PDA

View Full Version : The White Sox Stadium - Mayor Daley wanted in 1968


Fenway
02-03-2011, 04:52 PM
This project located just south of the Chicago Loop
for 2 stadiums for the White Sox and Bears
http://www.stadiumpage.com/future/chicago68.JPG

So where exactly was this?

soltrain21
02-03-2011, 05:02 PM
That would be so awesome.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-03-2011, 05:03 PM
Looks like Shea Stadium and Shea's twin for football. :scratch:

MisterB
02-03-2011, 05:03 PM
So where exactly was this?

Looks like it would have been between State and Clark on both sides of Roosevelt. The area's all townhouses and condos now.

Fenway
02-03-2011, 05:04 PM
I never even heard about this in 1985 -

1985 Chicago Retractable Baseball/Football Domes (http://www.stadiumpage.com/stpages/chi85.html)

A White Sox - Bear complex next to Northwestern Station????

(or was this a possible replacement for Wrigley - it only says baseball stadium?)

downstairs
02-03-2011, 05:34 PM
Its all good now, with the red line and the re-vitalization of the Comiskey neighborhood... but at the time I really, really wish they moved to the south loop or somewhere similar.

ChicagoG19
02-03-2011, 05:50 PM
This project located just south of the Chicago Loop
for 2 stadiums for the White Sox and Bears
http://www.stadiumpage.com/future/chicago68.JPG

So where exactly was this?

That looks like the South Loop, just north of Roosevelt and west of State. The stadium design is fugly.

NoNeckEra
02-03-2011, 06:27 PM
Keep in mind that back in '68 the Bears were still at woefully undersized Wrigley Field, Soldier Field was not even considered an option for them because it was so old, and as for the Sox, the timing would have been similar to new stadiums in Pittsburgh (Three Rivers) and Cincinnati (Riverfront) that replaced outdated MLB parks, and right after the opening of Shea Stadium and Busch Stadium a couple of years earlier.

The upshot for the Sox would have been that all 4 of those stadiums have already been replaced, and we would likely have a "state of the art" stadium as we speak.

Lip Man 1
02-03-2011, 06:30 PM
There was more than one plan according to Sox historian Rich Lindberg. The most controversial one was a multi purpose domed stadium built on a causeway in Lake Michigan (aka like Meigs Field).

Environmentalists went bonkers and the plan died a quick death. According to Lindberg that was the plan the Mayor wanted and preferred.

Lip

C-Dawg
02-03-2011, 08:11 PM
Looks like it would have been between State and Clark on both sides of Roosevelt. The area's all townhouses and condos now.

You nailed it. The whole area used to be the railyards south of Dearborn Station. Dearborn closed in 1971 and its likely the Mayor was already eyeing the land for redevelopment.

kba
02-03-2011, 08:15 PM
Looking through Tribune back-issues, there were lots of plans in the 1960's. One called for tearing down Soldier Field and building a 55,000 seat multi-purpose stadium (Sox/Cubs/Bears) in its place. Another site would have been at Madison & Halsted. The two stadium plan in 1967 was for the property bounded by State, Polk, Clark, and 15th.

My favorite "Who knew?" discovery from the Trib's archives: A 1965 article: "Allyn tells plans to put dome on Comiskey Park"

Fenway
02-03-2011, 08:16 PM
So what was the deal with THIS in 1985?

http://www.stadiumpage.com/future/chi85_2.jpg

DSpivack
02-03-2011, 08:28 PM
SOM and Murphy/Jahn? They got two of Chicago's best firms to design it.

My personal favorite crazy plan from the mid-90s was from Sam Smith, who said that Comiskey Park should be double-decked the whole way around and a baseball stadium put in the shell of Soldier Field, keeping the columns as a baseball stadium would not have to go as high up as a football stadium.

Fenway
02-03-2011, 08:35 PM
SOM and Murphy/Jahn? They got two of Chicago's best firms to design it.



