PDA

View Full Version : Cubs possibly moving to South Loop


longtimesoxguy
05-29-2009, 12:20 AM
There has been a lot of activity on the vacant land at Roosevelt and Canal.
Nothing major just a bunch of SUV's and suits looking around.
I'm hearing from a city guy that the new owners need more revenue spent in his park not all over the neighborhood. and redoing Wrigley isn't a option, That neighborhood can not be shut down for 2 years.
I would hate to see those people in my hood. But it's right by 2 metra lines, 3 major expressways and 3 cta lines and they can build a harbor for boats on the river. Also the South Loop needs some help with commerce much like Wrigley needed in the 80's. I don't know how much bite is in it but who knows?

rdivaldi
05-29-2009, 12:27 AM
That land is earmarked for a huge condo and retail development, not gonna happen.

kittle42
05-29-2009, 12:38 AM
Um, no. Like really, no.

rdivaldi
05-29-2009, 01:05 AM
Also the South Loop needs some help with commerce much like Wrigley needed in the 80's. I don't know how much bite is in it but who knows?

The South Loop is bustling and vibrant. A far cry from Crummyville in the late 70s and early 80s.

thomas35forever
05-29-2009, 01:17 AM
I've always wanted to move to Chicago. I recently heard good things about living there. If I ever move there, I think that would be my first target.

DumpJerry
05-29-2009, 01:26 AM
There has been a lot of activity on the vacant land at Roosevelt and Canal.
Nothing major just a bunch of SUV's and suits looking around.
I'm hearing from a city guy that the new owners need more revenue spent in his park not all over the neighborhood. and redoing Wrigley isn't a option, That neighborhood can not be shut down for 2 years.
I would hate to see those people in my hood. But it's right by 2 metra lines, 3 major expressways and 3 cta lines and they can build a harbor for boats on the river. Also the South Loop needs some help with commerce much like Wrigley needed in the 80's. I don't know how much bite is in it but who knows?

A bunch of SUVs and suits looking around does not constitute a Chicago Cubs siting committee. The "new owners" are not owners yet and, in fact, it may be a while before they become owners since the Ricketts family is having an extremely difficult time obtaining the financing they need to complete the purchase. Word is, they are reaching out to celebrities who are Cub fans to solicit their monetary participation.

The South Loop is bustling and vibrant. A far cry from Crummyville in the late 70s and early 80s.
The real estate market in the South Loop is a total disaster. Many projects are stalled and contracts are being cancelled left and right. I would not buy there for the next two years, it's a cluster****. I had some clients who had to bail out on deals there because, after two years of lies, the developer never could get the building done. My real estate agents who work there all report that nothing, NOTHING, is moving there. Further north, things have picked up, but the South Loop is not looking good right now.

LITTLE NELL
05-29-2009, 06:04 AM
Whatever happens , so be it, but thats where the new Comiskey should have built.

C-Dawg
05-29-2009, 07:07 AM
That land is earmarked for a huge condo and retail development, not gonna happen.

Many projects are stalled and contracts are being cancelled left and right.

You guys are both right. My employer submitted a proposal for soil borings and geotechnical work on that property and the plans included several large retail buildings and at least one 30+ floor residential building. Unfortunately, that's where it has stalled; we've done nothing since.

Its definately NOT a new ballpark for the Cubs.

Viva Medias B's
05-29-2009, 08:34 AM
Even if the Cubs were looking at the South Loop, the White Sox would object and claim the Cubs would be violating their territorial rights. I don't think any kind of agreement is in place between the Sox and Cubs along these lines, but in football the Bears and Cardinals had an accord prohibiting the Big Red from moving north of Madison Street. When the Cardinals tried to move from Comiskey Park to then-Dyche Stadium in Evanston, Halas stopped them dead in their tracks and it eventually led to the Big Red moving to St. Louis. I do not know if such an agreement ─ prohibiting the White Sox or Cubs from moving to the opposide side of Madison Street ─ is in place, but it makes common sense to have a de facto agreement like that between them.

