59 minutes ago, Texsox said:

Interesting you bring up Atlanta. Wouldn't that be the blueprint for an Arlington Heights development in the suburbs? They left the city.

We could also mention the Rangers who went suburban.

Atlanta has been rated as the most sprawled major league city in America whereas Chicago is ranked as one of the least sprawled cities and has one of the most robust transit systems in America. The idea of the Railyards development is to integrate it with the city, not create some isolated entertainment district way out in the burbs. That'll work for the Bears in AH because they play once a week usually on Sundays.

Also, Arlington Heights is far away from the heart of the Sox fan base of the South Side and S & SW suburbs. Good luck getting those fans to drive out to AH 81 times a year.

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2026/sprawl-rankings-reveal-health-benefits-and-cost-offsets-in-compact-connected-us-county-and-metro-areas

https://publichealth.jhu.edu/center-for-smart-transportation/the-2025-metropolitan-sprawl-rankings

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by 77 Hitmen

1 hour ago, WBWSF said:

Ishbia mentioned at the conference the other day how they took the NBA Suns off cable TV and put them on free TV. I wonder if that's the game plan for the White Sox in the future. Free TV would reach more fans than cable.

Here's what he has to say about that as well as other things they did when they took over the Phoenix Suns.

3 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

It almost seems too good to be true that the Sox have an owner-in-waiting who is serious about building a privately-financed new ballpark and is putting many things in motion to make it happen.

It would be such a White Sox thing if this effort fails and we spend the next 30 years arguing that the existing ballpark is not that bad and that the current location is not that bad if only people would give it a chance, blah blah blah. Yeah, it'll be very disappointing.....but as a Sox fan I'm conditioned to expect that we can't have nice things. So while I'm cautiously optimistic, I won't believe it's happening until there are shovels in the ground.

The A's, Rays, and Royals are all getting new ballparks. Kroenke is buying the Angels and I expect him to either massively overhaul their stadium or build a new one at the current site. After that, if the Sox stay at Rate Field long-term, it'll likely be ranked 29th or 30th when ballpark rankings come out.

Now cue the hyperbolic outrage and personal attacks in 3....2....1.....

3 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

It almost seems too good to be true that the Sox have an owner-in-waiting who is serious about building a privately-financed new ballpark and is putting many things in motion to make it happen.

It would be such a White Sox thing if this effort fails and we spend the next 30 years arguing that the existing ballpark is not that bad and that the current location is not that bad if only people would give it a chance, blah blah blah. Yeah, it'll be very disappointing.....but as a Sox fan I'm conditioned to expect that we can't have nice things. So while I'm cautiously optimistic, I won't believe it's happening until there are shovels in the ground.

The A's, Rays, and Royals are all getting new ballparks. Kroenke is buying the Angels and I expect him to either massively overhaul their stadium or build a new one at the current site. After that, if the Sox stay at Rate Field long-term, it'll likely be ranked 29th or 30th when ballpark rankings come out.

Now cue the hyperbolic outrage and personal attacks in 3....2....1.....

The new stadium in the South Loop would be a tremendous thing for the White Sox, White Sox fans, the City of Chicago and the South Loop. I can't believe the City of Chicago wouldn't want this to happen. But I agree with you, I won't believe it until there are shovels in the ground. I try not to think this way but what happens if this project does not go forward. I know Ishbia doesn't want to stay at the Rate.

1 hour ago, Texsox said:

Interesting you bring up Atlanta. Wouldn't that be the blueprint for an Arlington Heights development in the suburbs? They left the city.

We could also mention the Rangers who went suburban.

Rangers have always been in Arlington.

29 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Arlington is suburban?

Plus, they have the Cowboys' stadium in the same area.

Six Flags and the airport, etc.

But Plano is true suburban DFW.

The Chiefs/Royals are the only similar setup with miles of parking lots in the middle of nowhere...and both are leaving for greener, separate pastures.

Absolutely nothing to do there but tailgate for football games.

Or the Meadowlands...but they built one of the biggest malls in America not so far from there, right?

Plano and Arlington are both pretty suburban. Have about the same density. I'd are tgey have have a pretty similar feel as far as the built environment goes.

5 minutes ago, Rusty_Kuntz said:

Plano and Arlington are both pretty suburban. Have about the same density. I'd are tgey have have a pretty similar feel as far as the built environment goes.