Somebody paid for this - those guys don't work cheap

http://www.stadiumpage.com/future/chi85_model.jpg
http://www.stadiumpage.com/future/chi85_1.jpg

kba
02-03-2011, 08:55 PM
The 1985 plan was "Riveredge Stadium," promoted by Mayor Washington and a group of business leaders. It would have been part of the city's bid to host the 1992 World's Fair, as well as a home for the Sox, Bears, and perhaps the Cubs (who weren't sure that they'd be allowed to put lights in Wrigley Field). They never came up with a workable financing plan, the teams' interest in it was lukewarm, and there was a lot of opposition from neighbors.

mzh
02-03-2011, 09:02 PM
Somebody paid for this - those guys don't work cheap

http://www.stadiumpage.com/future/chi85_model.jpg

This design actually looks quite similar to the Ratner Gym for the University on the south side. Same firm, perhaps?

tebman
02-03-2011, 10:00 PM
I remember another scheme that Harold Washington announced that called for a combination baseball/football stadium. It had a moveable grandstand that could be rolled inward or outward to reshape it for baseball or football. As I recall, it was proposed for the south loop too.

"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood," is a quote attributed to Chicago architect Daniel Burnham. At least there was no shortage of plans for ballparks.

Brian26
02-03-2011, 10:13 PM
The 1985 plan was "Riveredge Stadium," promoted by Mayor Washington and a group of business leaders. It would have been part of the city's bid to host the 1992 World's Fair, as well as a home for the Sox, Bears, and perhaps the Cubs (who weren't sure that they'd be allowed to put lights in Wrigley Field). They never came up with a workable financing plan, the teams' interest in it was lukewarm, and there was a lot of opposition from neighbors.

What neighbors were there in 1985, though? I'm pretty familiar with the site, as I used to walk by it on Clinton Street everyday for six years. The site is now fairly built up with condos and converted warehouse lofts, and the Fulton Station Development is on the north half of the site. In 1985, this plan could have probably worked if the right people were involved.

There's no reason to fantasize about this location too much since it would never be able to happen now, but oh my god what a phenomenal site this would have been for a ballpark. Notwithstanding the view northeast into River North (you'd be able to see the Hancock and the Merchandise Mart just over the river), you would have had almost the perfect central location for public transportation. The south edge of the park would have abutted the Lake Street L (now the Green Line). The Clinton Street stop (which was refurbished in '95/'96) would have been located at the rightfield corner, or it could have been moved down so that exits would even be right behind home plate. Northwestern Station (Ogilvie) would have been a block and a half south on Clinton, bringing fans to the park on Metra on the UP West, UP Northwest, Milwaukee West and Burlington Northern lines. Union Station would have been only four blocks south and a block east on Canal.

On top of all that, you would have had the elevated Northwest train tracks on the east side of Clinton, so depending on how the park was designed, there would have been the possibility of batters hitting homers over Clinton and onto the tracks, bringing in the Camden warehouse or Wrigley rooftop effect.

I can't believe the 1985 design of the park would have stood the test of time, but that location would have been one of the best in baseball.

And- I just noticed the Blue Line runs right under that stadium site. The possibilities were endless.

Brian26
02-03-2011, 10:15 PM
I remember another scheme that Harold Washington announced that called for a combination baseball/football stadium. It had a moveable grandstand that could be rolled inward or outward to reshape it for baseball or football. As I recall, it was proposed for the south loop too.

This is the one I remember seeing Tim Weigel show on Channel 7 during one of his sportscasts. They has prepared a model to show, as you said, one of the grandstands rolling around (it split behind homeplate) to create a symmetrical football seating bowl.

TommyJohn
02-03-2011, 10:23 PM
What neighbors were there in 1985, though? I'm pretty familiar with the site, as I used to walk by it on Clinton Street everyday for six years. The site is now fairly built up with condos and converted warehouse lofts, and the Fulton Station Development is on the north half of the site. In 1985, this plan could have probably worked if the right people were involved.

There's no reason to fantasize about this location too much since it would never be able to happen now, but oh my god what a phenomenal site this would have been for a ballpark. Notwithstanding the view northeast into River North (you'd be able to see the Hancock and the Merchandise Mart just over the river), you would have had almost the perfect central location for public transportation. The south edge of the park would have abutted the Lake Street L (now the Green Line). The Clinton Street stop (which was refurbished in '95/'96) would have been located at the rightfield corner, or it could have been moved down so that exits would even be right behind home plate. Northwestern Station (Ogilvie) would have been a block and a half south on Clinton, bringing fans to the park on Metra on the UP West, UP Northwest, Milwaukee West and Burlington Northern lines. Union Station would have been only four blocks south and a block east on Canal.