Red Barchetta
05-29-2009, 09:08 AM
It's against all things "Cubs" for them to ever move south of the river. If/when they do build another ballpark, expect a Yankees-type park whereas all the original dimensions and characteristics, ivy, etc. of Wrigley are maintained.

When this happens, expect the biggest media circus this city has ever seen about how they a "preserving the character of baseball", etc.

I expect them to move even further north if anything....

As to the south loop, that's where Comskey II should have been built. I always loved the idea of the Sears Tower (or whatever it's now called) looming large over the outfield stands.

tebman
05-29-2009, 09:53 AM
It's against all things "Cubs" for them to ever move south of the river. If/when they do build another ballpark, expect a Yankees-type park whereas all the original dimensions and characteristics, ivy, etc. of Wrigley are maintained.

When this happens, expect the biggest media circus this city has ever seen about how they a "preserving the character of baseball", etc.

I expect them to move even further north if anything....

As to the south loop, that's where Comskey II should have been built. I always loved the idea of the Sears Tower (or whatever it's now called) looming large over the outfield stands.
I don't think anybody's going to be happy after the new owner takes over the Cubs. He's not happy already with the broadcast-rights ripoff he'd be inheriting from the Tribune. Since WGN radio and TV were part of the same company with the Cubs, they had a sweetheart deal for broadcast rights that they quietly extended for 10 years before they got into the details of selling the team.

As to the ballpark, the place is 90 years old and falling apart. The new boss won't have a choice. Either a whole new park has to be built or a complete teardown/renovation will have to be done. Either option is going to cost a fortune and cause all kinds of hand-wringing from that tribe of ivy-worshippers we always hear from.

There's no way they'd build a new ballpark in the South Loop. The Cubs' and the Tribune's center of gravity has always been the North Side and the North Shore. If they build a new park it'll be further north in the city or one of the north suburbs, but wherever they build it we'll have to listen to cries of pain. Fans won't be happy, the city won't be happy, the owner won't be happy.

I remember the angst in 1986-88 when the White Sox talked about a new park, and during that time we had to listen to people telling the Sox good riddance. As fans we didn't have much room in the debate to lament the passing of the old ballpark. The South Loop site was a possibility, but so was Addison, and so was St. Petersburg. Now take that experience and magnify it many times and you'll get the likely drama of the Cubs renovating or moving.

Fasten your seat belts.

TomBradley72
05-29-2009, 10:18 AM
Whatever happens , so be it, but thats were the new Comiskey should have built.

:clap:
:clap:

TommyJohn
05-29-2009, 10:30 AM
I remember the angst in 1986-88 when the White Sox talked about a new park, and during that time we had to listen to people telling the Sox good riddance.



As I recall, some people who said that were Sox fans-"at least we'll be rid of Reinsdorf! Then we'll get an expansion team!" Arrrrrgh

anti-cub
05-29-2009, 10:40 AM
Who knows when anything will go on that land. It was Tony Rezko's land and he was planning Riverside District which looked pretty nice. Once he was investigated Riverside District halted and the Roosevelt Collection on the north side of Roosevelt picked and that's close to opening.

Cubs would never move there and if they did, I'd have to jump from the 18th street bridge. However, it would funny because then every sports team in Chicago would be south of Madison.

Flight #24
05-29-2009, 11:29 AM
Whatever happens , so be it, but thats were the new Comiskey should have built.

As long as we're going there....

What should have happened had we had some real vision around back then was that instead of biulding USCF and then redoing Soldier Field a few years later, the City should have brokered a deal to move the Bears to a new stadium on the current USCF site. Lots of parking nearby, close to highways, and once-a-week traffic wouldn't be a huge deal.

Then Soldier Field gets redone as a baseball park with views of the City from behind home plate. That's perfect for attracting post-work folks from the Loop on a nightly basis for summer nights.

Both teams would have been the same or better off, and it would be a much better fit for baseball with Grant Park & the museum campus during the summer.

Malgar 12
05-29-2009, 11:37 AM
For those of you interested in the history and myth of Wrigley Field, you might like to read an article I recently had published called "Ivy-Coloured Glasses: The Myth of Wrigley Field".