Plano to me just feels like neighborhood after neighborhood of $325,000-475,000 houses

it's also not being criss crossed by major highways to the same extent

Edited 22 hours ago22 hr by caulfield12

1 minute ago, caulfield12 said:

Plano to me just feels like neighborhood after neighborhood of $325,000-475,000 houses

It's more than that now. But I'd say Arlington is pretty similar, a bit more run down and socioeconomically low mid. Both ver racially diverse and low density.

2 hours ago, Rusty_Kuntz said:

Rangers have always been in Arlington.

I am old enough to remember when Arlington was an island between Dallas and FT Worth

3 hours ago, WBWSF said:

The new stadium in the South Loop would be a tremendous thing for the White Sox, White Sox fans, the City of Chicago and the South Loop. I can't believe the City of Chicago wouldn't want this to happen. But I agree with you, I won't believe it until there are shovels in the ground. I try not to think this way but what happens if this project does not go forward. I know Ishbia doesn't want to stay at the Rate.

Hey maybe they'll move to Nashville!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😄

1 hour ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Hey maybe they'll move to Nashville!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 😄

Maybe Ishbia will back out of the deal if the project doesn't go thru.

Edited 17 hours ago17 hr by WBWSF

43 minutes ago, WBWSF said:

Maybe Ishbia will back out of the deal if the project doesn't go thru.

Ah; no he won't, he'll find another area in Chicago.

8 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Maybe Ishbia will back out of the deal if the project doesn't go thru.

The development still goes through with or without a ballpark.

6 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Ah; no he won't, he'll find another area in Chicago.

It appears that that the "railyard" may not be large enough to accommodate an mlb approved stadium. No problem, Ishbia keeps pushing hoping a stadium might fit there. Prior to seeking a stadium site, the dimensions of the tract and answers to questions like what kind of a stadium would be best should have been approached, i.e, whether a retractable dome would make sense. On the latter issue, consider that fans in Cleveland would have been better off if they had a retractable dome after already having one game of an ALCS postponed because of weather, another one (game 4) played with temperatures in the 40's, and the prospect of more games in similar conditions. Milwaukee, of course, will be playing indoors. They knew it gets too cold up there for Fall baseball.

8 hours ago, Lip Man 1 said:

Ah; no he won't, he'll find another area in Chicago.

Where would the area be? It won't be in the city. That being the case, what suburb would it be in? When JR wanted to build the stadium in the 78 Mayor Johnson said show me some skin. You have a situation now where Ishbia is showing some big time skin. He's paying for the stadium with his own money and it looks like the CIty might be giving him a hard time.

55 minutes ago, tray said:

It appears that that the "railyard" may not be large enough to accommodate an mlb approved stadium. No problem, Ishbia keeps pushing hoping a stadium might fit there. Prior to seeking a stadium site, the dimensions of the tract and answers to questions like what kind of a stadium would be best should have been approached, i.e, whether a retractable dome would make sense. On the latter issue, consider that fans in Cleveland would have been better off if they had a retractable dome after already having one game of an ALCS postponed because of weather, another one (game 4) played with temperatures in the 40's, and the prospect of more games in similar conditions. Milwaukee, of course, will be playing indoors. They knew it gets too cold up there for Fall baseball.

Is that retractable dome worth $300-500 million extra to taxpayers?

Shouldn't that $$$ be paid by mlb instead to preserve the integrity of the game in cold weather cities?

Minnesota Detroit CLE Chicago 2 NY 2 Pittsburgh SF Philly Boston...no domes

10 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

Is that retractable dome worth $300-500 million extra to taxpayers?

Shouldn't that $$$ be paid by mlb instead to preserve the integrity of the game in cold weather cities?

Minnesota Detroit CLE Chicago 2 NY 2 Pittsburgh SF Philly Boston...no domes

I don't want the Sox in a dome/retractable roof.

Since Soldier Field lost its " National Historical Landmark" status why not tear it down and let the Bears lease the land and build a new stadium?

1 hour ago, tray said:

It appears that that the "railyard" may not be large enough to accommodate an mlb approved stadium. No problem, Ishbia keeps pushing hoping a stadium might fit there. Prior to seeking a stadium site, the dimensions of the tract and answers to questions like what kind of a stadium would be best should have been approached, i.e, whether a retractable dome would make sense. On the latter issue, consider that fans in Cleveland would have been better off if they had a retractable dome after already having one game of an ALCS postponed because of weather, another one (game 4) played with temperatures in the 40's, and the prospect of more games in similar conditions. Milwaukee, of course, will be playing indoors. They knew it gets too cold up there for Fall baseball.