On top of all that, you would have had the elevated Northwest train tracks on the east side of Clinton, so depending on how the park was designed, there would have been the possibility of batters hitting homers over Clinton and onto the tracks, bringing in the Camden warehouse or Wrigley rooftop effect.

I can't believe the 1985 design of the park would have stood the test of time, but that location would have been one of the best in baseball.

:moron

"Ill-conceived, poorly designed stadium in a less-than-desirable neighborhood!!"

:giangreco

"How many empty blue seats would that stadium have held?" *smarm*

Marqhead
02-03-2011, 10:43 PM
I have nothing to contribute except to say these are some really really cool concepts. A site in the South Loop or West Loop area would have been phenomenal, though obviously an impossibility now.

house215
02-03-2011, 11:40 PM
I am happy with US Cellular field at this point but one can only wonder how things would have been different for the White Sox if they would have built something like this...

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-04-2011, 07:19 AM
I liked the idea of building in Armour Square Park.

I also loved old Comiskey.

We have the Cell; we won a WS in it. It took 15 years of tweaking, but it's our park now. Me likey.

ewokpelts
02-04-2011, 07:29 AM
I never even heard about this in 1985 -

1985 Chicago Retractable Baseball/Football Domes (http://www.stadiumpage.com/stpages/chi85.html)

A White Sox - Bear complex next to Northwestern Station????

(or was this a possible replacement for Wrigley - it only says baseball stadium?)that was all dead land in 1985. it would have sped up development of the west loop by 20 years.


and i bet it would have cost a ton of money.

DumpJerry
02-04-2011, 07:34 AM
What neighbors were there in 1985, though? I'm pretty familiar with the site, as I used to walk by it on Clinton Street everyday for six years. The site is now fairly built up with condos and converted warehouse lofts, and the Fulton Station Development is on the north half of the site. In 1985, this plan could have probably worked if the right people were involved.
When I say nobody lived there, I mean there were zero residents. I used to drive there in the 80's at night and it was a total ghost town (it was a quick way to get downtown because there was no traffic whatsoever). All the buildings, none of which were significant, were commercial office buildings and there were no apartments or other residential buildings. The area also had many large empty lots.

This would have made development easy for the City since there would have been no fights over the relocation of residents.

ewokpelts
02-04-2011, 07:38 AM
What neighbors were there in 1985, though? I'm pretty familiar with the site, as I used to walk by it on Clinton Street everyday for six years. The site is now fairly built up with condos and converted warehouse lofts, and the Fulton Station Development is on the north half of the site. In 1985, this plan could have probably worked if the right people were involved.

There's no reason to fantasize about this location too much since it would never be able to happen now, but oh my god what a phenomenal site this would have been for a ballpark. Notwithstanding the view northeast into River North (you'd be able to see the Hancock and the Merchandise Mart just over the river), you would have had almost the perfect central location for public transportation. The south edge of the park would have abutted the Lake Street L (now the Green Line). The Clinton Street stop (which was refurbished in '95/'96) would have been located at the rightfield corner, or it could have been moved down so that exits would even be right behind home plate. Northwestern Station (Ogilvie) would have been a block and a half south on Clinton, bringing fans to the park on Metra on the UP West, UP Northwest, Milwaukee West and Burlington Northern lines. Union Station would have been only four blocks south and a block east on Canal.

On top of all that, you would have had the elevated Northwest train tracks on the east side of Clinton, so depending on how the park was designed, there would have been the possibility of batters hitting homers over Clinton and onto the tracks, bringing in the Camden warehouse or Wrigley rooftop effect.

I can't believe the 1985 design of the park would have stood the test of time, but that location would have been one of the best in baseball.

