PDA

View Full Version : Rosemont Cubs?


Pages : [1] 2

doublem23
03-18-2013, 02:22 PM
I mean, obviously not, but the Mayor of Rosemont makes his pitch anyway...

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/kapman/rosemont-cubs-suburban-mayor-makes-his-pitch

DSpivack
03-18-2013, 02:28 PM
The link takes me nowhere. I even went back to the CSN Chicago main site, clicked back on it, and still nothing. I guess it's not surprising Kaplan is of no substance...

doublem23
03-18-2013, 02:30 PM
The link takes me nowhere. I even went back to the CSN Chicago main site, clicked back on it, and still nothing. I guess it's not surprising Kaplan is of no substance...

That's weird, the link is still up on CSN Chicago's Facebook page, too, but it's dead, as well. Yeah, you can imagine what a boneheaded piece of garbage it was.

EDIT - Link's back up and working again. Looks like, according to the Google Map image, the parcel of land is on Balmoral just west of 294, AND LOOKEY HERE, if you check out that area on Google Maps there's a baseball icon labeled "Rosemont Field..."

:thinking:

ChiSoxFann
03-18-2013, 02:52 PM
That's weird, the link is still up on CSN Chicago's Facebook page, too, but it's dead, as well. Yeah, you can imagine what a boneheaded piece of garbage it was.

EDIT - Link's back up and working again. Looks like, according to the Google Map image, the parcel of land is on Balmoral just west of 294, AND LOOKEY HERE, if you check out that area on Google Maps there's a baseball icon labeled "Rosemont Field..."

:thinking:

I believe "Rosemont Field" is where the Chicago Bandits play. I drive by it everyday.

DSpivack
03-18-2013, 03:13 PM
I believe "Rosemont Field" is where the Chicago Bandits play. I drive by it everyday.

What Doub is talking about appears to be an empty field just a couple hundred yards south of where the Bandits play.

doublem23
03-18-2013, 03:26 PM
What Doub is talking about appears to be an empty field just a couple hundred yards south of where the Bandits play.

There's a marker named Rosemont Field on both the Bandit's home stadium and the empty field to the south.

DSpivack
03-18-2013, 03:31 PM
There's a marker named Rosemont Field on both the Bandit's home stadium and the empty field to the south.

I didn't notice that it appeared twice. In that case, I'm guessing the one to the south is just marked in the wrong place.

doublem23
03-18-2013, 03:32 PM
I didn't notice that it appeared twice. In that case, I'm guessing the one to the south is just marked in the wrong place.

But isn't it so much more interesting this way? :D:

jdm2662
03-18-2013, 04:10 PM
It would be in the Cubs best interest to have some leverage against whatever city council or whatever they have to face. It's quite dumb they are the only team that can't play so many night games, etc. And, I don't even give too ****s about the Cubs, but I still find it amusing.

If the residents are so worried about them, Wrigley Field has only been there 100 years. I've lived by the Pacific West train line my whole life. Hell, every time I move, I move even closer to the tracks. Should I complain the trains are too noisy?

roylestillman
03-18-2013, 05:59 PM
It would be in the Cubs best interest to have some leverage against whatever city council or whatever they have to face. It's quite dumb they are the only team that can't play so many night games, etc. And, I don't even give too ****s about the Cubs, but I still find it amusing.

If the residents are so worried about them, Wrigley Field has only been there 100 years. I've lived by the Pacific West train line my whole life. Hell, every time I move, I move even closer to the tracks. Should I complain the trains are too noisy?
And Dave Kaplan is making darn sure that he gins up this story to get the Cubs some leverage. The real story is whether the Cubs sent their favorite lap dog out to get this "exclusive" story. On his new show tonight Kaplan trumpeted this story, and to his credit Rick Morrissey sheepishly asked about him how this sorry came about. Kaplan said that he "heard some rumors."

Golden Sox
03-18-2013, 06:07 PM
If the bad guys on the Northside don't take the Rosemont offer, perhaps Rosemont will make the offer to the White Sox when their present lease expires after the 2026 season. I would be surprised if the White Sox renew the lease at the Cell. I figure in another 10 years (2023) the White Sox will start looking around for a new stadium in the Chicagoland area. All of the White Sox attendance problems stem from the fact that the White Sox fan base and potential fan base is no longer on the Southside of Chicago. Years ago most of the White Sox attendance came from the neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago. That's simply not the case anymore. When you consider the fact that most of the White Sox attendance comes from different parts of the Chicagoland area, I think its amazing they draw as well as they do. If you draw 2 million people a year at the Cell and the majority of the fans are coming from somewhere besides the Southside of Chicago, I think basically you've drawn quite well.

DSpivack
03-18-2013, 06:09 PM
If the bad guys on the Northside don't take the Rosemont offer, perhaps Rosemont will make the offer to the White Sox when their present lease expires after the 2026 season. I would be surprised if the White Sox renew the lease at the Cell. I figure in another 10 years (2023) the White Sox will start looking around for a new stadium in the Chicagoland area.

Not a chance. No team in baseball has been in their neighborhood longer than the White Sox. A move to the suburbs would be a disaster at this point.

RKMeibalane
03-18-2013, 07:03 PM
Not a chance. No team in baseball has been in their neighborhood longer than the White Sox. A move to the suburbs would be a disaster at this point.

Agreed. The South Side/Bridgepport area is part of the White Sox culture. They won't risk messing that up.

Lemon44
03-18-2013, 07:44 PM
Kaplan's "breaking news" is the lamest attempt at leverage since Mike McCaskey held a press conference in Gary, IN.

Brian26
03-18-2013, 09:12 PM
And Dave Kaplan is making darn sure that he gins up this story to get the Cubs some leverage. The real story is whether the Cubs sent their favorite lap dog out to get this "exclusive" story. On his new show tonight Kaplan trumpeted this story, and to his credit Rick Morrissey sheepishly asked about him how this sorry came about. Kaplan said that he "heard some rumors."

Honestly, this would be the worst PR disaster and most boneheaded financial move in professional sports history if the Cubs were to move from their storybook ballpark in the heart of the City to some vacant lot out in Rosemont next to the Tollway. As a Sox fan, I'm on my knees praying that this is true and that the City of Chicago tells Ricketts to kiss ass and move.

From a logistical standpoint, this new site wouldn't be COMPLETELY removed from public transportation (looks like there's a Metra line there), but for all practical purposes, they might as well relocate to Rockford. The neighborhood around this site would be more barren than USCF.

Can't believe this is "real" leverage, and I hope the City doesn't take these clowns seriously, and on the same front I hope the Ricketts are 100% serious. Hilarious concept.

Brian26
03-18-2013, 09:16 PM
Isn't Depaul basketball looking to move games back to the city? If the Cubs move to Rosemont, the City can tear down Wrigley so a new basketball arena can be built @ Clark & Addison for the Blue Demons. It's a win-win.

DSpivack
03-18-2013, 09:23 PM
Isn't Depaul basketball looking to move games back to the city? If the Cubs move to Rosemont, the City can tear down Wrigley so a new basketball arena can be built @ Clark & Addison for the Blue Demons. It's a win-win.

DePaul mentioned building a (practically) on-campus arena on the NW corner of Sheffield & Fullerton. I don't know what came of that.

As a landmark, I don't think Wrigley can be torn down.

Brian26
03-18-2013, 09:47 PM
DePaul mentioned building a (practically) on-campus arena on the NW corner of Sheffield & Fullerton. I don't know what came of that.

As a landmark, I don't think Wrigley can be torn down.

Wishful thinking on my part. :tongue:

Wedema
03-18-2013, 10:30 PM
DePaul mentioned building a (practically) on-campus arena on the NW corner of Sheffield & Fullerton. I don't know what came of that.

As a landmark, I don't think Wrigley can be torn down.


Then let them use the "landmark" for Little League games as the baseball that has been played there for the last century is equivalent to that.

DSpivack
03-18-2013, 10:36 PM
Then let them use the "landmark" for Little League games as the baseball that has been played there for the last century is equivalent to that.

An empty but still there Wrigley Field while the Cubs are ignored in the suburbs is a rather hilarious picture in my head.

Marqhead
03-18-2013, 11:11 PM
DePaul mentioned building a (practically) on-campus arena on the NW corner of Sheffield & Fullerton. I don't know what came of that.

As a landmark, I don't think Wrigley can be torn down.

The plan you're talking about is dead, the residents voted it down. They are looking at building their own stadium down south of the McCormick Center, or the Bulls have offered them 10 years of free rent to come play at the UC.

DSpivack
03-18-2013, 11:18 PM
The plan you're talking about is dead, the residents voted it down. They are looking at building their own stadium down south of the McCormick Center, or the Bulls have offered them 10 years of free rent to come play at the UC.

Thanks, hadn't heard that. Before the Sheffield site, I remember reading rumors about the old Finkl steel plant (have they moved yet?), but I also remember reading that there were some serious environmental issues with that property, unsurprisingly.

Having an arena near McCormick Place seems like a mess that would not be worth it. The UC at least seems like it would be a better option than Rosemont.

voodoochile
03-18-2013, 11:40 PM
Honestly, this would be the worst PR disaster and most boneheaded financial move in professional sports history if the Cubs were to move from their storybook ballpark in the heart of the City to some vacant lot out in Rosemont next to the Tollway. As a Sox fan, I'm on my knees praying that this is true and that the City of Chicago tells Ricketts to kiss ass and move.

From a logistical standpoint, this new site wouldn't be COMPLETELY removed from public transportation (looks like there's a Metra line there), but for all practical purposes, they might as well relocate to Rockford. The neighborhood around this site would be more barren than USCF.

Can't believe this is "real" leverage, and I hope the City doesn't take these clowns seriously, and on the same front I hope the Ricketts are 100% serious. Hilarious concept.

Agreed and I don't think any team from Chicago want's to be the first to leave the city proper. Even as close as Rosemont is it's still not Chicago. This with one move would hand the city back to the Sox forever more...

Marqhead
03-18-2013, 11:43 PM
Thanks, hadn't heard that. Before the Sheffield site, I remember reading rumors about the old Finkl steel plant (have they moved yet?), but I also remember reading that there were some serious environmental issues with that property, unsurprisingly.

Having an arena near McCormick Place seems like a mess that would not be worth it. The UC at least seems like it would be a better option than Rosemont.

Yeah I think the McCormick idea is basically Rosemont but closer. Obviously it would be a nicer arena but it's still a trek for most people. The UC makes sense and with the new practice facility it could be great for the area.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 12:03 AM
Yeah I think the McCormick idea is basically Rosemont but closer. Obviously it would be a nicer arena but it's still a trek for most people. The UC makes sense and with the new practice facility it could be great for the area.
The Bulls really offered the UC for a decade, rent-free?!

Noneck
03-19-2013, 12:27 AM
From a logistical standpoint, this new site wouldn't be COMPLETELY removed from public transportation (looks like there's a Metra line there)

The rosemont station at river road on the blue line is not that far from this proposed location. I bet not much further than the green line stop from Sox park.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 12:39 AM
The rosemont station at river road on the blue line is not that far from this proposed location. I bet not much further than the green line stop from Sox park.

Perusing google maps a bit, the Green Line to Sox Park is .4 miles. The walk in between is on a two-lane road with sidewalks on either side.

For the Rosemont site, I used the Rosemont Theatre, which fronts River Rd. To the theater from the train station, it says .7 miles, so I would guess that gets it to about a mile, as the site I am guessing they're using is the one behind the theatre, as opposed to another empty field just south of the Bandits stadium on the other side of the tollway. That walk from the Rosemont El stop is on a 4-line, divided street in River Road that looks less than pedestrian-friendly, to say the least.

Also, while the article linked to the site behind the Rosemont Theatre on the east side of the tollway, there appears to be construction going on there. I think I read something about an outlet mall going in there. Thus, I wonder if the empty parcel of land in question is actually on the north side of Balmoral just west of the tollway. That's an even worse location when it comes to access for any kind of transportation.

cards press box
03-19-2013, 01:42 AM
I mean, obviously not, but the Mayor of Rosemont makes his pitch anyway...

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/kapman/rosemont-cubs-suburban-mayor-makes-his-pitch

Kaplan's math is regarding applicable amusement taxes is a little messed up. He correctly notes that patrons currently pay 12% amusement tax on tickets for games at Wrigley. That 12% tax = 9% Chicago amusement tax + 3% County amusement tax. So far, so good.

But Kaplan goes on to say that there would only be a 3% amusement tax for games at Rosemont. That is wrong. For Rosemont games, there would be a 3% Rosemont amusement tax + 3% County amusement tax = total of 6% amusement tax. And, yes, there is case law supporting this. See County of Cook v. Village of Rosemont, 303 Ill. App. 3d 403 (1st Dist. 1999).

C-Dawg
03-19-2013, 06:56 AM
Also, while the article linked to the site behind the Rosemont Theatre on the east side of the tollway, there appears to be construction going on there. I think I read something about an outlet mall going in there. Thus, I wonder if the empty parcel of land in question is actually on the north side of Balmoral just west of the tollway. That's an even worse location when it comes to access for any kind of transportation.