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a901939856

I wouldn't advise buying it, but you should be able to find the journal at any reputable academic library.

DSpivack
05-29-2009, 11:48 AM
As long as we're going there....

What should have happened had we had some real vision around back then was that instead of biulding USCF and then redoing Soldier Field a few years later, the City should have brokered a deal to move the Bears to a new stadium on the current USCF site. Lots of parking nearby, close to highways, and once-a-week traffic wouldn't be a huge deal.

Then Soldier Field gets redone as a baseball park with views of the City from behind home plate. That's perfect for attracting post-work folks from the Loop on a nightly basis for summer nights.

Both teams would have been the same or better off, and it would be a much better fit for baseball with Grant Park & the museum campus during the summer.

Sam Smith had that idea, and I really liked it, if it was a bit out there. Wrap the double deck around USCF [not sure if this was before or after USCF renovations, but it was obviously before Soldier Field was renovated] and move the Bears there, while keeping the columns and moving the Sox into Soldier Field.

longtimesoxguy
05-29-2009, 11:50 AM
Let's assume the cubs have to build a new park. Where else in the city is there vacant land? Tearing down and rebuilding Wrigley I believe is not a option. How can they shut down that area for 2 to 3 years. Plus the land is not big enough to build a modern park.
Also I believe that there is zero chance a new retail/condo project will be going up anytime soon. A site west of the UC has also talked about and favored because it has parking lots already in place.
If this sale does happen the owners need top amenities and that means bars, restaurants and retail all in the park not on Clark street. This is a possibility only for the fact that the land is vacant.

TommyJohn
05-29-2009, 11:54 AM
As long as we're going there....

What should have happened had we had some real vision around back then was that instead of biulding USCF and then redoing Soldier Field a few years later, the City should have brokered a deal to move the Bears to a new stadium on the current USCF site. Lots of parking nearby, close to highways, and once-a-week traffic wouldn't be a huge deal.

Then Soldier Field gets redone as a baseball park with views of the City from behind home plate. That's perfect for attracting post-work folks from the Loop on a nightly basis for summer nights.

Both teams would have been the same or better off, and it would be a much better fit for baseball with Grant Park & the museum campus during the summer.
The city suggested a Bears-White Sox stadium, but Michael McCaskey said there was "NO WAY" that would ever happen. This, of course, was long before his mother fired him.

DumpJerry
05-29-2009, 11:54 AM
Let's assume the cubs have to build a new park. Where else in the city is there vacant land? Tearing down and rebuilding Wrigley I believe is not a option. How can they shut down that area for 2 to 3 years. Plus the land is not big enough to build a modern park.
Also I believe that there is zero chance a new retail/condo project will be going up anytime soon. A site west of the UC has also talked about and favored because it has parking lots already in place.
If this sale does happen the owners need top amenities and that means bars, restaurants and retail all in the park not on Clark street. This is a possibility only for the fact that the land is vacant.
There's a ton of open space in Western Nebraska. Cub fans are the best, most loyal fans in the world. They will follow their team to the end of the Earth. Just make sure the beer is cold when they get there.

DumpJerry
05-29-2009, 11:56 AM
The city suggested a Bears-White Sox stadium, but Michael McCaskey said there was "NO WAY" that would ever happen. This, of course, was long before his mother fired him.
McCaskey and Reinsdorf, according to press accounts, are not very chummy with each other.

DSpivack
05-29-2009, 12:02 PM
For those of you interested in the history and myth of Wrigley Field, you might like to read an article I recently had published called "Ivy-Coloured Glasses: The Myth of Wrigley Field".

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a901939856 (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all%7Econtent=a901939856)

I wouldn't advise buying it, but you should be able to find the journal at any reputable academic library.