And- I just noticed the Blue Line runs right under that stadium site. The possibilities were endless.the map fenway posted has a "potential subway stop" listed for the blue line just north of the stadium.

also, union station has an entrance on madison, so there would have been two metra stops within two blocks of the proposed site, and as many as two cta stations practically on site.


btw, the photo with the proposed stadium superimposed is a modern shot. it shows my building(540 w. madison) which was completed in 2003.

ewokpelts
02-04-2011, 07:49 AM
how viable is the stretch of land south of roosevelt that remains undeveloped? Could a sox stadium survive south of roosevelt and west of clark?

kba
02-04-2011, 09:10 AM
When I say nobody lived there, I mean there were zero residents. I used to drive there in the 80's at night and it was a total ghost town (it was a quick way to get downtown because there was no traffic whatsoever). All the buildings, none of which were significant, were commercial office buildings and there were no apartments or other residential buildings. The area also had many large empty lots.

This would have made development easy for the City since there would have been no fights over the relocation of residents.

From the Tribune, Oct. 4, 1985: The West Central Association -- a neighborhood group -- opposed the plan, saying if the stadiums were built at Clinton and Lake Streets, the neighborhood would lose nearly 1500 of its 2700 jobs. The association said there were 28 occupied buildings on the site -- industrial, commercial, and offices -- including the newly-opened headquarters of the Schwinn Bicycle Co. on N. Jefferson, which was heralded as a major step toward revitalizing the area.

One detail that was interesting about this proposal was that the two stadiums would share one movable roof, which could cover either the football or baseball stadium as needed.

Fenway
02-04-2011, 09:17 AM
From the Tribune, Oct. 4, 1985: The West Central Association -- a neighborhood group -- opposed the plan, saying if the stadiums were built at Clinton and Lake Streets, the neighborhood would lose nearly 1500 of its 2700 jobs. The association said there were 28 occupied buildings on the site -- industrial, commercial, and offices -- including the newly-opened headquarters of the Schwinn Bicycle Co. on N. Jefferson, which was heralded as a major step toward revitalizing the area.

One detail that was interesting about this proposal was that the two stadiums would share one movable roof, which could cover either the football or baseball stadium as needed.

Which Sam Zell moved to Colorado

stl_sox_fan
02-04-2011, 09:58 AM
Thanks for posting this Fenway. Very interesting "What could have been" scenario. Were the plans to have the Sox and Cubs share? kba mentioned there was an idea for a Sox/Cubs/Bears park.

The whole site is pretty cool btw!
http://www.stadiumpage.com

Hitmen77
02-04-2011, 11:45 AM
I know it's easy to pine for an ideal south loop location for the Sox, but I'm not complaining about the Cell and its location at 35th and Shields one bit. The reality is that the other likely destinations for the Sox were 1) Addison or 2) ST PETERSBURG.

I am SOOO glad they ended up at their current spot instead of those other 2 possibilities and I'm not going to moan about other "what ifs"

tebman
02-04-2011, 12:04 PM
I know it's easy to pine for an ideal south loop location for the Sox, but I'm not complaining about the Cell and its location at 35th and Shields one bit. The reality is that the other likely destinations for the Sox were 1) Addison or 2) ST PETERSBURG.

I am SOOO glad they ended up at their current spot instead of those other 2 possibilities and I'm not going to moan about other "what ifs"

:thumbsup:

In the end I think the current location was the best choice. It's a combination of local tradition, accessibility (next to the Ryan and the CTA, and now the train station at 35th), and distribution of development around the city.

If any of the other plans had materialized we would've had a generic sports complex instead of the ballpark we have now. When you consider the alternatives (Addison? :unsure: St. Pete? :o:), it's no contest.

moochpuppy
02-04-2011, 12:08 PM
Great thread!

Looking at the proposal from '68 got me to thinking when we will see two stadiums (baseball & football) built side-by-side like this with a retractable roof that slides on rollers to cover either stadium when needed.

DSpivack
02-04-2011, 12:12 PM
Great thread!

Looking at the proposal from '68 got me to thinking when we will see two stadiums (baseball & football) built side-by-side like this with a retractable roof that slides on rollers to cover either stadium when needed.

I want to say Kansas City had a proposal like a few years ago before they renovated Kaufmann Stadium, don't know if they've since renovated Arrowhead.

Just seems like a gimmick to me that would be pretty hard to implement correctly.

TomBradley72
02-04-2011, 12:27 PM
I want to say Kansas City had a proposal like a few years ago before they renovated Kaufmann Stadium, don't know if they've since renovated Arrowhead.

Just seems like a gimmick to me that would be pretty hard to implement correctly.