Correct on all counts. The "Fashion Outlet Mall" or whatever they're calling it is progressing rapidly behind the theater.

West of 294 on either side of Balmoral is a sort of no-man's land of warehouses and factories, a railroad yard and yes the Rosemont sports dome and softball field. Perfect for the Cubs! Yes there are new ramps from Balmoral to Mannheim and 294 but not in both direction if I remember right. And yes there is Metra service but its just a few trains a day. They'd need to run shuttles from the Blue Line.

Marqhead
03-19-2013, 07:07 AM
The Bulls really offered the UC for a decade, rent-free?!

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20121119/BLOGS02/121119774/united-center-offers-depaul-free-rent-for-blue-demons-games

moochpuppy
03-19-2013, 07:24 AM
It would be in the Cubs best interest to have some leverage against whatever city council or whatever they have to face. It's quite dumb they are the only team that can't play so many night games, etc. And, I don't even give too ****s about the Cubs, but I still find it amusing.

If the residents are so worried about them, Wrigley Field has only been there 100 years. I've lived by the Pacific West train line my whole life. Hell, every time I move, I move even closer to the tracks. Should I complain the trains are too noisy?

I remember the issue in the early 80's with the lights. Because Wrigley didn't have lights in '84 it cost them home field in the NL Championship and we all know how that series against the Padres turned out.

Do the residents not realize that if the Cubs left it would kill their neighborhood. What would they rather have......some more night games to put up with or a bunch of abandoned store fronts up and down Clark street?

doublem23
03-19-2013, 07:57 AM
Honestly, this would be the worst PR disaster and most boneheaded financial move in professional sports history if the Cubs were to move from their storybook ballpark in the heart of the City to some vacant lot out in Rosemont next to the Tollway. As a Sox fan, I'm on my knees praying that this is true and that the City of Chicago tells Ricketts to kiss ass and move.

From a logistical standpoint, this new site wouldn't be COMPLETELY removed from public transportation (looks like there's a Metra line there), but for all practical purposes, they might as well relocate to Rockford. The neighborhood around this site would be more barren than USCF.

Can't believe this is "real" leverage, and I hope the City doesn't take these clowns seriously, and on the same front I hope the Ricketts are 100% serious. Hilarious concept.

I may be the only person in the world praying harder than you as a Sox fan who lives next door to the Wrigleyville area; the Cubs disappear from the public eye AND they get out of my hair? Christmas come early for me!!!

Isn't Depaul basketball looking to move games back to the city? If the Cubs move to Rosemont, the City can tear down Wrigley so a new basketball arena can be built @ Clark & Addison for the Blue Demons. It's a win-win.

Yes, which should be evidence enough if anyone thinks the Ricketts are really taking this seriously. DePaul is desperately trying to get out of Rosemont. The only sports team in Chicago that could even possibly seriously consider a move to the burbs is maybe the Bears, who only need to pack a stadium 8 to a max 11 times per year, and then almost exclusively on the weekends.

The Bulls really offered the UC for a decade, rent-free?!

Yes, the idea, IIRC, is that a new DePaul stadium would be competition for concerts and other events at the UC.

The rosemont station at river road on the blue line is not that far from this proposed location. I bet not much further than the green line stop from Sox park.

First off, it's probably double the distance and second, it's not exactly an environment that encourages walking; I don't know if you've ever seen River Road through Rosemont, but it's basically a freeway that doesn't even have sidewalks for most of it. I'm sure they'd need to run shuttle buses back and forth.

Oh, and the Metra line that runs that way doesn't currently have service on weekends.

:rolling:

doublem23
03-19-2013, 08:04 AM
Do the residents not realize that if the Cubs left it would kill their neighborhood. What would they rather have......some more night games to put up with or a bunch of abandoned store fronts up and down Clark street?

Kill the neighborhood? Come on. It's not 1980 anymore, Lakeview isn't the sketchy run down neighborhood it was back in the day, it is thriving. The population of Lakeview alone would be the 9th largest town in the state, it's density is double that of San Francisco (the most dense large city in America). Would some of the party atmosphere on Clark Street suffer? Sure, probably, but Wrigley will still live on as an entertainment destination for concerts, events, etc. even if the Cubs moved out (and I'm sure they're not going to because the Ricketts, for all their faults, aren't total morons).

Maybe back in 1975, Lakeview needed the Cubs. In 2013, it doesn't.

Railsplitter
03-19-2013, 08:05 AM
I remember the issue in the early 80's with the lights. Because Wrigley didn't have lights in '84 it cost them home field in the NL Championship and we all know how that series against the Padres turned out.

?
Yet another load of mularkey put out by Cub-dumb and lazy journalists. "Home Field Advantage" alternated between the two divisions and in 1984 it was the NL West's turn.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 08:09 AM
First off, it's probably double the distance and second, it's not exactly an environment that encourages walking; I don't know if you've ever seen River Road through Rosemont, but it's basically a freeway that doesn't even have sidewalks for most of it. I'm sure they'd need to run shuttle buses back and forth.

Oh, and the Metra line that runs that way doesn't currently have service on weekends.



Im familiar with the area but with the money Rosemont has and would get, a pedestrian friendly access to a stadium could be done. But Rosemont wouldnt want it, they love to charge people to park that go to that area.

moochpuppy
03-19-2013, 08:27 AM
Yet another load of mularkey put out by Cub-dumb and lazy journalists. "Home Field Advantage" alternated between the two divisions and in 1984 it was the NL West's turn.

Maybe it was "if" the Cubs would have made the WS. I know there was talk of games being moved because of lack of night games at Wrigley.

jdm2662
03-19-2013, 08:27 AM
Yet another load of mularkey put out by Cub-dumb and lazy journalists. "Home Field Advantage" alternated between the two divisions and in 1984 it was the NL West's turn.

Les Grobstein, who is unapologetic Cubs fan as it gets, has said this multiple times.

jdm2662
03-19-2013, 08:29 AM
Im familiar with the area but with the money Rosemont has and would get, a pedestrian friendly access to a stadium could be done. But Rosemont wouldnt want it, they love to charge people to park that go to that area.

They charge $13 to park for their so called entertainment district. There isn't much to offer, and everything is a large wait. I should stick to Forest Park if I want a night out.

that said, if the Cubs sent out their resident mascot to try to stir things, it wouldn't surprise me.

doublem23
03-19-2013, 08:36 AM
It would be in the Cubs best interest to have some leverage against whatever city council or whatever they have to face. It's quite dumb they are the only team that can't play so many night games, etc. And, I don't even give too ****s about the Cubs, but I still find it amusing.

If the residents are so worried about them, Wrigley Field has only been there 100 years. I've lived by the Pacific West train line my whole life. Hell, every time I move, I move even closer to the tracks. Should I complain the trains are too noisy?

People move into the neighborhood understanding the agreement as it is, not as the Cubs want it to be. I'm sure if Pacific West wanted to run trains through your town at 4 AM blasting music at 200 decibels, while shooting fireworks, and shinging spotlights you wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say, well, the tracks have always been there. :shrug:

The Immigrant
03-19-2013, 08:40 AM
Do the residents not realize that if the Cubs left it would kill their neighborhood. What would they rather have......some more night games to put up with or a bunch of abandoned store fronts up and down Clark street?

It would kill the bars on Clark street, most of which are struggling anyway because there's too many of them, but the neighborhood would do just fine.

vinny
03-19-2013, 08:42 AM
Meanwhile, DePaul is apparently saying "no, thanks" to the UC:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-depaul-mcpier-stadium-talks-20130318,0,7158406.story

doublem23
03-19-2013, 08:47 AM
It would kill the bars on Clark street, most of which are struggling anyway because there's too many of them, but the neighborhood would do just fine.

Some of them would certainly close, but I think the area would remain a destination; I mean, they had 25,000 people PAY to attend a barcrawl there in DECEMBER.

The Immigrant
03-19-2013, 08:52 AM
Some of them would certainly close, but I think the area would remain a destination; I mean, they had 25,000 people PAY to attend a barcrawl there in DECEMBER.

Yikes, I had no idea. I guess it is THE destination for suburbanites and recent college graduates looking to get rowdy.

I know several people who have lived in that area for years and I don't think one of them would miss the Cubs if they left the city. I keep hearing stories about drunken fans pissing on lawns, getting into fights in the alleys, etc.

dickallen15
03-19-2013, 09:13 AM
Yikes, I had no idea. I guess it is THE destination for suburbanites and recent college graduates looking to get rowdy.

I know several people who have lived in that area for years and I don't think one of them would miss the Cubs if they left the city. I keep hearing stories about drunken fans pissing on lawns, getting into fights in the alleys, etc.

I would imagine a good percentage of people who live there consider their favorite part of the summer being when the Cubs are on the road.

jdm2662
03-19-2013, 09:19 AM
People move into the neighborhood understanding the agreement as it is, not as the Cubs want it to be. I'm sure if Pacific West wanted to run trains through your town at 4 AM blasting music at 200 decibels, while shooting fireworks, and shinging spotlights you wouldn't just shrug your shoulders and say, well, the tracks have always been there. :shrug:

Um, a little extreme? I used to hear the tracks loud and clear when I lived a mile and a half away. And, I'm talking about the train on the tracks, not the horn. I heard even more when I moved closer to them. I just learned to deal with it. If I moved to Wrigleville and I complained about stupid fans or drunk idiots, I would sound rather silly. I knew there were there before hand.

And, I don't give two ****s about the Cubs, and I hope they move somewhere so they will enter irrelevancy. I just don't see that happening.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 09:21 AM
I dont think it is totally unreasonable to think the cubs would consider a move. A place like rosemont would and could give them the world to relocate. This a village that is getting huge revenue from a casino, hotels, convention center, entertainment complex and soon to be huge designer shopping mall. The village has no schools, library's etc to support. In essence this villages streets are lined in gold.

Someone mentioned the Sox moving after the lease expires in 2026, if the ownership at that time is the same as it currently it is, I would see them making the move. They love using other peoples money and this is a place where they would have the opportunity to do that.

doublem23
03-19-2013, 09:33 AM
I dont think it is totally unreasonable to think the cubs would consider a move. A place like rosemont would and could give them the world to relocate. This a village that is getting huge revenue from a casino, hotels, convention center, entertainment complex and soon to be huge designer shopping mall. The village has no schools, library's etc to support. In essence this villages streets are lined in gold.

Someone mentioned the Sox moving after the lease expires in 2026, if the ownership at that time is the same as it currently it is, I would see them making the move. They love using other peoples money and this is a place where they would have the opportunity to do that.

The casino is actually in Des Plaines. I believe the license was originally awarded to Rosemont, they had a building ready (the Muvico Theatres) but the state ended up moving the license nearby to Des Plaines because Rosemont probably gives Cicero a run for it's money as the most crooked town in Illinois.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 09:39 AM
The casino is actually in Des Plaines. I believe the license was originally awarded to Rosemont, they had a building ready (the Muvico Theatres) but the state ended up moving the license nearby to Des Plaines because Rosemont probably gives Cicero a run for it's money as the most crooked town in Illinois.

Yes you are correct on all counts and has always been the new Cicero since its inception. How they get away with the things they do, in this time baffles me but I know that cant be discussed here.

Moses_Scurry
03-19-2013, 10:10 AM
An empty but still there Wrigley Field while the Cubs are ignored in the suburbs is a rather hilarious picture in my head.

God, that would be like Lionel Hutz imagining a world without lawyers!

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 10:52 AM
I dont think it is totally unreasonable to think the cubs would consider a move. A place like rosemont would and could give them the world to relocate. This a village that is getting huge revenue from a casino, hotels, convention center, entertainment complex and soon to be huge designer shopping mall. The village has no schools, library's etc to support. In essence this villages streets are lined in gold.

Someone mentioned the Sox moving after the lease expires in 2026, if the ownership at that time is the same as it currently it is, I would see them making the move. They love using other peoples money and this is a place where they would have the opportunity to do that.

The moment the Cubs move out of Wrigley Field is the moment they cease becoming a tourist attraction to the masses. It would, as has been said, among the worst decisions any sports team has ever made. There aren't any ballparks people flock to in the suburbs as a tourist destination.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 11:45 AM
The moment the Cubs move out of Wrigley Field is the moment they cease becoming a tourist attraction to the masses. It would, as has been said, among the worst decisions any sports team has ever made. There aren't any ballparks people flock to in the suburbs as a tourist destination.

Getting a real sweet lease, parking revenue, skybox revenue, on field advertising revenue, actual concession revenue, having no overseer of what they can and can not do can go a long way.

You mention tourist revenue, I cant think of a more populated tourist base than the hotels filled in rosemont. All within walking distance to the proposed field. Sure it wont be to see a old historic field but maybe it will be to see a good ball club. Yes I know that is
heresy.

doublem23
03-19-2013, 12:01 PM
You mention tourist revenue, I cant think of a more populated tourist base than the hotels filled in rosemont. All within walking distance to the proposed field. Sure it wont be to see a old historic field but maybe it will be to see a good ball club. Yes I know that is
heresy.

