7 minutes ago, Chisoxfn said:

So I had been wondering for a while if Chicago would make a push for the Bears in Bridgeport. Not sure if this is where it is getting at and I'm not saying it would be option 1 - I doubt Bears ownership would get over it - but they have land, infastructure, etc - could they do something unique here.

Would be great, but they'd have to wait until what, 2033 to even break ground on the stadium? The Sox would have to be completely out of there first.

6 minutes ago, ron883 said:

Would be great, but they'd have to wait until what, 2033 to even break ground on the stadium? The Sox would have to be completely out of there first.

The lease on the Rate ends in 2029.

I don’t live in Illinois, but I try to get to a game when I am in town if the dates line up.

I’ve heard about the tailgate scene, and see some people being sad it is going away, but I’ve never seen or been involved in the tailgates in person. I went to a game in May and parked in the lots near Cork and Kerry. I was early and walked through the lots to the entrance, and I didn’t see one tailgate. Attendance was ~15K. It was a nice night weather wise. I’m sure tailgates for Cubs/Sox is a good time, but when I see people clinging to this as an argument….I don’t know.

As someone who’s been to a bunch of parks - most of which have been built in the last 30 years, the Rate sorely lacks things to do before and after the game. Growing up, my dad would park somewhere in the neighborhood and we’d walk through the viaduct to the game and leave in the 8th inning to “beat traffic.” Later, I took the Archer Express with friends. There was never any hanging out around the stadium. That’s the aspect of this stadium JR totally failed on.

People like to be able to spend time around the stadium, but the current location doesn’t have many opportunities to do it. From what i recall, the major obstacle to building up the Rate has always been JR.

Ishbia doesn’t want to be stuck with gate revenue, concessions and parking as his only income sources. He’s looking for year round income. Kinda hard to fault him for that.

1 minute ago, The Mighty Mite said:

The lease on the Rate ends in 2029.

There's no way the new stadium will be done by then. Amtrak needs their new facility before moving. Then demo. Then it takes 2.5-3 years to build a stadium. I figured it wouldn't be ready until 2032-2033~. They'll probably extend the lease for a short period.

4 minutes ago, Middle Buffalo said:

I don’t live in Illinois, but I try to get to a game when I am in town if the dates line up.

I’ve heard about the tailgate scene, and see some people being sad it is going away, but I’ve never seen or been involved in the tailgates in person. I went to a game in May and parked in the lots near Cork and Kerry. I was early and walked through the lots to the entrance, and I didn’t see one tailgate. Attendance was ~15K. It was a nice night weather wise. I’m sure tailgates for Cubs/Sox is a good time, but when I see people clinging to this as an argument….I don’t know.

As someone who’s been to a bunch of parks - most of which have been built in the last 30 years, the Rate sorely lacks things to do before and after the game. Growing up, my dad would park somewhere in the neighborhood and we’d walk through the viaduct to the game and leave in the 8th inning to “beat traffic.” Later, I took the Archer Express with friends. There was never any hanging out around the stadium. That’s the aspect of this stadium JR totally failed on.

People like to be able to spend time around the stadium, but the current location doesn’t have many opportunities to do it. From what i recall, the major obstacle to building up the Rate has always been JR.

Ishbia doesn’t want to be stuck with gate revenue, concessions and parking as his only income sources. He’s looking for year round income. Kinda hard to fault him for that.

As others have touched on, this would be great for increasing fandom and attracting people who are visiting the city. You'd have the nice ass stadium in a new, hip neighborhood with an entertainment district that is much closer to downtown. Probably the best skyline view of any stadium. Nobody ever visits from out-of-town and decides to go to a White Sox game. They want to go to Wrigley because of the history and surrounding neighborhood. You can't compete with Wrigley's history, but this will give it a run for its money because it will be a really nice, new stadium with an entertainment district and a stones throw from downtown. It will definitely attract more business clientele who want to get box seats, etc.

If they reduce the capacity below 40k I will be unhappy. The renderings make the stadium look really small with basically no outfield seating. This team plays in Chicago, not KC, Tampa Bay, Miami or Vegas. We can fill up 40k+ with ease when they're playing half way decent. I'm pretty sure a Cubs game this year would have filled a 50k seat park.

1 minute ago, Green Line said:

If they reduce the capacity below 40k I will be unhappy. The renderings make the stadium look really small with basically no outfield seating. This team plays in Chicago, not KC, Tampa Bay, Miami or Vegas. We can fill up 40k+ with ease when they're playing half way decent. I'm pretty sure a Cubs game this year would have filled a 50k seat park.