This site has a ton of examples of stadium concepts ("Unrealized Concepts") that never materialized- KC's is here. (I think is the site the '68 rendering is from)

http://www.stadiumpage.com/

Red Barchetta
02-04-2011, 12:31 PM
I want to say Kansas City had a proposal like a few years ago before they renovated Kaufmann Stadium, don't know if they've since renovated Arrowhead.

Just seems like a gimmick to me that would be pretty hard to implement correctly.

Plus, what happens if both teams are at home playing and it rains? Does the baseball team get the roof and the football team keep playing through the condition?

Considering how many cities who have both NFL and MLB teams, there are many scheduled games during the same day/time. I know they try to make concessions for teams that share facilities, like the Twins and Vikings (until Target Field was built), however would both leagues do the same thing for cities/teams that did not share facilities and just parking lots, or roofs? Seems like it would be difficult to coordinate for only September and October.

TomBradley72
02-04-2011, 01:16 PM
I know it's easy to pine for an ideal south loop location for the Sox, but I'm not complaining about the Cell and its location at 35th and Shields one bit. The reality is that the other likely destinations for the Sox were 1) Addison or 2) ST PETERSBURG.

I am SOOO glad they ended up at their current spot instead of those other 2 possibilities and I'm not going to moan about other "what ifs"

Good post.

The 80's were a decade of miscalculations by Einhorn and Reinsdorf:


Asking people to pay to watch games on TV- before the city had installed cable tv for the most part
Bad uniforms (twice)
Letting Harry Caray go to the crosstown Cubs
A generic stadium design completely ignoring the history and tradition of the franchise
This was not a fan friendly franchise that understood it's history (and how to leverage it to drive profits)- it was finally corrected (IMHO) with hiring KW and Ozzie and the US Cellular deal which allowed the renovations that make the current ballpark a great place to see a game.

A more visionary ownership would have jumped at south/southwest loop locations with a "Camden Yards" type design (modern version of Old Comiskey?). So a missed opportunity- but thankfully they did finally get it right.

DeadMoney
02-04-2011, 01:28 PM
I know they try to make concessions for teams that share facilities, like the Twins and Vikings (until Target Field was built), however would both leagues do the same thing for cities/teams that did not share facilities and just parking lots, or roofs? Seems like it would be difficult to coordinate for only September and October.

I know they do this in Philadelphia. They've moved Eagles games due to Phillies' playoff games and vice versa to accommodate the rush of people in the same area of the city (and also using the same parking lots, same stadium personnel, etc.).

EDIT: I know the Philadelphia Basketball/Hockey stadium shares the same area as well, and I'm pretty sure they even arrange those events to happen at different times.

Foulke You
02-04-2011, 01:33 PM
If any of the other plans had materialized we would've had a generic sports complex instead of the ballpark we have now.
You are correct. Given the time period these were being discussed, astro turf and symmetrical cookie cutter "bowl" seating was in vogue. It is very likely the Sox ballpark design would have reflected the times. As a previous poster pointed out, it might have outlived it's usefulness around the time the new ballpark boon hit baseball in the last 15 years.

DumpJerry
02-04-2011, 01:54 PM
I know they do this in Philadelphia. They've moved Eagles games due to Phillies' playoff games and vice versa to accommodate the rush of people in the same area of the city (and also using the same parking lots, same stadium personnel, etc.).

EDIT: I know the Philadelphia Basketball/Hockey stadium shares the same area as well, and I'm pretty sure they even arrange those events to happen at different times.
The following cities (that I know of) have two facilities next to or in close proximity to each other:
Baltimore (Camden Yards and Ravens' Stadium)
Cincy (GABP and the Bengals' Stadium)
Cleveland (Progressive Field and The Q)
Chicago (Wrigley Field and the Port-a-Potties on Clark Street).

Fenway
02-04-2011, 01:57 PM
The following cities (that I know of) have two facilities next to or in close proximity to each other:
Baltimore (Camden Yards and Ravens' Stadium)
Cincy (GABP and the Bengals' Stadium)
Cleveland (Progressive Field and The Q)
Chicago (Wrigley Field and the Port-a-Potties on Clark Street).