Uh, what? Tourists don't go to Cubs games to see the Cubs, they go there to see Wrigley Field. The experience of being at Wrigley is what allures so many of them. If the Cubs were a good team and people wanted to see them play, you can get MLB.tv for an entire season for the same price as a hotel room in Rosemont, which is, again, not at all designed for people to walk around, unless you're now building private skywalks from every hotel to the new park as well as the Blue Line stop.

If the Cubs were playing good baseball, they'd pack the park because there's still a lot of Cub fans in the Chicago area that would go see them. But last year, they were historically terrible and they still drew 2.8 million people because they can count on hundreds of thousands if not over a million tourists to go to a game there, regardless of what's going on. That goes away with Wrigley.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 12:11 PM
Uh, what? Tourists don't go to Cubs games to see the Cubs, they go there to see Wrigley Field. The experience of being at Wrigley is what allures so many of them. If the Cubs were a good team and people wanted to see them play, you can get MLB.tv for an entire season for the same price as a hotel room in Rosemont, which is, again, not at all designed for people to walk around, unless you're now building private skywalks from every hotel to the new park as well as the Blue Line stop.


Maybe I am dreaming that people actually like to see good baseball at a park not on Tv. I was also speaking of the convention/business traveler that is in a rosemont hotel. Going to a ball game that is right down the street would be a real possibility.

Regarding the skywalks, I wouldnt rule that out with rosemont the city of gold. A tram could be possible and a dedicated shuttle lane on game day would be a easy solution.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 12:21 PM
Maybe I am dreaming that people actually like to see good baseball at a park not on Tv. I was also speaking of the convention/business traveler that is in a rosemont hotel. Going to a ball game that is right down the street would be a real possibility.

Regarding the skywalks, I wouldnt rule that out with rosemont the city of gold. A tram could be possible and a dedicated shuttle lane on game day would be a easy solution.

Rosemont is a secondary convention venue, plus the whole convention line to bring people into a ballpark is way overrated. As a tourist draw, there might not be a better pull in the world than Wrigley Field. At Wrigley, people don't care if the baseball is good or not. They would at Generic Suburban Park.

DumpJerry
03-19-2013, 12:24 PM
Rosemont is a secondary convention venue, plus the whole convention line to bring people into a ballpark is way overrated. As a tourist draw, there might not be a better pull in the world than Wrigley Field. At Wrigley, people don't care if the baseball is good or not. They would at Generic Suburban Park.
The impression I got from the story on Channel 5 was that they would build a replica of Wrigley.

Heck, the town might alter the Building Code to allow for troughs in the mens room.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 12:26 PM
The impression I got from the story on Channel 5 was that they would build a replica of Wrigley.

Heck, the town might alter the Building Code to allow for troughs in the mens room.

Even still, it would not have the same appeal to the vast majority of tourists and non-Cubs fans.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 12:29 PM
Heck, the town might alter the Building Code to allow for troughs in the mens room.


If thats what the cubs want I bet rosemont would do whatever is possible to accommodate it.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 12:52 PM
Rosemont is a secondary convention venue, plus the whole convention line to bring people into a ballpark is way overrated. As a tourist draw, there might not be a better pull in the world than Wrigley Field. At Wrigley, people don't care if the baseball is good or not. They would at Generic Suburban Park.

Another draw will be from tourists going to the new designer mall. What I have heard is that it will be something really special. Mom and the girls come in to go to the mall while dad and the boys go to a ball game. Many different possibilities of getting out of towners to the ballpark.

FielderJones
03-19-2013, 01:13 PM
The impression I got from the story on Channel 5 was that they would build a replica of Wrigley.

Heck, the town might alter the Building Code to allow for troughs in the mens room.

Would the million-or-so tourists who come to town to see a century-old ballpark really flock to a replica?