This park's capacity is already below 40k. I think the number is like 38.6k IIRC.

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

This park's capacity is already below 40k. I think the number is like 38.6k IIRC.

They can sell SRO tickets to bring it over 40k, which they did in the 2021 playoffs and anyway thats beside the point of the post. Vegas is building a new 33k seat stadium, Tampa similar. That would be bad for the fans who will be locked out of big games (and more expensive prices).

Edited Tuesday at 08:41 PM4 days by Green Line

1 minute ago, Green Line said:

They can sell SRO tickets to bring it over 40k, which they did in the 2021 playoffs and anyway thats beside the point of the post. Vegas is building a new 33k seat stadium, Tampa similar. That would be bad for the fans who will be locked out of big games (and more expensive prices).

They drew 40,288 and 40,170. That's what we are talking about here? Its been almost a generation since the Sox even averaged 25k a season.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

They drew 40,288 and 40,170. That's what we are talking about here? Its been almost a generation since the Sox even averaged 25k a season.

Are you so literal you really don't understand what I'm saying? If they follow the trend of other ballparks and decrease the capacity by several thousand, that will be a bad thing. Its 40k now.

1 minute ago, Green Line said:

Are you so literal you really don't understand what I'm saying? If they follow the trend of other ballparks and decrease the capacity by several thousand, that will be a bad thing. Its 40k now.

They have already cut the capacity from the mid 40s back when the park opened, and you had to go back six seasons to find a game it made a difference in. Of the things to worry about, this is way down my list.

I think 38K is the sweet spot for a new stadium. Nobody really needs to be 400 feet from home plate and up 100 feet in the air.

2 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

They have already cut the capacity from the mid 40s back when the park opened, and you had to go back six seasons to find a game it made a difference in. Of the things to worry about, this is way down my list.

You have no idea what games it would have made a difference in. They only sell standing room tickets for the playoff games. There were multiple sell outs this year that would have been sellouts in a larger stadium as well.

Its called supply and demand. The less supply, the more expensive tickets are = bad for the average fan.

4 minutes ago, Green Line said:

You have no idea what games it would have made a difference in. They only sell standing room tickets for the playoff games. There were multiple sell outs this year that would have been sellouts in a larger stadium as well.

Its called supply and demand. The less supply, the more expensive tickets are = bad for the average fan.

And without demand, they aren't going to spend tens of millions of dollars to add more seats to a park after their last stadium they cut 8000 seats out of their last stadium for lack of demand.

1 minute ago, southsider2k5 said:

And without demand, they aren't going to spend tens of millions of dollars to add more seats to a park after their last stadium they cut 8000 seats out of their last stadium for lack of demand.

Good thing I never said to add more? I just said don't make it smaller than the current ballpark. Why do you feel the need to argue with someone you're not even disagreeing with?

You made your point - the cost to go to the game for the average fan is not a concern for you.

Edited Tuesday at 09:02 PM4 days by Green Line

Just now, Green Line said:

Good thing I never said to add more? I just said don't make it smaller than the current ballpark. Why do you feel the need to argue with someone you're not even disagreeing with?

I mean it's something is such a rare occurance, I am not sure why it is such a big deal. Honestly I would be shocked if capacity isn't smaller based on the history of this franchise and the size of the area they are shoehorning a stadium into, plus recent trends in ballpark capacity. At least 95% of the time, Sox fans can walk up to the gate and buy a ticket pretty much anywhere they want for list price.

1 hour ago, Middle Buffalo said:

I don’t live in Illinois, but I try to get to a game when I am in town if the dates line up.

I’ve heard about the tailgate scene, and see some people being sad it is going away, but I’ve never seen or been involved in the tailgates in person. I went to a game in May and parked in the lots near Cork and Kerry. I was early and walked through the lots to the entrance, and I didn’t see one tailgate. Attendance was ~15K. It was a nice night weather wise. I’m sure tailgates for Cubs/Sox is a good time, but when I see people clinging to this as an argument….I don’t know.

As someone who’s been to a bunch of parks - most of which have been built in the last 30 years, the Rate sorely lacks things to do before and after the game. Growing up, my dad would park somewhere in the neighborhood and we’d walk through the viaduct to the game and leave in the 8th inning to “beat traffic.” Later, I took the Archer Express with friends. There was never any hanging out around the stadium. That’s the aspect of this stadium JR totally failed on.