I was watching the WGN News a few weeks ago, and they had some story on Wrigley. They said it was built for the Cubs. This is not the case. The park was built for the Chicago Whales of the Federal League [hence the derision, a second rate park for a second rate team in a second rate league]. The Cubs being on the West Side, and the Sox on the South, the Whales moved into the North Side. The Federal League eventually folded, Whales owner Weegham bought the Cubs and moved them into the north side park. The 20s saw the park add an upper deck and later on, bleachers. Unliked Comiskey, Wrigley was not designed all at once; it was a mixture of building at different times. In that way it is not dissimilar to some older European soccer stadiums; not built in a grand design to look good, but seats and sections added over time to increase seating. That it now has become a "classic" stadium is because of it's age moreso than anything else; it was not the 'Cathedral of Baseball' that was Old Comiskey, nor did it have the grand design and aura of Old Yankee Stadium, or the quirkiness of the Polo Grounds, nor was it among the first steel-and-concrete baseball parks that was Shibe Park or Forbes Field.

That sounds like an interesting article.

chisoxfanatic
05-29-2009, 12:19 PM
A site west of the UC has also talked about and favored because it has parking lots already in place.
The latest talks are that the Blackhawks are gonna have their practice facillity there.

dickallen15
05-29-2009, 12:33 PM
As long as we're going there....

What should have happened had we had some real vision around back then was that instead of biulding USCF and then redoing Soldier Field a few years later, the City should have brokered a deal to move the Bears to a new stadium on the current USCF site. Lots of parking nearby, close to highways, and once-a-week traffic wouldn't be a huge deal.

Then Soldier Field gets redone as a baseball park with views of the City from behind home plate. That's perfect for attracting post-work folks from the Loop on a nightly basis for summer nights.

Both teams would have been the same or better off, and it would be a much better fit for baseball with Grant Park & the museum campus during the summer.

Soldier Field is one of the most inconveniently located stadiums in the world. Public transporation is a nightmare around there. Its fine if there are 10 dates a year, but 81 would be a huge problem.
The Roosevelt/Canal location would have been great except I don't know about parking, but the after work crowd could easily get there. The Roosevelt stops on the CTA are pretty close, they could have had it open to the skyline and a riverwalk.

Eddo144
05-29-2009, 01:16 PM
The city suggested a Bears-White Sox stadium, but Michael McCaskey said there was "NO WAY" that would ever happen. This, of course, was long before his mother fired him.
Thank goodness. Dual-use stadiums generally make poor baseball facilities. The Metrodome and the Oakland [Insert Name Here] are two of the worst stadiums in the league.

Eddo144
05-29-2009, 01:17 PM
Soldier Field is one of the most inconveniently located stadiums in the world. Public transporation is a nightmare around there. Its fine if there are 10 dates a year, but 81 would be a huge problem.
The Roosevelt/Canal location would have been great except I don't know about parking, but the after work crowd could easily get there. The Roosevelt stops on the CTA are pretty close, they could have had it open to the skyline and a riverwalk.
Agreed. Soldier Field is a pain to get to, and I live in the city, close to a red line stop. The Roosevelt station is over a mile away, and you can't cross Lake Shore at Roosevelt, so you get routed a few blocks north and go under the Drive. Having 81 games there in a given year would be a nightmare.

grv1974
05-29-2009, 01:32 PM
Um, no. Like really, no.

Your signature needs a comma after the word 'police' and before the quotes. It's two complete sentences within the sentence.

LITTLE NELL
05-29-2009, 03:02 PM
I was watching the WGN News a few weeks ago, and they had some story on Wrigley. They said it was built for the Cubs. This is not the case. The park was built for the Chicago Whales of the Federal League [hence the derision, a second rate park for a second rate team in a second rate league]. The Cubs being on the West Side, and the Sox on the South, the Whales moved into the North Side. The Federal League eventually folded, Whales owner Weegham bought the Cubs and moved them into the north side park. The 20s saw the park add an upper deck and later on, bleachers. Unliked Comiskey, Wrigley was not designed all at once; it was a mixture of building at different times. In that way it is not dissimilar to some older European soccer stadiums; not built in a grand design to look good, but seats and sections added over time to increase seating. That it now has become a "classic" stadium is because of it's age moreso than anything else; it was not the 'Cathedral of Baseball' that was Old Comiskey, nor did it have the grand design and aura of Old Yankee Stadium, or the quirkiness of the Polo Grounds, nor was it among the first steel-and-concrete baseball parks that was Shibe Park or Forbes Field.

