2 hours ago2 hr 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 ago1 hr 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.
55 minutes ago55 min 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" again?
48 minutes ago48 min 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 46 minutes ago46 min by Sleepy Harold
43 minutes ago43 min 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.
42 minutes ago42 min 6 minutes ago, Sleepy Harold said:I found this part interesting here, but lots info in the piece.
17 minutes ago17 min “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 16 minutes ago16 min by DoUEvenShift
11 minutes ago11 min 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 10 minutes ago10 min by ron883
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.