9 minutes ago, 77 Hitmen said:

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.

I started working in the financial district in 1998, and that whole entire area was nothing but warehouses and a few run down buildings. Watching the growth phase in the 2000's where all of the high rises went up between the south loop and McCormick place was wild. I hadn't seen anything about the One Central project, but holy crap is that ambitious. It would be incredible to get done, but as big as it is, I would be pretty surprised if it happens in the full form.

Here's a blog on a passenger rail advocacy group's website by one of its directors about Ishbia's efforts to by the Amtrak rail yard for a possible Sox stadium. There's no new information here, but it was a nice read from a life-long Sox fan who grew up a couple of blocks from Sox Park.

Take Me Out to the Train Yard | Rail Passengers Association

Has this been posted yet?

Chicago Magazine

A Modest Proposal for a Better Ballpark

Three ballpark enthusiasts imagine a new White Sox stadium that brings seats closer to the action, corrects past mistakes, and democratizes the fan experience.

1 hour ago, BrittBurnsFan said:

Has this been posted yet?

Chicago Magazine

A Modest Proposal for a Better Ballpark

Three ballpark enthusiasts imagine a new White Sox stadium that brings seats closer to the action, corrects past mistakes, and democratizes the fan experience.

They've put a lot of thought into it, of course if JR is still in charge he won't allow it to be called "Comiskey Park." Remember he supposed turned down part of a previous offer because the company offering to sponsor wanted it to be called "Comiskey Park" again.

I have a few questions about this including how and why it was generated.

-The article mentions that the stadium in this rendering was designed for the "78." Ishbia or someone on his team reportedly had questions about whether or not a stadium could fit between Wells and the Railroad tracks. Do you have exterior dimensions of the stadium and a site plan with basic dimensions?

-Having attended games in the lower deck at the old Comiskey, Wrigley and Tiger stadium, I recall that some sections in the lower deck do not see much sunshine. You look up and you see metal trusswork and decking. At Wrigley your view might even be obstructed by a steel post. As far as upper decks in the outfield with a large overhangs, once again, that comes at the cost of obscuring sunshine and obscuring exterior views.

-the outfield concourses at the Rate can be accessed from the entire 100 level. Instead of getting stuck in your seat you can walk all around the park, meet or make friends out there and enjoy food and beverages. I would like that in any new stadium.

I have other questions, but I will leave them for those on a higher pay scale so to speak. Good effort though.

FYI, Brian Powers has a very interesting site that virtually recreates views at Comiskey:

https://bandboxballparks.com/services/

Edited April 29Apr 29 by tray

https://chicago.suntimes.com/bears-stadium/2026/04/28/chicago-bears-hammond-hams-escalating-rhetoric-hoosiers-hope-bears-stadium

3 hours ago, BrittBurnsFan said:

Has this been posted yet?

Chicago Magazine

A Modest Proposal for a Better Ballpark

Three ballpark enthusiasts imagine a new White Sox stadium that brings seats closer to the action, corrects past mistakes, and democratizes the fan experience.

This looks pretty cool! I applaud them for obviously giving their vision for a new ballpark a lot of thought. It's a very interesting read. I like how they're being realistic and accepting that luxury suites are a financial necessity these days and including them in their plan. The exterior with the arches looks great.

That being said, I have a few thoughts/critiques of what they layout:

• if the Sox are building a ballpark on the Amtrak site, then having a huge upper deck in RF as they propose would block off any view of the river and eliminate any chance of hitting HRs into the water. At the 78 site, this wouldn't be an issue.

• They seem to be building in one of Old Comiskey's biggest flaws - that lower deck seats continue to face straight ahead all the way done the line. It looks to me like they even have the seats at the corners pointing toward other seats! That was terrible at the old park and would be bad at a new park.

• I'm not a huge fan of lots of outfield upper deck seats like they're showing. I just think those aren't very good seats at ballparks. Some OF UP? Yes, but not a huge one that goes all the way to the CF scoreboard.

• They see having only 2 levels as ideal, but I actually like how some of the popular new parks have 3 or 4 levels. I'm not against a "club level" either - something that is more expensive w/ more amenities than most seats, but not priced out of reach of everyday fans like the luxury suites are.

Again, I don't want this to come off as ripping on this proposal. It's just a few things that I disagree with. If the Sox ever do build a new stadium, I'd love it if they took some of the elements that are in this article.

4 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

They've put a lot of thought into it, of course if JR is still in charge he won't allow it to be called "Comiskey Park." Remember he supposed turned down part of a previous offer because the company offering to sponsor wanted it to be called "Comiskey Park" again.

If JR is in charge of designing a new ballpark, the name of the place will be the least of my worries. He already badly botched one new Sox stadium. If they do build another park, Ishbia is going to have to live with any design mistakes for decades to come. I wouldn't trust Jerry with decision making if I were the Ishbias.

It'll certainly have a corporate name anyway since Ishbia would almost certainly have to privately finance the place. But, if they do build on the Amtrak rail yard, maybe they can call in [CORPORATE SPONSOR} Field at Comiskey Yards or something like that.