That sounds like an interesting article.
Actually Comiskey was built much the same way, it was originally double decked from 1st base to 3rd base only with a single deck roofed grandstand down each line with bleachers in left and right field. It was completely double decked in the 20s with the popularity of Babe Ruth drawing huge crowds everywhere he played.

DSpivack
05-29-2009, 03:09 PM
Actually Comiskey was built much the same way, it was originally double decked from 1st base to 3rd base only with a single deck roofed grandstand down each line with bleachers in left and right field. It was completely double decked in the 20s with the popularity of Babe Ruth drawing huge crowds everywhere he played.

Didn't know that.

Still, Weegham was originally completely single deck, with upper deck added later. A bit of a difference.

LITTLE NELL
05-29-2009, 03:43 PM
Actually Comiskey was built much the same way, it was originally double decked from 1st base to 3rd base only with a single deck roofed grandstand down each line with bleachers in left and right field. It was completely double decked in the 20s with the popularity of Babe Ruth drawing huge crowds everywhere he played.

Didn't know that.

Still, Weegham was originally completely single deck, with upper deck added later. A bit of a difference.
If you go to White Sox Interactive you can see the original configuration in the Memories of Old Comiskey. Look in the beginnigs section.

ewokpelts
05-29-2009, 04:11 PM
Not going to Happen.

Sox will NOT allow the Cubs to open a BRAND NEW STADIUM less than 20 blocks from thier current facility.

spawn
05-29-2009, 04:28 PM
Not going to Happen.

Sox will NOT allow the Cubs to open a BRAND NEW STADIUM less than 20 blocks from thier current facility.
If the Cubs really wanted to, how exactly would the Sox stop them?

areilly
05-29-2009, 04:29 PM
Let's assume the cubs have to build a new park. Where else in the city is there vacant land?

Bottom of the Lake. Drop a Sosa jersey and a few ivy-covered cans of Special Export three miles out and let the lemmings drown.

LITTLE NELL
05-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Not going to Happen.

Sox will NOT allow the Cubs to open a BRAND NEW STADIUM less than 20 blocks from thier current facility.

If the Cubs really wanted to, how exactly would the Sox stop them?
Agree, Im not sure if the Sox have territorial rights to the Southside.

spawn
05-29-2009, 04:33 PM
Bottom of the Lake. Drop a Sosa jersey and a few ivy-covered cans of Special Export three miles out and let the lemmings drown.
That's ****ing hialrious! :rolling:

doublem23
05-29-2009, 04:34 PM
If the Cubs really wanted to, how exactly would the Sox stop them?

http://www.offensivestuff.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/daley.jpg
Don't ask questions.

Brian26
05-29-2009, 06:46 PM
The real estate market in the South Loop is a total disaster.

I'm glad someone here isn't afraid to tell the truth. Even before the balloon burst, that area was a huge risk for investment purposes. People are much better suited spending their money in River West or the West Loop.

Brian26
05-29-2009, 06:52 PM
The Roosevelt/Canal location does not have the infrastructure to support a stadium. Just because it is close to an expressway, that doesn't make it a good site for a baseball stadium. The site was looked at briefly in the mid 80s for the White Sox. It didn't work then, and it wouldn't work now.

All that said, I've always thought the outfield view would be one of the greatest of all time if the Sox would have been able to build on the site where the Dominick's is currently located.

longtimesoxguy
05-29-2009, 07:59 PM
I'm glad someone here isn't afraid to tell the truth. Even before the balloon burst, that area was a huge risk for investment purposes. People are much better suited spending their money in River West or the West Loop.

Not only that but it is a terrible and I mean terrible business environment

russ99
05-29-2009, 09:23 PM
The Roosevelt/Canal location does not have the infrastructure to support a stadium. Just because it is close to an expressway, that doesn't make it a good site for a baseball stadium. The site was looked at briefly in the mid 80s for the White Sox. It didn't work then, and it wouldn't work now.


