Sox stadium to me isn't that different to me from Citi parks location. It's not the iconic "mixed within the city" look of San Fran, Wrigley, Pittsburgh, Boston, Bronx, Coors, etc...but it's the next best thing. The stadiums that work in suburban locations are almost all in cities with low density and driving is expected.

 

It's basically "good enough" and anything you swap it out with would be about as convenient, otherwise it's improbable from a cost standpoint without significant city buy-in...and why would Chicago?

That's my point. The cheap land in the city is not good enough when you factor in highway access, and the better parcels are too expensive.

Wrigley is not as good transit wise as Sox Park. The red Line stop services three lines, but it's only ONE STATION. 10k people go into ONE STATION postgame. Sox have three SEPARATE stops/lines on 35th street. big differenace.

 

Bus service means nothing when there are 12-15k cars filling the streets in a square mile around wrigley.

 

LSD does NOT have an Addison exit. You need to get off at Irving or Belmont. AND, the Drive is a parking lot as you get into rush hour from Roosevelt TO Hollywood.

 

The Kennedy exit for Addison(and Irving) is as far West as Pulaski. That's almost FOUR MILES from the Friendly Confines.(Belmont is at Kedzie, which makes it around three miles west). The Dan Ryan exits for Sox Park(31st, 35th, and Pershing exits ) are HALF A BLOCK EAST OF THE STADIUM!

 

The Cubs have a free(con't argue with that) remote lot for 1000 cars, but that is at Irving and Rockwell, still about 2 miles from the park. And fans need to take a shuttle from there. Sox have 7000 ON-SITE parking spaces. At a reduced cost of $20 per game($10 on sundays).

 

 

You got me beat on the oh so important nightlife and "hang out after the game options". But The sox allow tailgating pre-game(with a little postgame) and I always see the vast majority of cars leave the park as soon as the game ends. Maybe the marketplace has spoken in that regard.

Yet the Cubs draw and the Sox do not.if everything remains status quo when it is time for a new building, there is no way the Sox stay where they are at.

And what does this have to do with my extensive deconstruction of your earlier comment about wrigley traffic?

 

how at 1 time there was talk of the sox moving away from there present location. which

i still think is a great area, not idea but better than shields.

 

 

Sox stadium to me isn't that different to me from Citi parks location. It's not the iconic "mixed within the city" look of San Fran, Wrigley, Pittsburgh, Boston, Bronx, Coors, etc...but it's the next best thing. The stadiums that work in suburban locations are almost all in cities with low density and driving is expected.

 

It's basically "good enough" and anything you swap it out with would be about as convenient, otherwise it's improbable from a cost standpoint without significant city buy-in...and why would Chicago?

 

that is a great point.

 

right now, discussing this so called move is nothing but a good discussion.

the sox have a great deal they are not going to find another deal like that.

Yet the Cubs draw and the Sox do not.if everything remains status quo when it is time for a new building, there is no way the Sox stay where they are at.

 

bravo another good point.

 

but by that time, there will be new ownership.

how at 1 time there was talk of the sox moving away from there present location. which

i still think is a great area, not idea but better than shields.

There were a LOT of proposals back in the 80's. Mostly in a west loop that is now developed.

 

There is NO land downtown or nearby cheap enough for a new facility.

Yet the Cubs draw and the Sox do not.if everything remains status quo when it is time for a new building, there is no way the Sox stay where they are at.

In 2029, when the lease ends, I will be shocked if they are not at the exact same corner.

 

There really is no where to go. Unless the state wants to dish out 3 billion for land, stadium, and infrastructure costs.

There were a LOT of proposals back in the 80's. Mostly in a west loop that is now developed.

 

There is NO land downtown or nearby cheap enough for a new facility.

 

you are missing the point. as you said, there were talks. however, with the deal

JR got, and the lease, the sox is going no where. this topic is like a dog who

chases his tail. it fun to see, but it is going no where and not until the lease is

over.

 

done.

 

peace

In 2029, when the lease ends, I will be shocked if they are not at the exact same corner.

 

There really is no where to go. Unless the state wants to dish out 3 billion for land, stadium, and infrastructure costs.