Now, as much as I'd love to see the Ricketts group make this colossal mistake, they can't be that dumb, can they?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Q6TZq05jaX8/TLDAcIbM7YI/AAAAAAAAA58/3BBoovRDORU/s320/rickettsbeer.jpg
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/ QXGyYeFxkjGRQUHy8gJCcpLCwsFR4xNTAqNSYrLCkBCQoKDgwO Gg8PGSwlHxwsLCwpKSkpKSkpKSksKSwpLCwpLCkpKSksKSwpLC kpKSkpKSwsKSkpLCkpLCwpKSkpKf/AABEIALcBEwMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAACAgMBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAEBgMFAAIHAQj/xABDEAABAgMFBQUFBgQDCQAAAAABAAIDBBEFEiExQQZRYXGBEy IykbEHocHR8BQjQnKCklJi4fEWk6IVM1Oys8LD0uL/xAAZAQADAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQIDBAX/xAAkEQACAgICAgIDAQEAAAAAAAAAAQIRAyESMUFRBDITImFCI//aAAwDAQACEQMRAD8AToQR0F1ELBaisFSMT2NEQ8E95bxCo4BxU yAZrNGAVqAquzMgrYBZmiA54YJdi+JMk8MEtxvEkJl3ZuQQG0c 4GigqSa8PlgrCzRgljbWeINwAkHPGlab3bhuGFeKTNICzGnCTS lTXn7zl0RsnZZjUBAN6lM8eQzpxNFVQYlSO6CeGXBtT709bDyZ fGa5+mNAlJ0jaKtj7s1s8yXgtY1oGGNBqc0xQoSilhXojYQXJF WzrekamWBzC1+yjciarCt+KM+TA3SQOiGiWQ28DTQ+tVZrCUuK C2U0eyw51NGjzOg91edNyrTYbanD6OAaOAFTzTMWqEwx70mikL MbZ8XQ0DW8emI96gGztdMPrBN1xeGGp4lJiebAzJxxqhZnZ5jg agV1+KcosJATEJZSjRrFnLLd2buFpaaOBGOVOO9QTn3kOjgHEa 3qnyPyTxbsteYeRyXNJ+M8NIJJocK0FKaA4n06rfC70c2eNOyq acSNR9VUMVaRpg1qc9+p571s91RVdiOJ9gz0TLIV6KlkyRglMk W1CSmSKCzYzVyGj5Il6GjpoAIrF64LEAXzHLe8q0zYC8dPjetU ZUHxXLWW8SBbNgoySfUqJAN1mDAK2CqrL0VuAoLQJPDBLMUd5N E8MEsRfEgTLyzhgkXai8+KS4kgYAVDQANK5J8s7wpC2vgOEQkg AV1NXY6kDIJGkGVcItBGLQBmcwPn710zYOG2hcAeZw6UXJoAq4 Vy93MrrmxJFwct1KDloFnl0jfHtnQZMd1EAoWVdgi2rCJ0yMvL 3tF7cXhhrRE6PC5eX145ijcUxo3c5RrUOWKWyqN6rR0YLWKEI9 3FQ2UlZLGioWMaqGLFxWr3YKLLoqrROYXMreh3XG8DQk6VFd48 sl0iadUlIW082HkilHDMD8Q3jUO16LXB2c/yHpCLNMoeeS3lomFPJexRWv1iooDe8KLuOBm780VLIV+aKlkCQ wSmSKCFlMkUFDGavQ0dEvQ0dAAjisXjs14gASPHKG+0Fbxyhb6 sQbCmFfWK+p6pZgOTJYPxSZLH2ym4K3AVAy0WQIYe+obWlaYDA mp3DBVEX2ltJpChOdoCaNHA1qT5tClKxjZPjBLEbxIM7SzMd11 gY0DMuqQP2lq1NqBr7gf2kTVrGwmgc3EVHV1eCrgJjbZrhTEgd QEs+0AVDBDq7El10F3AZa4o+VsuYijxw4YrhS/FqOOLAD5qr2pgxpa7cjOdUYkhoA8yaDPMpUi4ifBl4l4fdxBxu OFOtM10nYecxDaUw/EKHyK57E2hjgj7wuPJtOmCe9m7FjzEIPfGLScu4HDyqPVZ5VGt s3x8r0jp8q5HQyufwNnZ6GA6FGhP3isSBhwb3wepC3G2s1LYTU E3RXvkNu0GvawyWNH5qFYxx+mbPJ7R0MBYSluz9uZeKPFcdud8 DkQjDbjTkR5pv9exxXLotXlQOCAFqAomFFqpuzTjROxik7Oi0E QBRvnQnonZJEago8AKb7UFq94KhlrRXug70JOuoFYTAwVBaU2B XEeYWbRaZWz0egO9c72gilzjXMZ7+Brnu800WtO48D9YcUpWy+ tH56E9K/FbYUc+dlLEGJcB+bjx+uKgYKO96LbnUddeGPBSfY64t03buC67 ORoBfmipZDRRiiZZUZl/J5ItCSmSKCgZ49DR0S5DRkACELFsViAKeYVeXKxmGoUSqsSN5U pn2fz6pcgQaJl2eGPVJ9EyL3amNdlADk97WnGlQA53/AGpONo3aNAa2mTbjg3HAPN13efTXLEroNp2GZqWLGkCIO/DJyvAHA8CCR1XMwC1xDhRzSQQdHAkEHkQiJS6Li15x8OX+6waX hj3g43nNL6DjQdARvSnzXW7N2dhRLPgCK0vvNEY1c4d6IK1FCK d0gcgqiJsdLXqXCB+d/wA0OQCHBtCLD/3cSIz8r3N9CiI1vR4lBFiveKEd41wNK4nkF0qT9nUm4Ysf/mOUG02wkpAlYkSHCN9oJBMSIaYEVpepgaFS5JIqCcnSOfWeztI jQPxEDzK+hZGUEKC1oGDWgeQXFvZ/Z1+dhgjwm8f04/Bd0mGdw0XNmdujrxKlZQzluXcB9dBily0bdiAEhrzhjSvv0VzM wRDBe4UpvSrOe0KCCQ1jn0zLRu1qs0r6N3SQqTdpOD78Nt3HFt KNcc8tDx9UZB2me2jmklpzBNHNOorr135re0troEUYwXNJ17vw KoY0dhNWE8j7l1xbqpI5J19os6BYe1xeQKgnVpIa/ndJ736SU92fa7boJNPzAt9VwCZeC3KqghtddqGvAOrQQD1GaUs URrPN67O92ntQG+GrjuaCfRUz9sA0jtDcJya83XHkzxHoFyCXi vc4NvvpX+J+HvTdKzMOXYYpbWgo3eScBTiShYY+WD+RLpIc53b QQm33d0HK/UE/lb4q54Uqq0bXRY3gcGje51zyDanzAXPniJNxLz3VJ8mjc0bldS WzDm4h/RKTjHocVKX2Y4wJJ8Ui9MsFdBDc4/uLx6LJ6xns8Mcn9A/9lSS7IjKY4/WPNW8jad7uuzWLyz9myww9FJbExGgtq5zHjcYf9SqAW7DeCIku ymfcN2ueOF3efNPVu2d2kNw1p8FyqKbryDy8lriyOXZjmxqO0X jGSjyC10SE7i6oJ3feAg/uRE3ZgDasewYYlwLG8wcWjlVLJj047lLLWwYZBh1adRm0/pXQcx7N2bFZ3nMN3O+2j2U3321C8liraXmmxquhkwY2txxbe50 pUc1EJzH72GyIdXAdk+v5mCjjzBTokPlMkWFXy09CIN1zm0zbE GI5Obg73ckax1RXeoaoZj1BGU7lBFSAGXqyqxAFa9q8EJTXcUV CaKKxIEgwFe2KyhCAFArKyD3uqlktj7ZQwC597TLP7OavtFBGY H/rb3H+7sz1XQrJyCWfaxJVhQIv8D3QzyiNDgT1h06pRKQwyBBlI BGXYwqfsaql576L2amA+z5cjSGGHnD7hH+lARPGk+yWM1nZIqc lBEYWEVDi2vIOBPuCFsvIK0hw7xpvB9ComrizbC6mmIWwUs0Ts w4CnfjXeRiYe5dNaKjJI9jS5hzL68dKY1TvKvwXI5W7PSnDhoW dp9l4013bzWw9a1Djyumh60S+7YaXhMc1rqXgWvDjmCN+nNdQ7 MOCpbX2cbF1IPBUrXROn2cfnNi4YyiOOGPhPSuFfJVNoWa1pqC MBkMV1aLsK05ue7rQJS29syFKQmQ207SIa03MbmeuS1hKTZnkj CMWxGIJwAqTQAbycAPOi+h7H2Phw5OFCc0OLGNDiQMTTE+a477 OrG+0T0Koq2F98+uXdIDBzvlp/SV9DHwrTK90Y4Vqz512tkRAnozWigq0t5OaPjVU9qzTnhjRk2p 65D3V802e1CBSca/+NlP2O/8AsJdsuzTGLqV7tMuNcVcZfpZMo/8ASiqbLvADgXHHENJqPL1RcjaEy1wuOfrgQXDrVNknZEVgwYHj kA7+qsYEreNHQSPzAj3nBYvKvKNlgfhlDY205iOuRcHb9D8kzW fK/eAn0rVFf4DbGo5/dcMi3TrqmCRscQmAEVI/F/QUWEmn0broFiQKt5rjm1Up2cy/dWvmu0zUSgK5Ttk2sc8gVeF1Izzq4i9LynaOpeDcCQXVpgNaKK aknQ7t78TbwpuqR8FeWXZV9pcD4WlxHKtPQKLaSlIIGYY6vAFw p6FdCyXPiYvClic32U0vGLXAjRWgtG6agCp1u1cHDJzDUXTx4K naUWMVucodgQ110Bxd3aVFRvIJPeJxV+HKisyUL3BzvCMh/EfkrwKZAYSoYymKgjKQBXOWLHLEAQRDit4cWgUcRaVVoldE5jK 5sU4pfCvrDzCUiX2dCsnILXa6zPtEnGhjF12+z8zO+3zpTqtrK yCtwoKRzX2cWregxYBzYe0Z+V+DqcnD/UrN/jS1tBKOs20O0YPu3lz2gascfvYfME4c2pihxg8hzTVrqEEag5I l7BjTZeQVrAiXXA7voqrszIKwR2hp0RWhJta4RGmt/huoipWNQIabiVDRur714yPSnHVcLVOj1lLkrZcwnXkS2DvVXAn FI60MFUWDiETsdrGlxIAaKknQBfPu1NuGcmokXG7W5DH8owFBv Jx6hM3tD267W9LQT3cRGeCKGmBYPj88q3YfZ3tYrXuBo3vNb6O d8B9Dpj+i5M5ZJ5JcY+B39lVgOgw3ucKPiPFTuawYMHIl3VdHj +FVtlSwhsDRzw3nErefjktoFjfbZ0KK0l4OW+1OFUNdTFj8/wCVwIPwPRLGxE0GzjGuyiBzOvibX9tOq6LtTZBiwzvbjjXHeFy CKHQn1FQ5jqtP5XYHzC0xO48WY548ZKaO8y9nNwNEW2VaNFVbL 282PBY8agV4HVXsaOCFk9G6V7ITMNCEmJoYqKdeADil6NP4n0W bZqoontOawNFzrakkxMsNT6D1TdHmLyrZiy3xSLrCRUVIphzRF 07BK3QBs1ANHVHcumvKiW7Xj9pEc7TIchl8T1T3tE5srK9i0jt Inip+FutVz+KF1YY/6Zx/LyX+i6RXlqKhmpp9UUIGJO7H5e9TyTdei6DiGGRyCMCCkckYFA GFQxlMVDHQAG5YsLliAB3laAr15WgKtEo3CvrCOIVAFfWDmEpC fZ0OysgrYKpsrIK1CgZSbWWOyZgljsD4mOpUscMiN+4jULnFnW g+TidlHBugmhGI5t3t9K5buq2jkUnzskyKS2I0OaTrpxBzB4hF 0FjTYU2yIwOY5rhwIKtlzZns+itN+TmXQzndfXP8zfi0qcstuF gLkUb7zHepaq0MeY2a9IwXPoloWyTTsQDyYP8AyLR9g2vMD7yK IYOnaBv/ACAn3rnnjTdtnXiyNKqsbbT2jgy+MSI0HRtauNNzRiUh2/t7GmT2UuHMYa5eN3HDwjj6K2lfZW1vejxnRHZkMF2vN5q4+5FQ dnmtNyEwNYKVpmdMXHEnmkpQh1tmrWTJ3pC1s3sc6I4F4wGdMh 11Pon+YhfYoYfDbUAd4DPDI0+s1JKRGijGCgHBWf2UvZQ5GvHB J3LbLjUNIh2b22ZGbUgtIzDhQjceR38FZz20MIMJqN+dUkW7ZB ghzmuphklGI6YNKEY86t96mmyuSGy1tuWl11px3apWtWyjEaX0 xqXDrpyU1l7P3XBzhU51OPFMjKZHLJP67QXyVMTdlNonSkUseS IbsCP4ThR3L5rqMO2qioNapA2hsBpxGAPhdu4EahVEhbMWTIZE BdD04flOo4K2lk2uzKLeHT+p0ifniQql9cShpK12RR3CHV828x nVFxslzNNPZ0qSktA7UfKxS2E6jqVrVAoaLMdyg1w6KoR5Mzc1 BNsorYjXnE9BXcqOMrifCqpl/Z8Yn4Rnc3Od/NuHU6L0EqR5jdu2CTLadzXN/A0wb0HvKmlkM/AUzJzPw+tUTLpiLyRyRgQcjkjApAxQxslMoY6QFe44rFjm4r1M AZ5Wl5bPWgCtCN2lMGz+nNLzUw7P6c1MiWdDsrIK1Cq7LyCtQo GA2lklX8fVNNpZJW/H1SYmNNmZBWCr7MyCsExgUw6jhzRFahA2oaCo0RECKHNBGRFR1 XPlXk68Eu0TPpdxOArXkqqfjsa08emCKfFN03jWpNMKd2uXQYJ eth943QsjpWyOzrahtikudQDE47/7K0b7Q5MG7f4VASx/gjtWlx8Wg4JFtGyHQozoZBwPdqMxw3raEVLyErjujsT7cko4ID wa7/RBzTpSoF9gpXd8FyZkJzciRyWri+mZ+uKr8f8AQ/KvR1qHGg/hiA7sVXWnHp+Ku7r6rmUJsSoDb1eFVfS0tNFuJFBjjwUuFeQUu XgbHRg9lNyz/ZbXijmhzTmCKqGzJMkiutExRGgBYv8AhSEmb2JAJdAiOhuGQJJ HIOHeHvUTnz8DBzWxW78D0FCD5gpxYM0JOvV/lfT2ZvFHtaFhu1Dh45eIOVT6tC1j7VNdlBik7qAe/H0TLKMzPRDTgW8Kq0jjyXdNihNT0Z/hZ2Q3mt79xy/SAgBL3eJ3phnYVVURoB3LYzK54xRMuookI1U0uExF5JZIwBCSW SMUjNSoY6mKhjIAAcsXrs1iABHlRraIVHfVoRKwph2e05pcYUx 7OnLmpkQ+zollZBWgVXZWQVo1QUA2lklUePqmm08krDx9UmJjV ZmQVgq+zMgrBMZV2rkq+wp2oew/hNR+V1fjXzR9rZFJ8vP9lMtJ8JNx3J2vnRRNWioS4yTG6LUjBV 32QucDuOKsb1a+4IiWg10HyXIejFkbItyhA5oe05GFNNpQXhiC aZjUbjwRsaVoDuStaktEY6sMnjT5JxlR0JoIdsVCriw10uvoK8 nA8NVC7YKHeBN4N1FQcs8aCirhb80z8Qw3tUMS2JiJ4nmm4Not eQJQst4lmQIXdY1tPU8N/NeNgBwpQAcNyAlGk514knEqzAoANToM/JYylZbdkkpBAJ4ei8mY2KL7K6w7zieqp4jqu930UI5pdhfad1V czEqURHmKDPohZCFfifXRNIQXLO7qjjQ6qum4j5SYiQnYhrsRj Ug94ObXgVcycRsQBzTUFdji4nnN27Kt8koH2bwTS2TC8fJBFsK EiYsYHRCGySE8xZAKvmZCirkDRQy0OiKW0WDRaJiPHKCMp3KCO gAFyxY44rEAV8YqC8pYyhVEksIpn2c05pXhJo2c05qZEvs6LZe StGlVNmRABiR5o02hDGb2+YSSKILTyKVm+Pqr20rVhEUDweSXm xheqlxYmN9m5BWCWZXaENHhrTe4BexNqXaXB1qq4sYfa2RXP7V YS6g3q+m7ViPGLh0FFVnPHqn+MVDBIPifZ4b4gxcHBrv4rhukq 6sebv1xx+uKs7WsgNlJeGfwwwP1UBJ86pM7d0vEFfMZEb1yZYc ZtI7MbbgmP/2UOGKEiWQCM6HlVR2bbbCK1qCrMTbCM1nR0Keiji7OA6t6hCTG zlB3bnkUzdq3ooohB1RRcZinCsJ4JJApz9MERBslsM33UvZDWi uZmcYzX+iVrbt/QHgFNbKlPRra88KEan+ypWv1QsSbLziV46Jhgq4mHKzaPFqUx7 J2deiNBGt48m4/06pfkoF93AZ8F0nZOQuw75FL1A0bmjI9a18lthx88iXoWWfDG3 7Fr2t2FddLzTR4qwImGoq+GTuyeOoSNKzboD7zMjm05H5Fde9r LaWWeESXI/zW19xK5HdqvQyLZ50eh8sWfZHZVuf4mnMHij3y65vJzDoLw+Ga EeRG4jUJ1s3ayDFADyGP1DsAT/K7IrncaLsJfLoKbgK5dQoKbbgpGxTnYaAVtaQVLEjAKkI3coI6 0fNhQxJsIAicvFoYixAAUZFSdgxYml0HU/AJqs/ZxjDUi87edOQ0VyyABktEibFeU2SA8ZJO4YBXEtZQaKAUCsy2m i9vYcVVCAjK9ea9ZJN1+XNFVHJQu4fNAERgAnAYLUw6f20W4NT 6LaiBkFwbhjwXrmADEDyW5FfrNRPrSqAIYnopbNl78WGz/iPYz9zgPihyFb7JMvWhKNzHaFx/Qx7sfJCEzpm0TPB1A6CqT7Vkg5vLXdVPVsSt+Hhmw32+RqOoqE qTOVdKe4rl+XFqdnZ8VpwoRI7YkE0BNPn6KSFtO9uBz9Va2jBB qlucl6aLKLUuzSUXHouIW1ZAz+uayNtaSEqxII5KMyoOZVrGie bLaa2hccL2emqAEZzsTVaQ4bQvTM6AVVcEibbJ64YqSFDLjh/biVBDYczmmjZ7Zt0Qh0QUh4GhwL65cm613KYwc3xgW5LGrmE7N WJ2vCGDif4zqK7t/MLosvDpQDkgpKWDWgAUAwAy+jj7+CspJtXDzXqYsKxRpHm5czy yti77Xn0s+7viwf8AS4O+C5M0YJ/9rVt34UOFdIrEDgbzTUNBzAxaTUEV0O/BITBgssnZcTKLHwgdFKGlY1qzKI5S0YsLBjyP5cx5HBW0PawkU is6t+RS7asO6WRMwDR3I5FTvhZEVoaYVPolQFjOzzX+E/BK89H7xVwYFRv5oaYskOyqFPEaaKURVveRbrIcNxUbpUjMEKG2 vBoopg99YtixYlyHwOmM/qtQ5erF0HManOu9e05rFiBntNFC5uvksWIA1vLy7u+tV6sQBGS PryUb+ixYgCNoBKvPZxBvWuwfwQYz+vcYP+oVixNAzq8RK9uyP Zm8PC73O1HI5rFir5EU8exfHk1kpeRSnfrhyVHOspn5rFi8hdn sMq4zEM5i8WLZGbSPBLVzUkOEBkFixCdvYVQ4bO7Lg3YkUVJo5 rKilPw1OuRNNwTvKwMvMfPhlWm4UWLF7eOEYRpHi5JynK2Gtb9 c8vX3qws5mZ6fErFic+hR7OS+02UiMmYYdQsxLDXdhTeKXsRTj XQLsNqxYuSfZ022tm4WarFizA1jQA9padfr65KKSFWlhzbh5f0 WLEAShpClasWJgb9moXwd69WIAh+wsONB5BYsWIpBbP/Z

Nellie_Fox
03-19-2013, 01:26 PM
Living outside of the Chicago area, I hear it all the time. "We're going to Chicago, and we're going to go see Wrigley Field." Note that it's not "going to see the Cubs," it's "going to see Wrigley Field." Tourists would not say "we're going to go see the new replica of Wrigley Field that they built out by the airport."

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 01:34 PM
Living outside of the Chicago area, I hear it all the time. "We're going to Chicago, and we're going to go see Wrigley Field." Note that it's not "going to see the Cubs," it's "going to see Wrigley Field." Tourists would not say "we're going to go see the new replica of Wrigley Field that they built out by the airport."

Exactly.

Another draw will be from tourists going to the new designer mall. What I have heard is that it will be something really special. Mom and the girls come in to go to the mall while dad and the boys go to a ball game. Many different possibilities of getting out of towners to the ballpark.

A few thousand people might do that. But not a million. An outlet mall is not a real draw to a ballpark.

SI1020
03-19-2013, 01:43 PM
A few years back I made a Cubs fan angry, no make that livid with me when I suggested something similar to what is being discussed in this thread. I made the sacreligious argument that despite all the hype Wrigley Field had become an albatross that was contributing heavily to a century of futility. I still believe that. If I were the Ricketts I would pursue this option aggressively. A short term PR disaster probably. A long term benefit quite possibly. As a rule I don't like to stereotype people, there is so much of that these days. Nonetheless I suppose I will break my own rule and say I have noticed since the late 50's a strong pollyanna streak that runs in Cub fandom. Give them a new park that pays homage to the old while having some badly needed accoutrements of the modern era and they will still come. In time so will the tourists. If Theo, Jed and Co can pull it off on the field then look out. An unpopular stance on my part no doubt, but I'm sticking to it. As a Sox fan I hope they keep stumbling along like they have been.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 02:11 PM
A few thousand people might do that. But not a million. An outlet mall is not a real draw to a ballpark.