Especially considering if the Cubs moved to a hospitable suburb like Schaumburg, they could hold as many night games and other events as they want and pretty much print their own money.

Had Zell held onto the team, I would have given 2-1 odds that a move like that would have occured within 5 years. Ricketts may not be as blindingly shrewd a businessman and may have some attachment to the Wrigleyville area, where Zell would have none.

I guess the question is how much Richie would bend in order to keep the city pulling in that tax revenue from the Cubs. Something tells me his Sox hat would not be on when making that decision...

Frater Perdurabo
05-29-2009, 10:35 PM
For those of you interested in the history and myth of Wrigley Field, you might like to read an article I recently had published called "Ivy-Coloured Glasses: The Myth of Wrigley Field".

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a901939856 (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content%7Edb=all%7Econtent=a901939856)

I wouldn't advise buying it, but you should be able to find the journal at any reputable academic library.

Awesome! I wish I had thought to write that article! Congrats on getting it published in an academic journal!

rdivaldi
05-29-2009, 11:27 PM
The real estate market in the South Loop is a total disaster. Many projects are stalled and contracts are being cancelled left and right. I would not buy there for the next two years, it's a cluster****. I had some clients who had to bail out on deals there because, after two years of lies, the developer never could get the building done. My real estate agents who work there all report that nothing, NOTHING, is moving there. Further north, things have picked up, but the South Loop is not looking good right now.

But still the community has flourished. The elementary school is packed with the influx, the restaurants are filled and the nightlife has improved greatly.

That is a massive overstatement on the real estate market as well. I've seen plenty of sales around me and the rental market is solid.

DumpJerry
05-30-2009, 02:47 AM
But still the community has flourished. The elementary school is packed with the influx, the restaurants are filled and the nightlife has improved greatly.

That is a massive overstatement on the real estate market as well. I've seen plenty of sales around me and the rental market is solid.
When you says you've seen a lot of sales is that actual closings or "For Sale" signs? Like I said, I've had many real estate agents who work the downtown/near south/near north areas tell me the South Loop is a nightmare, esp. when it comes to new construction. Much more so than other area of the city where things are turning around nicely.

I've had some resale closings in the South Loop, but the new construction stuff is miserable. They need more commercial/retail stuff there to attract more buyers to the area.

CWSpalehoseCWS
05-30-2009, 03:45 AM
Never gonna happen but it would be pretty funny for Cub's fans if the team moved on them from their beloved ****hole.

Shoeless
05-30-2009, 08:02 AM
http://www.offensivestuff.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/daley.jpg
Don't ask questions.

Yeah I was going to say, the politicians would figure some way to shoot it down.

Malgar 12
05-30-2009, 09:27 AM
Awesome! I wish I had thought to write that article! Congrats on getting it published in an academic journal!

Thanks.

Red Barchetta
05-30-2009, 11:01 AM
It still amazes me how the power of the Tribune marketing staff as changed the image of Wrigley Field over the past 25 years.

I remember back in the 70s and growing up watching the SOX and Cubs on TV. Back then, Wrigley was just another old ballpark with the unique trademark of playing only day games. That was what it was known for.

Then, the Tribune started to use words like "tradition" and "beautiful" in describing the park. As a result, an entire generation has now been sold this image in exchange for 3M plus fans per season.

It will be very interesting to watch how the new ownership takes over the marketing for this team.

skobabe8
05-30-2009, 11:15 AM
When you says you've seen a lot of sales is that actual closings or "For Sale" signs? Like I said, I've had many real estate agents who work the downtown/near south/near north areas tell me the South Loop is a nightmare, esp. when it comes to new construction. Much more so than other area of the city where things are turning around nicely.

I've had some resale closings in the South Loop, but the new construction stuff is miserable. They need more commercial/retail stuff there to attract more buyers to the area.

The new construction IS a nightmare. I know firsthand as I signed a new construction contract June '07 and to this day nothing has happened at that site and the developer is 'missing'. Luckily, I got my money back and opted for a place that was up for sale.