Seattle Safeco and Q-West are side by side
Kansas City - Arrowhead and Kauffman
Pittsburgh - Heinz and PNC http://goo.gl/maps/61k6
Oakland - Warriors arena next to Coslieum

Red Barchetta
02-04-2011, 02:09 PM
Good post.

The 80's were a decade of miscalculations by Einhorn and Reinsdorf:


Asking people to pay to watch games on TV- before the city had installed cable tv for the most part
Bad uniforms (twice)
Letting Harry Caray go to the crosstown Cubs
A generic stadium design completely ignoring the history and tradition of the franchise
This was not a fan friendly franchise that understood it's history (and how to leverage it to drive profits)- it was finally corrected (IMHO) with hiring KW and Ozzie and the US Cellular deal which allowed the renovations that make the current ballpark a great place to see a game.

A more visionary ownership would have jumped at south/southwest loop locations with a "Camden Yards" type design (modern version of Old Comiskey?). So a missed opportunity- but thankfully they did finally get it right.

If I may, a couple more...

5.) Marketing the White Sox as Chicago's "American League Team" (thinking that Chicago fans would root for both the Cubs & SOX in an attempt to draw more Cubs fans)

6.) JR and EE almost immediately proclaiming their desire to develop a more upscale baseball environment (thus alienating their blue collar fan base even more in addition to making them pay for games that used to be free - See #1)

asindc
02-04-2011, 02:09 PM
The following cities (that I know of) have two facilities next to or in close proximity to each other:
Baltimore (Camden Yards and Ravens' Stadium)
Cincy (GABP and the Bengals' Stadium)
Cleveland (Progressive Field and The Q)
Chicago (Wrigley Field and the Port-a-Potties on Clark Street).

Philly has all of them beat with facilities for all four major teams in the same location right off I-95.

mrfourni
02-04-2011, 02:21 PM
Seattle Safeco and Q-West are side by side
Kansas City - Arrowhead and Kauffman
Pittsburgh - Heinz and PNC http://goo.gl/maps/61k6
Oakland - Warriors arena next to Coslieum

Phoenix-Chase Field and US Airways Center
Glendale-Univ. of Phoenix Stadium and Jobing.com Arena

Crestani
02-04-2011, 02:23 PM
The following cities (that I know of) have two facilities next to or in close proximity to each other:
Baltimore (Camden Yards and Ravens' Stadium)
Cincy (GABP and the Bengals' Stadium)
Cleveland (Progressive Field and The Q)
:D:Chicago (Wrigley Field and the Port-a-Potties on Clark Street).


You made my day..!!

DSpivack
02-04-2011, 02:24 PM
The following cities (that I know of) have two facilities next to or in close proximity to each other:
Baltimore (Camden Yards and Ravens' Stadium)
Cincy (GABP and the Bengals' Stadium)
Cleveland (Progressive Field and The Q)
Chicago (Wrigley Field and the Port-a-Potties on Clark Street).

Seattle Safeco and Q-West are side by side
Kansas City - Arrowhead and Kauffman
Pittsburgh - Heinz and PNC http://goo.gl/maps/61k6
Oakland - Warriors arena next to Coslieum

Philly has all of them beat with facilities for all four major teams in the same location right off I-95.

Philips Arena and the Georgia Dome are right next to one another in Atlanta.

Fenway
02-04-2011, 02:26 PM
Jerry Jones Memorial Stadium and The Ballpark in Arlington, Texas

http://goo.gl/maps/QgxH

doublem23
02-04-2011, 02:30 PM
The following cities (that I know of) have two facilities next to or in close proximity to each other:
Baltimore (Camden Yards and Ravens' Stadium)
Cincy (GABP and the Bengals' Stadium)
Cleveland (Progressive Field and The Q)
Chicago (Wrigley Field and the Port-a-Potties on Clark Street).

Seattle Safeco and Q-West are side by side
Kansas City - Arrowhead and Kauffman
Pittsburgh - Heinz and PNC http://goo.gl/maps/61k6
Oakland - Warriors arena next to Coslieum

A couple more that I know of:

Atlanta, GA - Georgia Dome & Phillips Arena are like a block apart
New Orleans, LA - Superdome is next door to New Orleans Arena until the Hornets move again
Arlington, TX - New Cowboys Stadium and Rangers Ballpark are very close
Glendale, AZ - University of Phoenix Stadium and the Coyote's arena are next to each other, too.
Detroit - Ford Field & Comerica are next door
Houston, TX - Toyota Center & Minute Maid Park are a few city blocks apart.