Everything combined is what I am talking about, attendance wise combined with revenue from sources they they dont have now and less expenses, may make this a descent deal. I also realize that this is just a shakedown by the cubs but if they are backed up against the wall, it is a feasible option.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 02:20 PM
Everything combined is what I am talking about, attendance wise combined with revenue from sources they they dont have now and less expenses, may make this a descent deal. I also realize that this is just a shakedown by the cubs but if they are backed up against the wall, it is a feasible option.

I still don't see how it is any way feasible. The site sits on just 25 acres, more than a mile away from the Blue Line stop and across the tollway from the convention center and shopping, and would be difficult to access via car while also likely not having enough room for parking. This is not viable in any way, it's a bluff that only Kaplan, a mouthpiece of the team, buys into. Whether anyone else in the media cares to repeat such team propaganda remains to be seen.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 02:25 PM
I still don't see how it is any way feasible. The site sits on just 25 acres, more than a mile away from the Blue Line stop and across the tollway from the convention center and shopping, and would be difficult to access via car while also likely not having enough room for parking. This is not viable in any way, it's a bluff that only Kaplan, a mouthpiece of the team, buys into. Whether anyone else in the media cares to repeat such team propaganda remains to be seen.

I dont know about land available but public transportation is not as convenient as it is now but not ridiculous. Many are thinking that only an urban ballpark can survive here, suburban parks survive elsewhere and I see no reason why they couldn't here.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 02:31 PM
I dont know about land available but public transportation is not as convenient as it is now but not ridiculous. Many are thinking that only an urban ballpark can survive here, suburban parks survive elsewhere and I see no reason why they couldn't here.

Public transportation would be difficult at that site, as the Blue Line is over a mile away and the roads in between are far from pedestrian-friendly, and while the Metra stop is closer, Metra is a commuter rail line not suited to heavier use that a ballpark would entail.

And while suburban parks can survive, you need a lot of land for parking lots. I believe someone else in the thread mentioned that Miller Park sits on a couple hundred acres. If the vast majority of your fans are driving from other suburbs, those cars have to go somewhere. And there's a good reason why nearly every ballpark built in the last 25 years has been in a city center or close to it, away from the former suburban locations of parks built in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

Nellie_Fox
03-19-2013, 02:37 PM
Many are thinking that only an urban ballpark can survive here, suburban parks survive elsewhere and I see no reason why they couldn't here.
"Survive" is not the question; the question is whether they would ever achieve the same kind of almost cult status that the current ballpark enjoys. They get huge crowds no matter how bad the team is because Wrigley is seen as some sort of baseball shrine, and just being there is an "experience." I don't see that being re-created artificially.

kobo
03-19-2013, 02:48 PM
I still don't see how it is any way feasible. The site sits on just 25 acres, more than a mile away from the Blue Line stop and across the tollway from the convention center and shopping, and would be difficult to access via car while also likely not having enough room for parking. This is not viable in any way, it's a bluff that only Kaplan, a mouthpiece of the team, buys into. Whether anyone else in the media cares to repeat such team propaganda remains to be seen.
It would not be difficult to access that area by car. If a stadium was built there then there would most likely be construction done to provide easier access. But even now it's not that difficult to drive to that area. Parking is a concern, as well as the airport because there would be planes flying overhead all the time.

I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.

The only thing we all seem to agree on is that the Cubs might lose some attendance due to no longer having Wrigley Field to promote. Sure, they may lose some tourists but we all know a new stadium is always going to attract people. If they were to actually become competitive around the same time a new stadium is ready to open that impact will be felt for years. But the Ricketts need to decide what direction they want to go in with the club. Is Wrigley Field more important than the product on the field? Is Wrigley Field worth maintaining over the next 10, 20, 30 years? The Cubs are a brand name and losing Wrigley would definitely be a PR hit, but it's also something I think they can overcome.

doublem23
03-19-2013, 03:00 PM
I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.


I'm going to guess you have never taken the Blue Line from downtown to Rosemont or vice versa. It is brutal.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 03:01 PM
It would not be difficult to access that area by car. If a stadium was built there then there would most likely be construction done to provide easier access. But even now it's not that difficult to drive to that area. Parking is a concern, as well as the airport because there would be planes flying overhead all the time.

I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.

The only thing we all seem to agree on is that the Cubs might lose some attendance due to no longer having Wrigley Field to promote. Sure, they may lose some tourists but we all know a new stadium is always going to attract people. If they were to actually become competitive around the same time a new stadium is ready to open that impact will be felt for years. But the Ricketts need to decide what direction they want to go in with the club. Is Wrigley Field more important than the product on the field? Is Wrigley Field worth maintaining over the next 10, 20, 30 years? The Cubs are a brand name and losing Wrigley would definitely be a PR hit, but it's also something I think they can overcome.

By "might lose attendance", my guess is that it would cost them over a million tourists/visitors a year. That's just not worth it.

And, again, the Blue Line is not right there, it's over a mile away and River Road is not pedestrian-friendly whatsoever. And no one wants to take a shuttle from a parking lot or a train station to a ballpark. I don't see how a casino 2.5 miles away is any kind of draw to a ballpark, let alone an outlet mall. Having a bunch of shopping around the area does not make it Wrigley North. It may not be difficult to drive to the area, but again, there is nowhere to park; that creates a driving nightmare, when a suburban park should have easy in and out access that urban parks don't necessarily have. And it's not even great to drive to; the only access is from an already-busy River Road or Mannheim.

For the Cubs, Wrigley is the brand. What they sell is the Wrigley experience. The Cubs brand is essentially worthless without it.

doublem23
03-19-2013, 03:03 PM
It may not be difficult to drive to the area, but again, there is nowhere to park; that creates a driving nightmare, when a suburban park should have easy in and out access that urban parks don't necessarily have.

Yeah, I don't know if anyone has ever seen a movie at the Muvico Theatres in Rosemont, but the infrastructure of the town is overwhelmed by a couple hundred cars trying to get to the theatre at one time, I can't even imagine thousands of people descending there (or leaving) at once.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 03:08 PM
"Survive" is not the question; the question is whether they would ever achieve the same kind of almost cult status that the current ballpark enjoys. They get huge crowds no matter how bad the team is because Wrigley is seen as some sort of baseball shrine, and just being there is an "experience." I don't see that being re-created artificially.

It cant and wont be duplicated but there are other means to draw. Milwaukee has been doing it.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 03:11 PM
It cant and wont be duplicated but there are other means to draw. Milwaukee has been doing it.

They also have 200 acres of parking lots. And while it's a suburban-style location, it also has easy access off of a major highway just a couple miles west of downtown Milwaukee.

Nellie_Fox
03-19-2013, 03:16 PM
It cant and wont be duplicated but there are other means to draw. Milwaukee has been doing it.Apples/oranges.

They also have 200 acres of parking lots. And while it's a suburban-style location, it also has easy access off of a major highway just a couple miles west of downtown Milwaukee.And it didn't replace a "shrine." Tourists didn't go to Milwaukee just to see County Stadium.

doublem23
03-19-2013, 03:27 PM
And it didn't replace a "shrine." Tourists didn't go to Milwaukee just to see County Stadium.

And nobody references the Brewers as one of the league's signature teams. The Cubs have somehow weaseled their way in with the Dodgers, Cardinals, Red Sox, etc. as a brand name staple in baseball lexicon thanks to the Wrigley field aura. If they move out to Rosemont, they will likely slowly just fade into the background with the rest of the league.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 03:30 PM
Apples/oranges.

And it didn't replace a "shrine." Tourists didn't go to Milwaukee just to see County Stadium.

My point is that there are different fans out there in the huge metro area of Chicago, than just the tourists that currently visit a shrine now. A suburban location may be able to attract this currently untapped resource.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 03:34 PM
My point is that there are different fans out there in the huge metro area of Chicago, than just the tourists that currently visit a shrine now. A suburban location may be able to attract this currently untapped resource.

I just don't see it as an untapped resource. I would venture a guess that the Cubs attendance as it has been since 1984 is made up of a lot of suburbanites who come into the city for games, as well as a huge number of tourists who flock to Wrigley Field. There is no magical untapped suburban market out there; there is a good reason why pretty much every team who has built a new ballpark in the last 25 years has done so in a city center location.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 04:06 PM
I just don't see it as an untapped resource. I would venture a guess that the Cubs attendance as it has been since 1984 is made up of a lot of suburbanites who come into the city for games, as well as a huge number of tourists who flock to Wrigley Field. There is no magical untapped suburban market out there; there is a good reason why pretty much every team who has built a new ballpark in the last 25 years has done so in a city center location.


I still think there is that now hidden fan base. Suburbanites may come to see the cubs a few games a year but I can see these same people going to 10 games if it was in a suburb where you drive, park and get back home easy. Believe it or not, a lot of suburbanites dont like going in the city.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 04:10 PM
I still think there is that now hidden fan base. Suburbanites may come to see the cubs a few games a year but I can see these same people going to 10 games if it was in a suburb where you drive, park and get back home easy. Believe it or not, a lot of suburbanites dont like going in the city.

This particular location offers neither of the latter two. Getting there for weekday night games would be a nightmare as rush hour is awful on both the tollway and the Kennedy, let alone if there is any other event in Rosemont near there. And there is no room there to have enough parking.

Also, they still would be out all of the tourists who currently flock to Wrigley Field because it is Wrigley Field. I would venture a guess that the number of tourists to Wrigley Field could be as much as a million fans per season; as well as the number of young city dwellers who live near the park and like to party and socialize there.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 04:14 PM
This particular location offers neither of the latter two. Getting there for weekday night games would be a nightmare as rush hour is awful on both the tollway and the Kennedy, let alone if there is any other event in Rosemont near there. And there is no room there to have enough parking.

Also, they still would be out all of the tourists who currently flock to Wrigley Field because it is Wrigley Field. I would venture a guess that the number of that could be as much as a million fans per season.


Tollroad (294 and 90) is not really that bad till you hit the kennedy. Going out of the city is bad though. As I said before I dont know about the land available for parking.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 04:18 PM
Tollroad (294 and 90) is not really that bad till you hit the kennedy. Going out of the city is bad though. As I said before I dont know about the land available for parking.

294 Going S or N? Thankfully I don't have to deal with it that often.

kobo
03-19-2013, 04:39 PM
I'm going to guess you have never taken the Blue Line from downtown to Rosemont or vice versa. It is brutal.
I take the blue line from Rosemont to get to Sox games every year, so yes, I do know what it's like.

Tree Hate Me
03-19-2013, 04:44 PM
The Blue Line from downtown to Rosemont takes anywhere from 45-60 minutes depending on where you board in the Loop and at what time (at 5:00pm you might have to wait a bit just to squeeze into a jam packed car, especially if you get on at Clark & Lake) . The slow zones of the past are pretty much gone.

kobo
03-19-2013, 04:44 PM
This particular location offers neither of the latter two. Getting there for weekday night games would be a nightmare as rush hour is awful on both the tollway and the Kennedy, let alone if there is any other event in Rosemont near there. And there is no room there to have enough parking.

Also, they still would be out all of the tourists who currently flock to Wrigley Field because it is Wrigley Field. I would venture a guess that the number of tourists to Wrigley Field could be as much as a million fans per season; as well as the number of young city dwellers who live near the park and like to party and socialize there.
It's amazing people go to Sox games then since this can also be used to describe the experience of getting to a Sox game by car.

DSpivack
03-19-2013, 05:05 PM
It's amazing people go to Sox games then since this can also be used to describe the experience of getting to a Sox game by car.

Sox fans have public transportation alternatives, plus there isn't as much of a reverse commute to deal with on the Dan Ryan that I know as on the Kennedy.

Noneck
03-19-2013, 05:24 PM
294 Going S or N? Thankfully I don't have to deal with it that often.

Neither are too bad till you try to get on the kennedy.

WhiteSox5187
03-19-2013, 07:59 PM
It would not be difficult to access that area by car. If a stadium was built there then there would most likely be construction done to provide easier access. But even now it's not that difficult to drive to that area. Parking is a concern, as well as the airport because there would be planes flying overhead all the time.

I don't think it's really that bad of a location. The blue line is right there so there could easily be shuttles set up to take people to and from the park. The casino is just down River Rd, the new outlet mall is opening soon, that whole area could become Wrigley North. It's not some barren wasteland that some of you city folk are making it out to be.

The only thing we all seem to agree on is that the Cubs might lose some attendance due to no longer having Wrigley Field to promote. Sure, they may lose some tourists but we all know a new stadium is always going to attract people. If they were to actually become competitive around the same time a new stadium is ready to open that impact will be felt for years. But the Ricketts need to decide what direction they want to go in with the club. Is Wrigley Field more important than the product on the field? Is Wrigley Field worth maintaining over the next 10, 20, 30 years? The Cubs are a brand name and losing Wrigley would definitely be a PR hit, but it's also something I think they can overcome.

From a management perspective? Yes. The Cubs lost 101 games last year and still drew 2.8 million fans. If Wrigley Field is removed from the equation, how many people do you think come to see them? From 1999 to 2002 the Cubs had three season where they lost at least 95 games and every year they drew AT LEAST 2.7 million people, except for 2002 when they drew 2.693 million.