The resale market appears to be decent. A couple of units in my current building were not on the market long before they were sold. I just hope my decision was the right one in regards to my current location. I'll find out when I get ready to sell in 4-5 years (hopefully right before the Olympics).

LITTLE NELL
05-30-2009, 02:49 PM
It still amazes me how the power of the Tribune marketing staff as changed the image of Wrigley Field over the past 25 years.

I remember back in the 70s and growing up watching the SOX and Cubs on TV. Back then, Wrigley was just another old ballpark with the unique trademark of playing only day games. That was what it was known for.

Then, the Tribune started to use words like "tradition" and "beautiful" in describing the park. As a result, an entire generation has now been sold this image in exchange for 3M plus fans per season.

It will be very interesting to watch how the new ownership takes over the marketing for this team.
Even though I hate the Cubs and their shrine it was known as "beautiful Wrigley Field" as far back as the early 50s and probably before that. Brickhouse always called it that and I remember postcards that stated it also.

Frater Perdurabo
05-30-2009, 05:13 PM
Then, the Tribune started to use words like "tradition" and "beautiful" in describing the park. As a result, an entire generation has now been sold this image in exchange for 3M plus fans per season.

If you repeat a lie often enough, eventually it becomes the "truth."

rdivaldi
05-30-2009, 11:08 PM
When you says you've seen a lot of sales is that actual closings or "For Sale" signs? Like I said, I've had many real estate agents who work the downtown/near south/near north areas tell me the South Loop is a nightmare, esp. when it comes to new construction. Much more so than other area of the city where things are turning around nicely.

I've had some resale closings in the South Loop, but the new construction stuff is miserable. They need more commercial/retail stuff there to attract more buyers to the area.

I've seen sales of existing construction all around the area where I used to live. I won't deny or doubt that new construction has struggled, there is a glut of it. I have 4 sets of friends that have all sold within the past couple of months.

I'm fine with the retail, there are 3 grocery stores, a Best Buy, a Home Depot, a Staples and a Target less than a mile away from my apartment. The restaurants are great on Wabash and there are plenty of drugstores and gyms.

thepaulbowski
05-30-2009, 11:46 PM
I've seen sales of existing construction all around the area where I used to live. I won't deny or doubt that new construction has struggled, there is a glut of it. I have 4 sets of friends that have all sold within the past couple of months.

I'm fine with the retail, there are 3 grocery stores, a Best Buy, a Home Depot, a Staples and a Target less than a mile away from my apartment. The restaurants are great on Wabash and there are plenty of drugstores and gyms.

I moved out of my South Loop Apt. in 2001. I remember watching all the homeless people come out of the St. James hotel every morning (current sight of the Jewel) from my 24th floor apt. The Dominick's had just opened and that was basically it for retail. There is a ton of stuff there now, compared to when I lived there. That being said, new construction is a total disaster. With the amount of new units coming on it the new year or two, the percentage under contract is terrible.

Brian26
05-30-2009, 11:53 PM
I'm fine with the retail, there are 3 grocery stores, a Best Buy, a Home Depot, a Staples and a Target less than a mile away from my apartment. The restaurants are great on Wabash and there are plenty of drugstores and gyms.

How close is the Pacific Garden Mission to your place?

DumpJerry
05-31-2009, 11:11 AM
How close is the Pacific Garden Mission to your place?
The PGM has moved to Canal and 14th Street. It's no longer in the South Loop.

Brian26
05-31-2009, 11:21 AM
The PGM has moved to Canal and 14th Street. It's no longer in the South Loop.

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I thought I had read that the assailants in this story from last year were staying at the PGM briefly:

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/homless.couple.attack.2.835920.html

DumpJerry
05-31-2009, 11:23 AM
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I thought I had read that the assailants in this story from last year were staying at the PGM briefly:

http://cbs2chicago.com/local/homless.couple.attack.2.835920.html
IIRC, PGM is men only.

bridgeportcopper
05-31-2009, 12:02 PM
The PGM has moved to Canal and 14th Street. It's no longer in the South Loop.