People like to be able to spend time around the stadium, but the current location doesn’t have many opportunities to do it. From what i recall, the major obstacle to building up the Rate has always been JR.

Ishbia doesn’t want to be stuck with gate revenue, concessions and parking as his only income sources. He’s looking for year round income. Kinda hard to fault him for that.

I walked thru those same viaducts with my father. I have gone to countless games with friends and family since. Times change though. People don't just want baseball they want a day/night out too. Old Comiskey and now the rate never offered that. Ok then not ok now. My daughter once said to me about technology (although it is true for everything) Dad, if you don't keep up, you get left behind. Build the new stadium with all the bells and whistles.

1 hour ago, ron883 said:

There's no way the new stadium will be done by then. Amtrak needs their new facility before moving. Then demo. Then it takes 2.5-3 years to build a stadium. I figured it wouldn't be ready until 2032-2033~. They'll probably extend the lease for a short period.

With the way the Bears have been “negotiating”, 2033 Bridgeport might as well be added to the list of viable sites.

1 hour ago, Green Line said:

If they reduce the capacity below 40k I will be unhappy. The renderings make the stadium look really small with basically no outfield seating. This team plays in Chicago, not KC, Tampa Bay, Miami or Vegas. We can fill up 40k+ with ease when they're playing half way decent. I'm pretty sure a Cubs game this year would have filled a 50k seat park.

If the potentially expanded audience and influx of tourism hasn’t been factored into the capacity, that’s a blunder imo. The Rate may not have the best average attendance, but Ishbia’s new stadium alone should provide a bump. The Angels and Mets are averaging 33k this year. By those metrics, a >40k capacity would be appropriate.

29 minutes ago, Mouthsider said:

If the potentially expanded audience and influx of tourism hasn’t been factored into the capacity, that’s a blunder imo. The Rate may not have the best average attendance, but Ishbia’s new stadium alone should provide a bump. The Angels and Mets are averaging 33k this year. By those metrics, a >40k capacity would be appropriate.

The Mets are also two way splitting a market of about double what Chicago is, and they even dropped their capacity from 57k to 41k when they built their new stadium.

6 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The Mets are also two way splitting a market of about double what Chicago is, and they even dropped their capacity from 57k to 41k when they built their new stadium.

Shea Stadium was home to the Mets and Jets. It made sense to decrease the capacity for a baseball-specific stadium. Considering the Yankees are currently averaging 41k this season, I think the Mets’ capacity is fitting.

Since Ishbia’s plan is focused around drawing in more fans and tourists, I think lowering capacity would be counterproductive to that goal, but there’s no knowing until his plans are finalized. After all, the stadium hasn’t even been professionally designed yet.

I will only recognize the Sox as the southsiders if they move to 75th and Cottage Grove.

In all seriousness, I’m very much a person that would lose at least some interest if they moved somewhere that would legitimately cause them to lose the southside identity, and this is very much not going to happen on Roosevelt and Canal.

If they were moving to like Fulton Market I could kinda see the issue. And if they were moving to Arlington or whatever, fuckem.

18 minutes ago, Mouthsider said:

Shea Stadium was home to the Mets and Jets. It made sense to decrease the capacity for a baseball-specific stadium. Considering the Yankees are currently averaging 41k this season, I think the Mets’ capacity is fitting.

Since Ishbia’s plan is focused around drawing in more fans and tourists, I think lowering capacity would be counterproductive to that goal, but there’s no knowing until his plans are finalized. After all, the stadium hasn’t even been professionally designed yet.

The White Sox haven't averaged even 25k a night since 2010. They last time in their history they hit 30k was the few years immediately following the world series, besides that the only other time they hit 30 was when the new park opened. The Mets had done it 4 straight years at Shea and 8 out of 10 before the new field.

I get optimism at all, but I also get some reality.

1 hour ago, Stinky Stanky said:

And so could Joe Blow if he saw an economic opportunity but no one did. So JR has lotsa company.

1 hour ago, southsider2k5 said:

The White Sox haven't averaged even 25k a night since 2010. They last time in their history they hit 30k was the few years immediately following the world series, besides that the only other time they hit 30 was when the new park opened. The Mets had done it 4 straight years at Shea and 8 out of 10 before the new field.

I get optimism at all, but I also get some reality.

How big is the NYC msa?

10-12 million?

2 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

How big is the NYC msa?

10-12 million?

Chicago metro is about 10m. NYC metro is around 20m.