I would think that an owner of the Cubs knows that it is in their best interest to do everything they can do to keep Wrigley Field standing for as long as possible. I also think that Rahm knows that as well and he also knows the Cubs have no real leverage here.

doublem23
03-19-2013, 11:02 PM
It's amazing people go to Sox games then since this can also be used to describe the experience of getting to a Sox game by car.

You're aware the Sox are in the bottom 1/3rd of the league in attendance, right? And that the Cubs basically doubled our attendance numbers last year despite the fact they lost 101 games?

doublem23
03-19-2013, 11:14 PM
The Blue Line from downtown to Rosemont takes anywhere from 45-60 minutes depending on where you board in the Loop and at what time (at 5:00pm you might have to wait a bit just to squeeze into a jam packed car, especially if you get on at Clark & Lake) . The slow zones of the past are pretty much gone.

45-60 minutes is fast? Good god, I am glad I don't ever have to take the Blue Line past Logan Square ever any more.

Viva Medias B's
03-20-2013, 07:33 AM
We'll keep political angles out of this, of course, but the Sun-Times is reporting that Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) is proposing Wrigley Field's hand-operated scoreboard be replaced by a video scoreboard. IIRC, that scoreboard was installed by Bill Veeck in 1937.

Link (http://www.suntimes.com/18969116-761/wrigley-aldermans-pitch-scrap-famed-scoreboard-for-video-version.html)

Mr. Jinx
03-20-2013, 07:52 AM
I just don't see it as an untapped resource. I would venture a guess that the Cubs attendance as it has been since 1984 is made up of a lot of suburbanites who come into the city for games, as well as a huge number of tourists who flock to Wrigley Field. There is no magical untapped suburban market out there; there is a good reason why pretty much every team who has built a new ballpark in the last 25 years has done so in a city center location.

I know a lot of suburbanites that follow the Cubs religiously but only go to 1-2 games a year because they don't want to drive into the city and deal with parking.

DSpivack
03-20-2013, 11:47 AM
I know a lot of suburbanites that follow the Cubs religiously but only go to 1-2 games a year because they don't want to drive into the city and deal with parking.

That's nice. I'm sure the number of people for whom that is the case are dwarfed by the number of tourists who flock to Chicago every year to see Wrigley Field, as well as the number of permanently drunk bros who live within walking distance of the park and attend who knows how many games each season.

Mr. Jinx
03-20-2013, 02:01 PM
That's nice. I'm sure the number of people for whom that is the case are dwarfed by the number of tourists who flock to Chicago every year to see Wrigley Field, as well as the number of permanently drunk bros who live within walking distance of the park and attend who knows how many games each season.

You're right, clearly there are more bros living in Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville then there are families in suburban Chicago.

DSpivack
03-20-2013, 02:08 PM
You're right, clearly there are more bros living in Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville then there are families in suburban Chicago.

That's not what I said. I said combining that crowd with the number of tourists who flock to Wrigley Field each season greatly outweighs the families who would probably go to no more than a handful of games each season.

If suburban families were a huge untapped market waiting to be exploited, why has pretty much every new ballpark in the last 25 years been built in a city center?

doublem23
03-20-2013, 02:21 PM
You're right, clearly there are more bros living in Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville then there are families in suburban Chicago.

Well first, yes, if you were to do a head count of people within a reasonable distance of a fixed point, a count centered on Wrigley Field would probably have a higher number than any point in Rosemont, any other suburb, or probably just about any place in the country between New York and San Francisco.

Second, you're convienently lopping off the tourist draw, which is the golden goose in this conversation. The Sox built a park that in every way caters to the suburban crowd; more central location, right next to a 16-lane superhighway, within walking distance of 3 train lines, all of which are closer to downtown than the trek up the Red Line to Wrigley... and the Cubs trounce us in attendance nowadays because of the Wrigley Field factor. It's a pretty sizable gamble to roll the dice on losing a cash cow tourist trap in favor of the traditionally fickle suburban family demographic.

And third, any sensible person can read the writing on the wall... Poverty in the suburbs (especially the inner ring suburbs like, say, Rosemont and its immediate neighbors) is increasing while population has been falling, fuel costs are increasing, people are driving less, etc... Even if you remove the whole "Shrine" element that they'd be throwing away, this would be a catastrophically short-sighted move that would go down as one of the worst in professional sports history.

Mr. Jinx
03-20-2013, 03:13 PM
Well first, yes, if you were to do a head count of people within a reasonable distance of a fixed point, a count centered on Wrigley Field would probably have a higher number than any point in Rosemont, any other suburb, or probably just about any place in the country between New York and San Francisco.

Second, you're convienently lopping off the tourist draw, which is the golden goose in this conversation. The Sox built a park that in every way caters to the suburban crowd; more central location, right next to a 16-lane superhighway, within walking distance of 3 train lines, all of which are closer to downtown than the trek up the Red Line to Wrigley... and the Cubs trounce us in attendance nowadays because of the Wrigley Field factor. It's a pretty sizable gamble to roll the dice on losing a cash cow tourist trap in favor of the traditionally fickle suburban family demographic.

And third, any sensible person can read the writing on the wall... Poverty in the suburbs (especially the inner ring suburbs like, say, Rosemont and its immediate neighbors) is increasing while population has been falling, fuel costs are increasing, people are driving less, etc... Even if you remove the whole "Shrine" element that they'd be throwing away, this would be a catastrophically short-sighted move that would go down as one of the worst in professional sports history.

I'm not suggesting that it would make financial sense to move to the suburbs at all, just that I think people are discounting the amount of people that would prefer the ballpark not be in the city as a minor number. Also, if you are going to mention poverty in the suburbs, the city hasn't exactly been doing all that well the past few years either.

doublem23
03-20-2013, 03:29 PM
I'm not suggesting that it would make financial sense to move to the suburbs at all, just that I think people are discounting the amount of people that would prefer the ballpark not be in the city as a minor number. Also, if you are going to mention poverty in the suburbs, the city hasn't exactly been doing all that well the past few years either.

It is a minor number, though, compared to what you lose. Nobody in their right mind is trying to build anything to appeal solely to Mr. and Mrs. Suburb and their 2.5 kids; for the same reason that many companies in the area have abandoned their suburban office parks to move back downtown; I'm not saying the city or the burbs are better or worse for day-to-day living, that's all personal preference, of course, I'm just saying, if you're object is to try to attract 3 million people to a specific location over the course of several months, limiting the overall accessibility of your location by moving it 20 miles away from the center of this very centrally-focused transporation infrastructure would be simply foolish.

C-Dawg
03-20-2013, 04:29 PM
I know a lot of suburbanites that follow the Cubs religiously but only go to 1-2 games a year because they don't want to drive into the city and deal with parking.

Maybe the Cubs could hit the storied 4-million mark if they'd just move to the suburbs!

Frontman
03-20-2013, 07:02 PM
I do love how some of the Cubs faithful in the Chicago media basically say, "Don't they get that its the area around the park, the bars, walking to the train, that's what the fans go to see/experience?"

Yeah, we get it. Team=secondary concern. Ricketts better wake up and realize he's bought a money pit. Might make money for May/June; but unless he really puts a strong winning team together, that ballpark is going to be half empty after July 1.

WhiteSox5187
03-20-2013, 07:24 PM
We'll keep political angles out of this, of course, but the Sun-Times is reporting that Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) is proposing Wrigley Field's hand-operated scoreboard be replaced by a video scoreboard. IIRC, that scoreboard was installed by Bill Veeck in 1937.

Link (http://www.suntimes.com/18969116-761/wrigley-aldermans-pitch-scrap-famed-scoreboard-for-video-version.html)

That's another bad idea for the Cubs. The "Wrigley Field experience" includes the hand operated scoreboard and the ivy on the walls. It would be like Fenway removing the green monster.

Nellie_Fox
03-21-2013, 12:00 AM
That's another bad idea for the Cubs. The "Wrigley Field experience" includes the hand operated scoreboard and the ivy on the walls. It would be like Fenway removing the green monster.
They've already dropped the idea (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/15506/wrigley-scoreboard-1-opponents-0#more).

DSpivack
03-21-2013, 12:09 AM
They've already dropped the idea (http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post/_/id/15506/wrigley-scoreboard-1-opponents-0#more).

That was quick. Maybe that particular idea was just by Tunney and rooftop owners, though, as has been said.

Viva Medias B's
03-21-2013, 09:39 AM
Last night on WTTW's "Chicago Tonight," Rosemont Mayor Brad Stevens was interviewed by Carol Marin on this matter.

Link (http://chicagotonight.wttw.com/2013/03/20/rosemont-cubs-mayor-hopes-so)

Nellie_Fox
03-21-2013, 11:51 AM
Just because it hasn't been brought out for a while:

:tomatoaward:

slavko
03-25-2013, 04:07 PM
Lordy, the Tribune is beating this angle to death. Who says they still don't have a vested interest in the Cubbies? Chances of the Cubbies going to Rosemont are slim and none and Slim just left by the side door.


Mod edit to remove political statement.

vinny
03-25-2013, 07:33 PM
Lordy, the Tribune is beating this angle to death. Who says they still don't have a vested interest in the Cubbies? Chances of the Cubbies going to Rosemont are slim and none and Slim just left by the side door.

They should stick to what they do best, trying to take away public employees' pensions.

I always heard it as "...and Slim just left town." :redneck

cheezheadsoxfan
03-25-2013, 10:49 PM
If this is a stupid question, I apologize in advance but why is the landmark status so difficult to get around or to at least tweak? It's not like Louis Sullivan built the dump.

DumpJerry
03-26-2013, 07:19 AM
If this is a stupid question, I apologize in advance but why is the landmark status so difficult to get around or to at least tweak? It's not like Louis Sullivan built the dump.
You cannot do any alterations to the structure without permission. This includes signage. You also have some pretty strict maintenance requirements which cannot be put off. Demolition is almost completely out of the question.

roylestillman
03-26-2013, 08:16 AM
You cannot do any alterations to the structure without permission. This includes signage. You also have some pretty strict maintenance requirements which cannot be put off. Demolition is almost completely out of the question.
But will they have to give back the generous Class L property tax break that comes with landmark status?

Red Barchetta
03-27-2013, 02:21 PM
The Cubs threatening to move to Rosemont would be as successful as when the Bears threatened to move to Gary, IN. The Bears were in no way ever going to leave their LSD real esate and there is no way the Cubs will ever leave Wrigley Field. It is their only asset that allows them to be a sports-entertainment attraction.

As to the SOX, I certainly hope when the time is right to start considering a new ballpark, they seriously consider moving into the south or west Loop area. Chicago would beneft from a downtown ballpark nestled into the city skyline. The problem with the Cell is that it's not a downtown ballpark and it's not a suburban ballpark and has an identity conflict as a result.

getonbckthr
03-27-2013, 02:33 PM
The Cubs threatening to move to Rosemont would be as successful as when the Bears threatened to move to Gary, IN. The Bears were in now way ever going to leave their LSD real esate and there is no way the Cubs will ever leave Wrigley Field. It is their only asset that allows them to be a sports-entertainment attraction.

As to the SOX, I certainly hope when the time is right to start considering a new ballpark, they seriously consider moving into the south or west Loop area. Chicago would beneft from a downtown ballpark nestled into the city skyline. The problem with the Cell is that it's not a downtown ballpark and it's not a suburban ballpark and has an identity conflict as a result.

Lets see how the city looks 50 years from now when a new stadium will be needed.

Noneck
03-27-2013, 03:18 PM
Lets see how the city looks 50 years from now when a new stadium will be needed.

In 2026 when the sweetheart deal expires for the current Sox park, the park wont be looking too attractive anymore.

DSpivack
03-27-2013, 03:53 PM
In 2026 when the sweetheart deal expires for the current Sox park, the park wont be looking too attractive anymore.

That depends on what deal they can negotiate at that time.

The Cubs threatening to move to Rosemont would be as successful as when the Bears threatened to move to Gary, IN. The Bears were in now way ever going to leave their LSD real esate and there is no way the Cubs will ever leave Wrigley Field. It is their only asset that allows them to be a sports-entertainment attraction.

As to the SOX, I certainly hope when the time is right to start considering a new ballpark, they seriously consider moving into the south or west Loop area. Chicago would beneft from a downtown ballpark nestled into the city skyline. The problem with the Cell is that it's not a downtown ballpark and it's not a suburban ballpark and has an identity conflict as a result.

There isn't the real estate available for a park that there was ~25 years ago.

Noneck
03-27-2013, 04:03 PM
That depends on what deal they can negotiate at that time.






I doubt the state will be granting any sweetheart deals in a very long time.

DSpivack
03-27-2013, 04:06 PM
I doubt the state will be granting any sweetheart deals in a very long time.

I agree, but that's 13 years from now. Who knows what the economy will look like, what the finances of the White Sox will be, let alone even who will be owning the team. The park may very well look just as, if not more, attractive than the team building a new stadium on their own.

