial amount of money and time would be required to demolish the elevated train tracks. Then either stairs plus an elevator (for those with young children , Seniors, those with bad knees, hips or disabilities) or a long ramp would be required on either end to get up to the bridge. That bridge is at the far South end on the proposed Amtrak site and would be of marginal use for Fire fans. Also, building a second stadium on the 78 would remove the surface parking shown in the 78 site plan.

Now about the Airline bridge depicted in the rendering. This bridge was designed well....for another purpose in another time. The massive reinforced-concrete counterweights are imposing, quite ugly, but absolutely necessary considering the very large live and dead loads across its span. The bridge was designated as a Chicago landmark in 2007 which I understand, from a historical perspective only. This bridge is not inherently beautiful like other bridges we are familiar with in our country including the suspension bridges near PNC park. It is what it is, an old rusty railroad bridge.

Conversely, if a little more land was acquired South to 18th Street and East to Canal (not even including the railroad tracks that bend around near there), there wouldn't be any reason to mess with that bridge. 18th street has its own bridge.

Anyway, just my opinions based on my own experience and knowledge about this area over many years.

Edited 12 hours ago12 hr by tray

3 minutes ago, tray said:

Sleepy Harold said:

"I found this part interesting here, but lots info in the piece.

A possible acquisition on the NE corner of 18th and Canal, which I opined on earlier, may indeed satisfy Justin Ishbia's requirements. The architectural rendering was not realistic in some respects, particularly with respect to the depiction of the RR bridges. For example, the bridge deck is about 23-25 feet above the elevation of the river and maybe 20 feet above grade. in order to accommodate foot traffic, a substantial amount of money and time would be required to demolish the elevated train tracks. Then either stairs plus an elevator (for those with young children , Seniors, those with bad knees, hips or disabilities) or a long ramp would be required on either end to get up to the bridge. That bridge is at the far South end on the proposed Amtrak site and would be of marginal use for Fire fans. Also, building a second stadium on the 78 would remove the surface parking shown in the 78 site plan.

Now about the Airline bridge depicted in the rendering. This bridge was designed well....for another purpose in another time. The massive reinforced-concrete counterweights are imposing, quite ugly, but absolutely necessary considering the very large live and dead loads across its span. The bridge was designated as a Chicago landmark in 2007 which I understand, from a historical perspective only. This bridge is not inherently beautiful like other bridges we are familiar with in our country including the suspension bridges near PNC park. It is what it is, an old railroad bridge.

Conversely, if a little more land was acquired South to 18th Street and East to Canal (not even including the railroad tracks that bend around near there), there wouldn't be any reason to mess with that bridge. 18th street has its own bridge.

Anyway, just my opinions based on my own experience.

I missed your previous post. Do you know who owns that 18th and Canal space now and do you have an overhead image of it?

Yes, the multitude of Amtrak train tracks running North and South would ostensibly be eliminated after the proposed sale to Ishbia. There are some buildings on and around there but probably workable for Ishbia and Shore Capital. In any event, there will be a lot to work for engineers, architects and designers as well as investors no matter where a potential new stadium is built. I certainly don't profess to have answers, just my own observations. I like how Ishbia would like to orient the stadium and I provided my own concept of how he might achieve his requirements.

Google Maps

Google Maps

Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.

20 hours ago, kba said:

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

Wow - I didn't realize there is an MLB stadium that has tracks running under it like that. Now I can actually imagine a Sox ballpark fitting on the Amtrak land if they can build over those active train tracks similar to Target Field. They don't even have to build over the entire Metra yard, but it looks to me like they'd need at least 600 ft width from the river to fit a ballpark there.

I realize that there are other examples in Chicago of things being built over train tracks: Millennium Park, the old Post Office Building, McCormick Place and even Union Station. The One Central megaproject would be over train tracks if that's ever built. But it's good to see an actual MLB stadium example.