Unless the state wants to dish out another sweetheart lease deal whereby we, the taxpayers, continue to subsidize ownership due to a continuation of attendance problems at this lousy location. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the Sox or the state will make that same mistake again. A new and more desirable location may not be obvious now, but when the time comes, this franchise will pull up stakes at 35th and Shields and move the show to a far more advantageous part of the city. Of that, I have no doubts.

Unless the state wants to dish out another sweetheart lease deal whereby we, the taxpayers, continue to subsidize ownership due to a continuation of attendance problems at this lousy location. I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the Sox or the state will make that same mistake again. A new and more desirable location may not be obvious now, but when the time comes, this franchise will pull up stakes at 35th and Shields and move the show to a far more advantageous part of the city. Of that, I have no doubts.

Dare I say this, but it's not out of the question that the Sox leave Illinois altogether. The next go-around, I sincerely doubt that debt-ridden IL will have the political support to subsidize a new Sox stadium. The Cubs were just rejected by the city and the Bears only got a renovation, not a rebuild. Times will probably be financially tougher 15 years from now, too, not better.

 

I have been a Sox fan for over 30 years, but I'm also a taxpayer and I honestly wouldn't support the IL state government spending taxpayer money on sports - not when they have unfunded pensions and other obligations and owe people out the a**..

This thread is making a ton of assumptions based on the old ownership group being around for the next stadium deal. I don't see there being much of a chance at all at that being reality. When the new group comes in, who knows what their priorities will be.

This thread is making a ton of assumptions based on the old ownership group being around for the next stadium deal. I don't see there being much of a chance at all at that being reality. When the new group comes in, who knows what their priorities will be.

 

and so will the economic times.

Dare I say this, but it's not out of the question that the Sox leave Illinois altogether. The next go-around, I sincerely doubt that debt-ridden IL will have the political support to subsidize a new Sox stadium. The Cubs were just rejected by the city and the Bears only got a renovation, not a rebuild. Times will probably be financially tougher 15 years from now, too, not better.

 

I have been a Sox fan for over 30 years, but I'm also a taxpayer and I honestly wouldn't support the IL state government spending taxpayer money on sports - not when they have unfunded pensions and other obligations and owe people out the a**..

The bears deal is actually worse, as that was 600 million for a much maligned "renovation".

and so will the economic times.

 

Also very true. 2029 is a LONG way away.

Is anyone else eagerly waiting for the new ownership group? Reinsdorf is going to be 79 in February and you have to think change is coming.

 

I'm actually a bit scared.

I'm actually a bit scared.

 

Yeah the current group has been pretty good to us as far as spending is concerned.

 

 

Is anyone else eagerly waiting for the new ownership group? Reinsdorf is going to be 79 in February and you have to think change is coming.

 

One thing this group has always been is stable. They have always been pushing towards winning as soon as possible, even when things weren't going great. I hope for the best, but there is always the fear of a bad owner, such as the Dodgers saw.

I'm actually a bit scared.

 

What is there to be scared about? It's not like the Sox have been very successful under the current owner.

Also very true. 2029 is a LONG way away.

 

btw, that is a great song from phil collins.

 

Is anyone else eagerly waiting for the new ownership group? Reinsdorf is going to be 79 in February and you have to think change is coming.

 

man JR is on the right side of 79.... it all cool

I'm actually a bit scared.

I'll take my chances!

What is there to be scared about? It's not like the Sox have been very successful under the current owner.

Moving.

Given the current economic climate in baseball, I highly doubt the sox will leave the Chicago market.

Given the current economic climate in baseball, I highly doubt the sox will leave the Chicago market.

 

i agree but will add, in the current economic conditions in the nation,

any sports team may not move, unless economical force too.

 

the time of the city, state financing a sport building / venue will be

hard to justify.

Given the current economic climate in baseball, I highly doubt the sox will leave the Chicago market.

 

Which will change a lot in 15 years. Odds aren't very good that the team will get any help from the State of Illinois on a new stadium next time around. If Las Vegas throws a billion dollar package at them, while Illinois offers squat, does it change ownerships minds? It is hard to predict the future.