Senerch23
03-27-2013, 05:09 PM
I doubt the state will be granting any sweetheart deals in a very long time.
The state probably won't be building any new stadiums either. A lot can change in 10+ years though.

thomas35forever
03-29-2013, 12:18 PM
Rosenbloom hits the nail on the head.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-rosenbloom-chicago-cubs-and-city-full-of-it-in-wrigley-talks-20130329,0,4459569.column

Nellie_Fox
03-29-2013, 01:18 PM
Rosenbloom hits the nail on the head.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-rosenbloom-chicago-cubs-and-city-full-of-it-in-wrigley-talks-20130329,0,4459569.columnIt won't let me read it unless I become a "digital plus" subscriber.

MarySwiss
03-29-2013, 01:26 PM
It won't let me read it unless I become a "digital plus" subscriber.

I feel your pain, Nellie. I only have online access to the Arizona Republic because I'm a subscriber. But I refuse to get sucked into any of these other "free, but for how long" online sheets.

I figure if anything important happens, I'll find out about it sooner or later! :smile:

SI1020
03-29-2013, 01:50 PM
Rosenbloom hits the nail on the head.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-rosenbloom-chicago-cubs-and-city-full-of-it-in-wrigley-talks-20130329,0,4459569.column I agree. I know Rosenbloom isn't real popular here but yes I too believe that he hit the bullseye. Love the sarcasm directed at Alderman Tunney. Wrigley Field is a dump. Maybe a salvageable dump but it looks like the Ricketts don't have the political clout to make the necessary changes. That's another area Rosenbloom hit on. The tone deaf incompetence and inability of the Ricketts. Wrigley Field is a giant albatross, even more so because it is perceived by Cub fans and really baseball fans in general, that it is absolutely necessary to hold onto it forever. Bull****. How many times as a resident old fart here and in life am I told the only constant is change? I guess it will be left to Jed and Theo to bail out the politically weak and baseball business inept Ricketts ownership group.

DSpivack
03-29-2013, 02:03 PM
I agree. I know Rosenbloom isn't real popular here but yes I too believe that he hit the bullseye. Love the sarcasm directed at Alderman Tunney. Wrigley Field is a dump. Maybe a salvageable dump but it looks like the Ricketts don't have the political clout to make the necessary changes. That's another area Rosenbloom hit on. The tone deaf incompetence and inability of the Ricketts. Wrigley Field is a giant albatross, even more so because it is perceived by Cub fans and really baseball fans in general, that it is absolutely necessary to hold onto it forever. Bull****. How many times as a resident old fart here and in life am I told the only constant is change? I guess it will be left to Jed and Theo to bail out the politically weak and baseball business inept Ricketts ownership group.

Rosenbloom hits the nail on the head.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/rosenblog/chi-rosenbloom-chicago-cubs-and-city-full-of-it-in-wrigley-talks-20130329,0,4459569.column

He was right up until that last point. The Cubs are not moving to Rosemont. They're not moving out of Wrigley. This is an idiotic bluff and I don't know why anyone would buy it. In 105 years of ineptitude, moving out of Wrigley Field would be the dumbest thing the Cubs have ever done.

SI1020
03-29-2013, 02:10 PM
He was right up until that last point. The Cubs are not moving to Rosemont. They're not moving out of Wrigley. This is an idiotic bluff and I don't know why anyone would buy it. In 105 years of ineptitude, moving out of Wrigley Field would be the dumbest thing the Cubs have ever done. I don't think my initial post wasn't even commented on. I think moving could turn out to be one of the best things to happen to the Cubs. I don't understand. In a world where things are changing at warp speed, and not just in technology, the Cubs have to stay in Wrigley forever because the world will fall off its axis? The Cubs need to break from a century plus of abject futility, and Wrigley Field is part of the problem, not the nirvana everyone makes it out to be. Like I said in my original post, a Cub fan wanted to strangle me I think for stating that.

amsteel
03-29-2013, 02:24 PM
I prefer to work with people that kowtow to my every request instead of people who obstruct every move I try to make. The Cubs should at least consider it.

Wrigley is already half empty for weekday games. People will take the L out to Rosemont in the summer (especially if they can get the express Blue Line to O'Hare up and running). Build a state of the art stadium that caters to upper-crust big spenders and corporations, people will spend the money regardless of where the stadium is.

DSpivack
03-29-2013, 02:26 PM
I don't think my initial post wasn't even commented on. I think moving could turn out to be one of the best things to happen to the Cubs. I don't understand. In a world where things are changing at warp speed, and not just in technology, the Cubs have to stay in Wrigley forever because the world will fall off its axis? The Cubs need to break from a century plus of abject futility, and Wrigley Field is part of the problem, not the nirvana everyone makes it out to be. Like I said in my original post, a Cub fan wanted to strangle me I think for stating that.

A changing world toward what, though? The changing world of baseball in the last few decades has seen a move away from generic suburban multipurpose cookie-cutters towards city center stadiums which are supposed to look retro (nevermind if they actually do or not). Wrigley, for better or worse, is the economic model for that, a park in a neighborhood where bars and nightlife act as a huge economic pull both for and because of the ballpark. It's why most new MLB stadiums built in the last 25 years has been in a city center where the team is trying to create that neighborhood experience (the exceptions that I can think of replaced an older ballpark in the same city location; in the Bronx, Philly, Bridgeport, Arlington, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Flushing)

It's the draw of the team; the appeal of the Cubs is their old ballpark, you don't hear much about the team's tradition or history because, as Rosenbloom said, their tradition and history is a losing, pathetic one. We've rehashed this argument many teams in this thread, but moving to the suburbs and out of Wrigley Field would get rid of the tourist draw for the Cubs, which I think would be an absolute disaster. A million people per season, which is my completely baseless guesstimate as to what Wrigley brings every year as a tourist draw, are not going to flock to Generic Suburban Ballpark. Attendance would absolutely crash if the Cubs moved from Wrigleyville to Rosemont, let alone at a Rosemont site that is completely unfeasible for a suburban ballpark.

SI1020
03-29-2013, 02:39 PM
A changing world toward what, though? The changing world of baseball in the last few decades has seen a move away from generic suburban multipurpose cookie-cutters towards city center stadiums which are supposed to look retro (nevermind if they actually do or not). Wrigley, for better or worse, is the economic model for that, a park in a neighborhood where bars and nightlife act as a huge economic pull both for and because of the ballpark. It's why most new MLB stadiums built in the last 25 years has been in a city center where the team is trying to create that neighborhood experience (the exceptions that I can think of replaced an older ballpark in the same city location; in the Bronx, Philly, Bridgeport, Arlington, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Flushing)

It's the draw of the team; the appeal of the Cubs is their old ballpark, you don't hear much about the team's tradition or history because, as Rosenbloom said, their tradition and history is a losing, pathetic one. We've rehashed this argument many teams in this thread, but moving to the suburbs and out of Wrigley Field would get rid of the tourist draw for the Cubs, which I think would be an absolute disaster. A million people per season, which is my completely baseless guesstimate as to what Wrigley brings every year as a tourist draw, are not going to flock to Generic Suburban Ballpark. Attendance would absolutely crash if the Cubs moved from Wrigleyville to Rosemont, let alone at a Rosemont site that is completely unfeasible for a suburban ballpark. Who says it has to be a generic cookie cutter stadium like those that used to be in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis back in the day? I know this is a very city centric board, but trends come and go. The back to the city thing is much ballyhooed and very overrated. It is a sliver of high income people leading the charge. Those that marry and have kids are often off to Naperville or some such when it is time for the kiddies to start school. Not everyone gets to go to a choice magnet school. The vast majority of Chicago area residents live outside the city limits and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Anyway, even if it is a sin to consider a ball park that isn't Wrigley, the Cubs are a special case. I mean 1908 and 1945. Even I wasn't alive then. I'm surprised a hidebound old goat like me can see that radical changes are necessary. Cub fans aren't going to give up on their team. There will be weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth but the Cubs desperately need a different venue to play in. Even if they get a refurbished Wrigley where will they play while the rehabbing is going on? Then they will still be boxed in by the rules laid down by a very powerful alderman. Sometimes in life you have to consider the unthinkable.

DSpivack
03-29-2013, 02:49 PM
Who says it has to be a generic cookie cutter stadium like those that used to be in Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and St. Louis back in the day? I know this is a very city centric board, but trends come and go. The back to the city thing is much ballyhooed and very overrated. It is a sliver of high income people leading the charge. Those that marry and have kids are often off to Naperville or some such when it is time for the kiddies to start school. Not everyone gets to go to a choice magnet school. The vast majority of Chicago area residents live outside the city limits and that is unlikely to change any time soon. Anyway, even if it is a sin to consider a ball park that isn't Wrigley, the Cubs are a special case. I mean 1908 and 1945. Even I wasn't alive then. I'm surprised a hidebound old goat like me can see that radical changes are necessary. Cub fans aren't going to give up on their team. There will be weeping wailing and gnashing of teeth but the Cubs desperately need a different venue to play in. Even if they get a refurbished Wrigley where will they play while the rehabbing is going on? Then they will still be boxed in by the rules laid down by a very powerful alderman. Sometimes in life you have to consider the unthinkable.

I'm no pretentious city-dweller. I live in a suburb. It's not about city vs suburban living here, it's about a sports team whose identity is tied together with their stadium as much as any other sports team in the world. Tourists who came to Chicago are not going to go out to Rosemont to see a new ballpark in anywhere close to the same degree that they currently flock to Wrigley Field. 20-and-30-somethings with disposable incomes who love getting shvitzed at who knows how many games each summer are not going to go to Rosemont in the same numbers, either. Those families in the suburbs you refer to might go to a few games a year, but I don't see them being able to support the team in large numbers for every game to the same degree that tourists and young people currently do.

The economics of Wrigley Field and the Cubs are rather unique, and I don't see any way they can re-create that environment out in the suburbs, and especially not at the site being discussed here. The Cubs have not been a marketing and economic success for 30 years because their fans are any more loyal than anyone else, it's because of the ballpark itself and where that park is located. Doing away with those advantages would also do away with their prolonged attendance success.

Lip Man 1
03-29-2013, 03:18 PM
Well at some point in time regardless of how much money is spent on upkeep, the place is going to be ruled unsafe simply because of age. That's the reality the Cubs and their fans have to face.

Assuming JR is still alive the Cubs won't be able to use U.S. Cellular so the options are limited for them even if they want to build a brand new identical park in the same location.

Lip

DSpivack
03-29-2013, 03:34 PM
Well at some point in time regardless of how much money is spent on upkeep, the place is going to be ruled unsafe simply because of age. That's the reality the Cubs and their fans have to face.

Assuming JR is still alive the Cubs won't be able to use U.S. Cellular so the options are limited for them even if they want to build a brand new identical park in the same location.

Lip

On that first point, I'm left dumbfounded by how much the Ricketts paid for the team. Was it you, or someone else, who said that the nearest bidder to them was a couple hundred million dollars less? You don't buy a fixer-upper without taking into account how much is needed to fix up the place. Sam Zell absolutely played the Ricketts, who seemingly came into this less as business-people than as fan boys.

FielderJones
03-29-2013, 05:48 PM
It won't let me read it unless I become a "digital plus" subscriber.

I feel your pain, Nellie. I only have online access to the Arizona Republic because I'm a subscriber. But I refuse to get sucked into any of these other "free, but for how long" online sheets.


Your Gmail or Yahoo account gains you digital plus access. No money.

DumpJerry
03-29-2013, 05:52 PM
Your Gmail or Yahoo account gains you digital plus access. No money.
How does one access it through gmail or yahoo?

SI1020
03-29-2013, 05:54 PM
I'm no pretentious city-dweller. I live in a suburb. If I gave that impression I apologize. I enjoyed living in the city of Chicago. As for the rest of your post I hear you loud and clear, I am just a major contrarian on this I guess. I see Wrigley as a prison for the Cubs, albeit a gilded one. As a Sox fan, I hope they keep floundering.

Red Barchetta
03-29-2013, 06:13 PM
Well at some point in time regardless of how much money is spent on upkeep, the place is going to be ruled unsafe simply because of age. That's the reality the Cubs and their fans have to face.

Assuming JR is still alive the Cubs won't be able to use U.S. Cellular so the options are limited for them even if they want to build a brand new identical park in the same location.

Lip

The only way to really save the ballpark would be to completely renovate the lower and upper deck grandstands. That would include a new supporting infrastructure and base. It can be done, but at what cost? With the exception of the bleachers and lower box sections, it would be a complete rebuild in the same footprint. Add the fact that it's not very easy to get heavy machinery in/out of Wrigleyville, it would be a very long process.

FielderJones
03-29-2013, 06:16 PM
How does one access it through gmail or yahoo?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/



Click Sign In or Sign Up in upper right
This screen pops up:



http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=7527&d=1364598699



Select one of the providers
Log in as you normally would
Create a Cubune profile
If there is a checkbox to stay logged in to your profile, you never have to log in again on Cubune site

Lip Man 1
03-29-2013, 10:17 PM
Spivak:

Ricketts vastly overpaid and now he's financially in a bind. His cash flow is limited.