Fenway
02-04-2011, 02:34 PM
Rogers Centre and Air Canada Centre are 2 blocks apart

http://goo.gl/maps/sC3H

doublem23
02-04-2011, 02:57 PM
Conseco Fieldhouse and Lucas Oil Stadium are very close in Indianapolis, as well.

Lamp81
02-04-2011, 11:20 PM
A couple more that I know of:

New Orleans, LA - Superdome is next door to New Orleans Arena until the Hornets move again

Are they going to take the arena with them? Is it cheaper to dismantle and re-build an arena instead building a new one?

Even without the Hornets, surely the arena will host other Sporting events, concerts, etc, that they wouldn't want scheduled the same time the Saints are playing.

BubblingCalderon
02-05-2011, 12:05 PM
If I may, a couple more...

5.) Marketing the White Sox as Chicago's "American League Team" (thinking that Chicago fans would root for both the Cubs & SOX in an attempt to draw more Cubs fans)

6.) JR and EE almost immediately proclaiming their desire to develop a more upscale baseball environment (thus alienating their blue collar fan base even more in addition to making them pay for games that used to be free - See #1)


7.) Eliminating Andy the clown. When I read about how he was treated it bugs me.


Also Minnesota threw around the idea of the sharing a dome between 2 side by side stadiums when they looked to replace the Metradome

havelj
02-05-2011, 01:27 PM
Given the time period these were being discussed, astro turf and symmetrical cookie cutter "bowl" seating was in vogue. It is very likely the Sox ballpark design would have reflected the times.

Maybe, but all of those stadiums in STL, Pit, Philly were multi-purpose for both baseball and football. Since the two sports were each going to have their own stadium in Chicago, they might have built them more uniquely.

Golden Sox
02-08-2011, 10:23 AM
This stadium complex was proposed by the White Sox owner Art Allyn in 1967.It would of been privately financed by the Comiskey Park Corporation for a total of $50 million dollars. The main problem was Mayor Daley was opposed to it. The Mayor of Chicago never backed the project for reasons known only to himself. It's really a shame it wasn't built because everybody would of been better off if it was built. The White Sox, the Bears and the City of Chicago would have been better off if this complex would of been built in the South Loop.The Loop is a ghost town after 6PM during the weekdays and evev more of a ghost town on weekends. This stadium complex would of brought people to the Loop and made the Loop a more prosperous place for business to thrive. The taxpayers would not have paid for this complex. And still Mayor Daley was opposed to it. When Mayor Daley opposed this project, Art Allyn almost moved the team to Milwaukee. You really could not of blamed him if he would of moved the team. How many Mayors of any city would be stupid enough to oppose a privately developed stadium complex?

Lip Man 1
02-08-2011, 11:28 AM
Golden:

Because the original Mayor Daley had his own plan and his own ideas on a new stadium and those weren't to put it in the south Loop but to build a causeway out in Lake Michigan and put up a stadium for the Bears and White Sox there. He also wanted to control who got the construction deals, appropriations etc. A privately financed stadium would not have allowed him to do this since his money (i.e. the City of Chicago's money) wasn't being used.

Lip

MARTINMVP
02-08-2011, 12:28 PM
As someone who really began attending White Sox games in 2009, coming from a distant/casual fan who didn't attend ball games on either side, I walked into the Cell with no bias. It didn't take me long to fall in love.

I won't speak about the surrounding area because we all know Wrigley wins in that regard. But as for inside the ballpark, what is there not to like? One of my favorite things to do during the 6th or 7th inning is to walk around, meet up with some friends in the outfield and just kind of chill out behind the outfield seats and watch the game as we are bull****ting with each other.