A couple of posts earlier someone mentioned the Dominick's, Home Depot, Best Buy et al as being advantages of the neighborhood, yet the Pacific Garden which is basically right next to the Dominick's is "no longer in the South Loop"? One way or the other, the PGM and all of it's inherant problems are still in your neighborhood.

DumpJerry
05-31-2009, 12:06 PM
A couple of posts earlier someone mentioned the Dominick's, Home Depot, Best Buy et al as being advantages of the neighborhood, yet the Pacific Garden which is basically right next to the Dominick's is "no longer in the South Loop"? One way or the other, the PGM and all of it's inherant problems are still in your neighborhood.
I live in Old Irving Park, it's nowhere near my hood. I guess you could call 14th and Canal the South Loop, it's just that down there, you're looking at a pretty isolated area, it's mostly rail and truck yards and the PGM.

Red Barchetta
06-01-2009, 12:06 AM
What happened to the plan the Cubs unveiled a few years ago where they planned to build a restaurant/HOF-type shop across the street in that triangle-shaped block. They were going to build a parking garage as well with a walkway that connected to the ballpark.

It seemed pretty slick, however haven't heard much more about it since the Tribune started selling off assets. I'm sure the Cubs could negotiate some type of corporate sponsorship for such a project.

DumpJerry
06-01-2009, 12:09 AM
What happened to the plan the Cubs unveiled a few years ago where they planned to build a restaurant/HOF-type shop across the street in that triangle-shaped block. They were going to build a parking garage as well with a walkway that connected to the ballpark.

It seemed pretty slick, however haven't heard much more about it since the Tribune started selling off assets. I'm sure the Cubs could negotiate some type of corporate sponsorship for such a project.
They opened the Captain Morgan Club this year which is an outdoor restaurant outside the park next to the Harry Caray statue.

They obtained the right-of-way for that parcel you're referring to (apparently, it was a right-of-way still owned by some railroad), but nothing has happened yet.

Ranger
06-01-2009, 12:31 AM
If the Cubs really wanted to, how exactly would the Sox stop them?

I would imagine MLB would have something to say about it. I doubt they would be in favor of anything that could potentially hurt one of their franchises.

SoxandtheCityTee
06-01-2009, 08:59 AM
The Pacific Garden Mission built a larger, award-winning new building that is south of the Dominick's and shopping plaza that now stand where the old SOO Line terminal was. Rail yards are to the east, UPS and other non-residential uses and the expressway to the west, the Union Pacific rail line embankment and tracks to the south. PGM used to be much closer to me and I never had a moment's trouble in 20 years from anyone using the facility. Especially the sailors and soldiers who often dropped by: always so polite. The Mission does some admirable work, though of course people have the right to disapprove. The old PGM site was acquired for the thriving Jones High School, for expanded facilities.

If a market is terrible for sellers, it may be good for buyers. Developers defaulting is bad for everyone, especially but not only real estate agents. A lot of plans were made before the economy tanked and credit disappeared. I was surprised to see that new residential building going up just west of Target, but it looks like it's coming along.

Buying for investment is different, of course, than buying because you want to live there, be a part of a community. Both are legit, they just have different risks.

tebman
06-01-2009, 10:07 AM
They opened the Captain Morgan Club this year which is an outdoor restaurant outside the park next to the Harry Caray statue.

They obtained the right-of-way for that parcel you're referring to (apparently, it was a right-of-way still owned by some railroad), but nothing has happened yet.
Wasn't there a story about the Tribune buying that land some years ago from a railroad and finding out later that it wasn't the railroad's to sell? As I recall, when the Cubs wanted to start construction the city said the property was actually a city right-of-way and by that time the railroad that sold the property was out of business.

I remember being amazed when I read that the Cubs/Tribune brass could foul up basic due diligence like that.

skobabe8
06-01-2009, 08:41 PM
I was surprised to see that new residential building going up just west of Target, but it looks like it's coming along.



You should have seen the design before the credit collapse.

SoxandtheCityTee
06-03-2009, 07:09 AM
You should have seen the design before the credit collapse.

Ah, so it was supposed to be larger. I've wondered if eventually those buildings will just march west to the river.