On 4/28/2026 at 10:16 PM, 77 Hitmen said:

This looks pretty cool! I applaud them for obviously giving their vision for a new ballpark a lot of thought. It's a very interesting read. I like how they're being realistic and accepting that luxury suites are a financial necessity these days and including them in their plan. The exterior with the arches looks great.

That being said, I have a few thoughts/critiques of what they layout:

• if the Sox are building a ballpark on the Amtrak site, then having a huge upper deck in RF as they propose would block off any view of the river and eliminate any chance of hitting HRs into the water. At the 78 site, this wouldn't be an issue.

• They seem to be building in one of Old Comiskey's biggest flaws - that lower deck seats continue to face straight ahead all the way done the line. It looks to me like they even have the seats at the corners pointing toward other seats! That was terrible at the old park and would be bad at a new park.

• I'm not a huge fan of lots of outfield upper deck seats like they're showing. I just think those aren't very good seats at ballparks. Some OF UP? Yes, but not a huge one that goes all the way to the CF scoreboard.

• They see having only 2 levels as ideal, but I actually like how some of the popular new parks have 3 or 4 levels. I'm not against a "club level" either - something that is more expensive w/ more amenities than most seats, but not priced out of reach of everyday fans like the luxury suites are.

Again, I don't want this to come off as ripping on this proposal. It's just a few things that I disagree with. If the Sox ever do build a new stadium, I'd love it if they took some of the elements that are in this article.

Agree on seats down the lines, it’s the first thing I noticed and was the main flaw of old Comiskey, I would round off the corners like Tiger Stadium and cut down the size of the upper deck which looks enormous. I’m not sure how that huge upper deck could be built without posts, it would have to be an engineering marvel. Nowhere did I read what the capacity of this rendering was, these days it seems like a capacity of 40,000 is the norm.

Edited April 30Apr 30 by The Mighty Mite

What fans would see if seated in the right field lower deck. The trade-off in placing more fans closer to the action is that some seats would not be able to view the entire flight of a fly ball.

I think that's a deal breaker to most people. Paying premium for LD and getting a worse experience than the UD probably wouldn't make it out of the design/experimental phase

I also think the CF section is too plain jane looking. I think they can do better than that. Dress up the CF section and put a giant scoreboard in the LF or RF stands like in SD or PHI

They need to take advantage of the river as well if that's possible in the design (they said 78 site, but I don't know if it's possible to face the park in a way that gets the skyline backdrop as well as river home runs)

edit: Forgot to add, we gotta get a retractable roof this time.

Edited May 1May 1 by joejoesox

4 minutes ago, joejoesox said:

I think that's a deal breaker to most people. Paying premium for LD and getting a worse experience than the UD probably wouldn't make it out of the design/experimental phase

I also think the CF section is too plain jane looking. I think they can do better than that. Dress up the CF section and put a giant scoreboard in the LF or RF stands like in SD or PHI

They need to take advantage of the river as well if that's possible in the design (they said 78 site, but I don't know if it's possible to face the park in a way that gets the skyline backdrop as well as river home runs)

edit: Forgot to add, we gotta get a retractable roof this time.

Roof means another $500-750 million in costs added.

See Minnesota.

13 minutes ago, joejoesox said:

I think that's a deal breaker to most people. Paying premium for LD and getting a worse experience than the UD probably wouldn't make it out of the design/experimental phase

I also think the CF section is too plain jane looking. I think they can do better than that. Dress up the CF section and put a giant scoreboard in the LF or RF stands like in SD or PHI

They need to take advantage of the river as well if that's possible in the design (they said 78 site, but I don't know if it's possible to face the park in a way that gets the skyline backdrop as well as river home runs)

edit: Forgot to add, we gotta get a retractable roof this time.

What stadium is pictured in your post?

1 minute ago, tray said:

What stadium is pictured in your post?

Wrigley or old Tiger?

23 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Wrigley or old Tiger?

It says “SOX WIN” with a White Sox logo prominently in the photo.

I have expressed my opinion many times that the outfield concourses at Rate Field are fantastic. A great place to gather, purchase and enjoy food and drinks, access washrooms, meet friends who purchased seats in other sections, get out of your seat and walk all the way around the park. I do not like sitting down in a plastic seat for the entire game. At the Rate, the outfield concourses are open air - no upper decks. It almost has the feeling of a Spring Training game where there is a picnic feeling in the outfield. Terry Savarise was responsible for choosing many of the design elements at the then new Comiskey. He asked the Architects to model the outfield based on Dodgers stadium.

Personally, I would never consider going to a game if I had 500 level seats. IMO, that is overflow seating. If one cannot afford a 100 level seat I understand the budgetary reasons, but personally, I would rather watch on TV than sit in a bad seat for the entire game

For the architectural firm that is tasked with designing a new stadium, there are several things to consider including constraints from whatever site is eventually chosen. A stadium with outfield concourses like the Rate or Dodgers Stadium would require a relatively large footprint. If the design has upper decks all around or something like the Green Monster, a lot more seats could be fit into a smaller stadium. Historically, the original Wrigley and the original Comiskey did not have outfield upper tanks. Comiskey added those a few years later to increase seating capacity and of course , an enormous LF scoreboard was added by the Ricketts. Cub fan Paul Sullivan was among those who felt that the huge, imposing scoreboard in LF really detracted from the classic CF scoreboard and the vintage look of Wrigley. Maybe some here recall watching home runs hit on and over Waveland back in the day and Brickhouse announcing "Hey-Hey!" Gone are those days.