Which is why he keeps adding surrounding properties. Besides you have already tried and failed at this trope.

4 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Where would the area be? It won't be in the city. That being the case, what suburb would it be in? When JR wanted to build the stadium in the 78 Mayor Johnson said show me some skin. You have a situation now where Ishbia is showing some big time skin. He's paying for the stadium with his own money and it looks like the CIty might be giving him a hard time.

Political cover by gutless politicians...using the "out" of knowing this is going to happen so they stand against it...many of the same people who are "against" this transaction (swapping of railyards) will be at the ribbon-cutting ceremonies celebrating the jobs/money that these projects brought the city when they open!

2 hours ago, WBWSF said:

Where would the area be? It won't be in the city. That being the case, what suburb would it be in? When JR wanted to build the stadium in the 78 Mayor Johnson said show me some skin. You have a situation now where Ishbia is showing some big time skin. He's paying for the stadium with his own money and it looks like the CIty might be giving him a hard time.

According to the latest Josh Nelson Sox Machine video, there is no Plan C. The current options are JR's taxpayer-funded 78 plan or Ishbia's Amtrak yard plan and that's it.

There are several ways the South Loop stadium plan can still fall apart and, being a Sox fan used to us not having nice things, I'll believe this is happening when there are shovels in the ground. But as of now, Ishbia has been buying up several other properties near the site for millions of dollars - which shows his confidence in and commitment to this project. We're also still a long way from Amtrak totally abandoning moving out of the 14th St. site. First of all, they have the federal exemption and city hall can't simply block their move to Bridgeport because of NIMBY objections. Also, there are other paths to resolving neighborhood objections beside Amtrak staying at their current yard forever. They could agree to extra levels of mitigation at their new facility or they could find another parcel for their maintenance yard.

As far as where they'd go if the South Loop options totally fail? IMO, they may as well stay at the current site, build a new ballpark there, and try to get some development going on the parking lots. Soldier Field and Michael Reese would be worse sites as would any suburban option.

Edited 2 hours ago2 hr by 77 Hitmen

4 hours ago, caulfield12 said:

Is that retractable dome worth $300-500 million extra to taxpayers?

Shouldn't that $$$ be paid by mlb instead to preserve the integrity of the game in cold weather cities?

Minnesota Detroit CLE Chicago 2 NY 2 Pittsburgh SF Philly Boston...no domes

4 hours ago, Falstaff said:

I don't want the Sox in a dome/retractable roof.

Since Soldier Field lost its " National Historical Landmark" status why not tear it down and let the Bears lease the land and build a new stadium?

Plus a few hundred millions in repairs every couple of decades like what's happening in Milwaukee and Arizona now.

The problem with retractable roof ballparks is that they can end up looking like warehouses. Aside from Milwaukee and Toronto, every other cold-weather city has decided to go with an open air ballpark and it's worked out fine for them.

For the second year in a row, there were postseason games at Dodger Stadium where the temperature was 100 degrees. Maybe everyone should insist that they put a roof over Chavez Ravine.

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Plus a few hundred millions in repairs every couple of decades like what's happening in Milwaukee and Arizona now.

The problem with retractable roof ballparks is that they can end up looking like warehouses. Aside from Milwaukee and Toronto, every other cold-weather city has decided to go with an open air ballpark and it's worked out fine for them.

For the second year in a row, there were postseason games at Dodger Stadium where the temperature was 100 degrees. Maybe everyone should insist that they put a roof over Chavez Ravine.

The Rangers' stadium just looks so ugly from the outside...

At any rate the ROI for protecting April 1st through May 15th and September White Sox games of having a dome just isn't worth it.

Teams like StLouis KC Colorado that draw fans regionally from long distances on the weekend don't have domed stadiums in their plans, either.

2 hours ago, 77 Hitmen said:

Plus a few hundred millions in repairs every couple of decades like what's happening in Milwaukee and Arizona now.

The problem with retractable roof ballparks is that they can end up looking like warehouses. Aside from Milwaukee and Toronto, every other cold-weather city has decided to go with an open air ballpark and it's worked out fine for them.

For the second year in a row, there were postseason games at Dodger Stadium where the temperature was 100 degrees. Maybe everyone should insist that they put a roof over Chavez Ravine.

The contrast between

I HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS

and

I DEMAND A DOME

Is endlessly entertaining to me