With all things considered, we are truly lucky to have a ballpark that most of us love and that we can truly call home.

roylestillman
02-08-2011, 12:38 PM
This stadium complex was proposed by the White Sox owner Art Allyn in 1967.It would of been privately financed by the Comiskey Park Corporation for a total of $50 million dollars. The main problem was Mayor Daley was opposed to it. The Mayor of Chicago never backed the project for reasons known only to himself. It's really a shame it wasn't built because everybody would of been better off if it was built. The White Sox, the Bears and the City of Chicago would have been better off if this complex would of been built in the South Loop.The Loop is a ghost town after 6PM during the weekdays and evev more of a ghost town on weekends. This stadium complex would of brought people to the Loop and made the Loop a more prosperous place for business to thrive. The taxpayers would not have paid for this complex. And still Mayor Daley was opposed to it. When Mayor Daley opposed this project, Art Allyn almost moved the team to Milwaukee. You really could not of blamed him if he would of moved the team. How many Mayors of any city would be stupid enough to oppose a privately developed stadium complex?

When is the last time you were in the Loop or South Loop. Although this was true at the time this was proposed, it's not true now.

I found a 1967 Sox program which include an article on the proposed South Loop stadium. It is exactly on the site of what would become Dearorn Park I and II. The plan was for a 46,000 open air baseball stadium north of Roosevelt with and outfield open to skyline views, a 15,000 seat stadium for basketball and hockey built over Roosevelt Road and 60,000 seat stadium for football and soccer (The Allyn's owned the Chicago Mustangs Soccer Club) south of Roosevelt. A photo shows representitives of the Bears, Cubs, Sox and Mustangs surrounding a rendering of the plan. The entire plan would have been private and cost $50 million.

Red Barchetta
02-08-2011, 12:51 PM
When is the last time you were in the Loop or South Loop. Although this was true at the time this was proposed, it's not true now.

I found a 1967 Sox program which include an article on the proposed South Loop stadium. It is exactly on the site of what would become Dearorn Park I and II. The plan was for a 46,000 open air baseball stadium north of Roosevelt with and outfield open to skyline views, a 15,000 seat stadium for basketball and hockey built over Roosevelt Road and 60,000 seat stadium for football and soccer (The Allyn's owned the Chicago Mustangs Soccer Club) south of Roosevelt. A photo shows representitives of the Bears, Cubs, Sox and Mustangs surrounding a rendering of the plan. The entire plan would have been private and cost $50 million.

Wow! So the plan was for the Sox and Cubs to share the baseball stadium?

roylestillman
02-08-2011, 01:18 PM
Wow! So the plan was for the Sox and Cubs to share the baseball stadium?

That was Allyn's thought. Looking through some old Tribune articles he even said that the stadium would be called White Sox Park when the Sox played there and Cubs Park when the Cubs played there. Early on it looks like the Bears were the first to bow out. There is another article about the closing of the old Grand Central station near Harrison and the river in 1969 where Mayor Daley was asked if that might be a good location for a new Sox ballpark. His response was "They don't need a new stadium." His opposition may have been more about moving out of Bridgeport than anything else.

Ranger
02-08-2011, 03:21 PM
I love the current park and I think it's highly underrated. I also think it has an undeserved reputation for being in a bad part of town (because it is not).

However, I LOVE downtown ballparks. Love the idea of a stadium being in the heart of a city with the skyline as a centerfield backdrop.

Alas, the time for that has passed.

DonnieDarko
02-08-2011, 03:25 PM
I love the current park and I think it's highly underrated. I also think it has an undeserved reputation for being in a bad part of town (because it is not).

Uh, maybe it's changed in the last few years, but I remember the area about...3-4 blocks south of the park not being so good. North of it though, the area is pretty good, I remember.

ewokpelts
02-08-2011, 03:51 PM
Uh, maybe it's changed in the last few years, but I remember the area about...3-4 blocks south of the park not being so good. North of it though, the area is pretty good, I remember.million dollars homes spread from 33rd to 39th

DonnieDarko
02-14-2011, 09:59 AM
Really? Huh. Maybe I need to take a walk south of the park this year, then.

tebman
02-14-2011, 10:59 AM
Really? Huh. Maybe I need to take a walk south of the park this year, then.

It's true in Bridgeport (west of the ballpark). Not so much in Canaryville or Back of the Yards, though those are slowly seeing improvement too.

The growth and investment in these neighborhoods is good news for everybody. Next time you leave the ballpark, drive through Bridgeport on 37th or 38th, and go north on Halsted for a stretch. You'll see new houses and new businesses.