Hypothetically, if the Sox build in Armor Park and take down that old Armor Park field house, customers in front of Turtles and Cork & Kerry would revel in catching some HRs.

Edited May 1May 1 by tray

1 hour ago, joejoesox said:

I think that's a deal breaker to most people. Paying premium for LD and getting a worse experience than the UD probably wouldn't make it out of the design/experimental phase

I also think the CF section is too plain jane looking. I think they can do better than that. Dress up the CF section and put a giant scoreboard in the LF or RF stands like in SD or PHI

They need to take advantage of the river as well if that's possible in the design (they said 78 site, but I don't know if it's possible to face the park in a way that gets the skyline backdrop as well as river home runs)

edit: Forgot to add, we gotta get a retractable roof this time.

This photo reminds me of RF 100 level in Milwaukee. Sat there once, never again, couldn't stand the overhang. It felt like staring into a tunnel.

1 hour ago, tray said:

What stadium is pictured in your post?

It's a render, from the post on this page.

Edited May 1May 1 by joejoesox

2 hours ago, joejoesox said:

I think that's a deal breaker to most people. Paying premium for LD and getting a worse experience than the UD probably wouldn't make it out of the design/experimental phase

I also think the CF section is too plain jane looking. I think they can do better than that. Dress up the CF section and put a giant scoreboard in the LF or RF stands like in SD or PHI

They need to take advantage of the river as well if that's possible in the design (they said 78 site, but I don't know if it's possible to face the park in a way that gets the skyline backdrop as well as river home runs)

edit: Forgot to add, we gotta get a retractable roof this time.

Wouldn't a retractable roof limit some of the best views, which seem to be one of the biggest selling points? Skyline view, potential Chicago River home runs. Traditional parks are way more visually appealing. I get it though. Retractable roof would be great.

Why are people spending so much time on a randos imaginary stadium rendering? It'd be different if there even a real idea to go off of, but as of today, there is nothing real to go off of.

50 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Why are people spending so much time on a randos imaginary stadium rendering? It'd be different if there even a real idea to go off of, but as of today, there is nothing real to go off of.

Yup plus why are they basing the renderings off the 78 side when it's more likely gonna be on Amtrak side at the moment

Edited May 1May 1 by DoUEvenShift

45 minutes ago, ron883 said:

Wouldn't a retractable roof limit some of the best views, which seem to be one of the biggest selling points? Skyline view, potential Chicago River home runs. Traditional parks are way more visually appealing. I get it though. Retractable roof would be great.

^ This. All the bellyaching over the years about how the current park "turned its back on the city" only to build a new one that faces the city, is closer to the skyscrapers....and blocks out the city view? Also, as @caulfield12 mentioned, it really adds to the price and then subsequent maintenance.

Don't get me wrong, that roof in Milwaukee is great for those early season games where it's cold outside and nobody likes rain delays. But, it's not really needed most games during the season in Chicago.

Edited May 1May 1 by 77 Hitmen

54 minutes ago, DoUEvenShift said:

Yup plus why are they basing the renderings off the 78 side when it's more likely gonna be on Amtrak side at the moment

Travis Sawchik said in his tweet thread that it was a two year project, so I'm guessing they started this after the initial announcement of the Sox being interested in the 78 site a couple years ago.

9 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:

Travis Sawchik said in his tweet thread that it was a two year project, so I'm guessing they started this after the initial announcement of the Sox being interested in the 78 site a couple years ago.

It's such shitty luck.

2 hours ago, southsider2k5 said:

Why are people spending so much time on a randos imaginary stadium rendering? It'd be different if there even a real idea to go off of, but as of today, there is nothing real to go off of.

He spent 2 years on the renderings. Have some respect.

8 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

^ This. All the bellyaching over the years about how the current park "turned its back on the city" only to build a new one that faces the city, is closer to the skyscrapers....and blocks out the city view? Also, as @caulfield12 mentioned, it really adds to the price and then subsequent maintenance.

Don't get me wrong, that roof in Milwaukee is great for those early season games where it's cold outside and nobody likes rain delays. But, it's not really needed most games during the season in Chicago.

Honestly we don't KNOW much about new ownership. We know that Ishbias opened a money spigot in Phoenix and at Michigan State. We know that they are seemingly investing billions in the pre-planning to make this park possible, and to make this area an earnings center independent of the stadiums. So far my educated guess would be that Ishbia spares no expense towards a new stadium, but we have no idea WHAT a world class stadium looks like in Ishbias eyes. He could envision something more like Jerry Jones Cowboys Stadium as a model. Maybe he wants to endear himself to Chicago with an Old Comiskey replica. Maybe none of these are accurate.

TLDR; We have no idea what Ishbia wants, why waste time nitpicking some irrelevant work?