Lip

DSpivack
03-29-2013, 11:42 PM
If I gave that impression I apologize. I enjoyed living in the city of Chicago. As for the rest of your post I hear you loud and clear, I am just a major contrarian on this I guess. I see Wrigley as a prison for the Cubs, albeit a gilded one. As a Sox fan, I hope they keep floundering.

And as a Sox fan, I hope they leave the city. :tongue:

The only way to really save the ballpark would be to completely renovate the lower and upper deck grandstands. That would include a new supporting infrastructure and base. It can be done, but at what cost? With the exception of the bleachers and lower box sections, it would be a complete rebuild in the same footprint. Add the fact that it's not very easy to get heavy machinery in/out of Wrigleyville, it would be a very long process.

To sum things up, the Ricketts completely overpaid for the team. As Lip just said, they don't have the cash to pay for what would be, as you say, a very expensive and difficult renovation themselves. Problem is, the state has neither the money to help with a renovation nor to build a park in the suburbs. How this plays out from here I have no idea.

DumpJerry
03-30-2013, 10:24 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/



Click Sign In or Sign Up in upper right
This screen pops up:



http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=7527&d=1364598699



Select one of the providers
Log in as you normally would
Create a Cubune profile
If there is a checkbox to stay logged in to your profile, you never have to log in again on Cubune site


I do that already, but you're limited to a small number of page views per month.

Red Barchetta
03-30-2013, 10:29 AM
And as a Sox fan, I hope they leave the city. :tongue:



To sum things up, the Ricketts completely overpaid for the team. As Lip just said, they don't have the cash to pay for what would be, as you say, a very expensive and difficult renovation themselves. Problem is, the state has neither the money to help with a renovation nor to build a park in the suburbs. How this plays out from here I have no idea.

This is where a corporate sponsorship might be their only option. I doubt they would ever get rid of the name "Wrigley Field" so it would have to be something like "Microsoft's Wrigley Field - Home of the Chicago Cubs" for example. The only way a company would ever get money back from the PR would be to make sure every time an announcer or commercial mentions "Wrigley Field", their company name is also mentioned. :?:

Frontman
03-30-2013, 04:09 PM
To sum things up, the Ricketts completely overpaid for the team. As Lip just said, they don't have the cash to pay for what would be, as you say, a very expensive and difficult renovation themselves. Problem is, the state has neither the money to help with a renovation nor to build a park in the suburbs. How this plays out from here I have no idea.

They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover. Sadly, the Ricketts were blind fans instead of shrewd business people when they bought the team. None of them seem to realize the only thing worth anything IS the ballpark.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IF the Cubs were to move from Wrigley, no matter what they did, they would become one of the worst drawing teams in MLB. They spent nearly thirty years promoting the ballpark, not the team itself. When you run radio ads about the history that happened at Wrigley, and mention "be a part of the experience" enough times, fans get conditioned to that aspect of your product.

Noneck
03-30-2013, 06:45 PM
They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover.

When you say eventually, do you mean months, year, decade? I assume you live in the state of Illinois and if so you do know what is going on in this state? Unable to go any further on that here, I hope you mean a lot closer to a decade than months or years.

Red Barchetta
03-30-2013, 07:45 PM
They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover. Sadly, the Ricketts were blind fans instead of shrewd business people when they bought the team. None of them seem to realize the only thing worth anything IS the ballpark.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IF the Cubs were to move from Wrigley, no matter what they did, they would become one of the worst drawing teams in MLB. They spent nearly thirty years promoting the ballpark, not the team itself. When you run radio ads about the history that happened at Wrigley, and mention "be a part of the experience" enough times, fans get conditioned to that aspect of your product.

That depends on where the new ballpark would be built and how it was designed. If Ricketts or any other future owner makes the decision that it is better to build a new ballpark than renovate Wrigley, I would think they would try to duplicate the design and slightly modernize it.

There was talk a few years ago about the Tribune company buying up some land near Northwestern and planning to build a clone of Wrigley in the event they could not come to terms with the city on a renovation plan with additional night games.

A ballpark in the design of the 70s era multi-purpose saucers would not work, but a larger, more modern Wrigley Field clone nestled into another north side neighborhood would probably work.

Nellie_Fox
03-31-2013, 12:34 AM
That depends on where the new ballpark would be built and how it was designed. If Ricketts or any other future owner makes the decision that it is better to build a new ballpark than renovate Wrigley, I would think they would try to duplicate the design and slightly modernize it.

There was talk a few years ago about the Tribune company buying up some land near Northwestern and planning to build a clone of Wrigley in the event they could not come to terms with the city on a renovation plan with additional night games.

A ballpark in the design of the 70s era multi-purpose saucers would not work, but a larger, more modern Wrigley Field clone nestled into another north side neighborhood would probably work.
You can "duplicate the design" all you want. It will no longer be the same ballpark, and very few people will think it's the same experience. If you do enough modernizing to make it comfortable (instead of the cramped, bad sightlines place that it is) then it will just be a modern ballpark with ivy on the walls. If you don't modernize enough, you'll have a cramped, uncomfortable ballpark with a concourse that's small and has no view of the field, but without any of the supposed "history" of Wrigley. It's a lose-lose.

cws05champ
03-31-2013, 09:58 AM
They'll get some sort of money from the state eventually; but not enough to cover everything they want it to cover. Sadly, the Ricketts were blind fans instead of shrewd business people when they bought the team. None of them seem to realize the only thing worth anything IS the ballpark.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: IF the Cubs were to move from Wrigley, no matter what they did, they would become one of the worst drawing teams in MLB. They spent nearly thirty years promoting the ballpark, not the team itself. When you run radio ads about the history that happened at Wrigley, and mention "be a part of the experience" enough times, fans get conditioned to that aspect of your product.
But this might be a perfect time for a change if you think about it. If they announced that they were building a new stadium n Roesmont people would flock to Wrigley for the next 2 years to get in the baseball "experience". Ticket prices would sky rocket and the Cubs would rake in the revenue even with a bad team the next 2 years.

In 2015 if they moved into a new venue, they actually might have a good team by then if their rebuild goes as planned. Then they'd have a good team moving into new park (which always does well in the 1st year of a new venue) and still has a pretty loyal fan base. Long term (over decades) it may not be the best move but the in next 7-10 year short term it could very well be.

Red Barchetta
03-31-2013, 03:05 PM
You can "duplicate the design" all you want. It will no longer be the same ballpark, and very few people will think it's the same experience. If you do enough modernizing to make it comfortable (instead of the cramped, bad sightlines place that it is) then it will just be a modern ballpark with ivy on the walls. If you don't modernize enough, you'll have a cramped, uncomfortable ballpark with a concourse that's small and has no view of the field, but without any of the supposed "history" of Wrigley. It's a lose-lose.


The history and Wrigley experience is a modern phenonomenon. I remember when they closed the upper deck in the late 70s due to poor performance and poor attendance. It was not until the Tribune purchased the team and the WGN superstation took off that Wrigley Field became the shrine of all things baseball.

Remember, this is a fan base who purchased over 3 million tickets to watch their second worst club in team history in 2012. Losing is cool as long as they can enjoy the sunshine and beer so I don't agree that Rickett's is in a lose-lose situation with the team. He is just trying to sing a sad song to gain public funding.

Lip Man 1
03-31-2013, 05:36 PM
Red:

The Cubs were closing the upper deck at the park as late as September 1983. Have the video to prove it.

Lip

Red Barchetta
03-31-2013, 06:28 PM
Red:

The Cubs were closing the upper deck at the park as late as September 1983. Have the video to prove it.

Lip

I'm sure they did, but their mystique changed in 1984 when the Cubs went to the playoffs. I remember pictures of Bob Dernier running down a flyball in centerfield and there were fans in the bleachers wearing shirts w/ties. After that, it seemed Wrigley was marketed in an entirely new way.

Nellie_Fox
03-31-2013, 11:46 PM
The history and Wrigley experience is a modern phenonomenon. I remember when they closed the upper deck in the late 70s due to poor performance and poor attendance. It was not until the Tribune purchased the team and the WGN superstation took off that Wrigley Field became the shrine of all things baseball. I understand all of that. It's been a dump since I was a little kid in the fifties, and only recently became a shrine. But a shrine it has become, and that WILL NOT be duplicated in another park, and nothing will change that. Tourists absolutely will not make a trip to Pseudo Wrigley a "must" on their trip to Chicago itinerary.

SI1020
04-01-2013, 12:46 PM
The Cubs have been marketing the park over the team ever since I can remember, which of course dates back to the Eisenhower years.

soxrme
04-01-2013, 04:36 PM
If the bad guys on the Northside don't take the Rosemont offer, perhaps Rosemont will make the offer to the White Sox when their present lease expires after the 2026 season. I would be surprised if the White Sox renew the lease at the Cell. I figure in another 10 years (2023) the White Sox will start looking around for a new stadium in the Chicagoland area. All of the White Sox attendance problems stem from the fact that the White Sox fan base and potential fan base is no longer on the Southside of Chicago. Years ago most of the White Sox attendance came from the neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago. That's simply not the case anymore. When you consider the fact that most of the White Sox attendance comes from different parts of the Chicagoland area, I think its amazing they draw as well as they do. If you draw 2 million people a year at the Cell and the majority of the fans are coming from somewhere besides the Southside of Chicago, I think basically you've drawn quite well.
I agree go there get a stadium with a retractable roof that would blow away the Cell. The location has good location for cars trains and buses. They could even run the El from Ohare to there easily.

Red Barchetta
04-01-2013, 05:23 PM
I understand all of that. It's been a dump since I was a little kid in the fifties, and only recently became a shrine. But a shrine it has become, and that WILL NOT be duplicated in another park, and nothing will change that. Tourists absolutely will not make a trip to Pseudo Wrigley a "must" on their trip to Chicago itinerary.

That's why I think it's Rickett's (or any future owner) best bet to rebuild Wrigley, even if he has to do it brick by brick. They already renovated the outfield bleachers, center field scoreboard area and the lower box deck seats. They need to modernize the clubhouses, training facilities, lower deck concourse and a completely new upper deck/concourse. They should also move their business offices off-site to allow for extra amenities perhaps to a building across the street and then work a real roof-top owners deal where they install outfield backdrop lights on top of the rooftops, aka Camden Yarks style.

LITTLE NELL
04-03-2013, 07:04 PM
I understand all of that. It's been a dump since I was a little kid in the fifties, and only recently became a shrine. But a shrine it has become, and that WILL NOT be duplicated in another park, and nothing will change that. Tourists absolutely will not make a trip to Pseudo Wrigley a "must" on their trip to Chicago itinerary.

Saw a lot of games there in the 50s and I don't think I would have called it a dump back then. One thing PK Wrigley did was to spend money on yearly improvements, If the Comiskey's had PK's money the Baseball Palace might still be with us.
Saw a game at Connie Mack Stadium in 67, now that place was a dump.

DumpJerry
04-03-2013, 08:33 PM
If the Comiskey's had PK's money the Baseball Palace might still be with us.
Nope. Skyboxes were needed for revenue enhancements and there was no place to put them in Comiskey. That is the main reason why new Comiskey was built. I know they put some in Wiggley, but I have never heard anyone describe them as being nice or desirable.

WhiteSox5187
04-03-2013, 08:43 PM
Nope. Skyboxes were needed for revenue enhancements and there was no place to put them in Comiskey. That is the main reason why new Comiskey was built. I know they put some in Wiggley, but I have never heard anyone describe them as being nice or desirable.

I was thinking of that the other day, what if the sky boxes were put on the roof? You'd have to change the way the lights were set up and it would probably cost quite a bit. There probably was a way that Old Comiskey could have been remodeled so that it allowed more modern amenities such as sky boxes, but it would have cost a lot. It would have been nice if when they opened up the new park they re-designed Old Comiskey in a way that would allow for those things (I think that was what was originally proposed in fact). Oh well. We have a nice park now, of course it took about ten years for it become nice.

LITTLE NELL
04-04-2013, 05:13 AM
Nope. Skyboxes were needed for revenue enhancements and there was no place to put them in Comiskey. That is the main reason why new Comiskey was built. I know they put some in Wiggley, but I have never heard anyone describe them as being nice or desirable.

The Sox did add Skyboxes in 1982 on either side of the press box in the upper deck from 3rd base to 1st base, probably not enough to give them the revenue they wanted but they could have extended them all the way down the lines but the sight lines were pretty bad down in the corners at the old place.

My original point though was that old Comiskey down through the years was not maintained as well as Wrigley because the Comiskey's money came from baseball while Wrigley had all that chewing gum money. Taking Skyboxes out of the equation, if the Comiskey family had the money Wrigley had, old Comiskey would probably still be with us.
Somone posted a couple months ago that the Comiskey's were devastated when the Cardinals pulled out of Comiskey in 1959 and played their final season at Soldier Field. They actually counted on and needed the rental money the Cards paid them, did not know they counted on that money that much.

Back to skyboxes, the downfall of Comiskey II was that they built one extra tier of skyboxes which led to the steep upper deck which fans avoided in droves. They could have kept 2 tiers of skyboxes if they did not build the club level seats. I give the Sox credit for fixing the errors they made including the remake of the upper deck but unless they start over it will always be a little steep up there for a lot of fans.

Here's a question; if old Comiskey was still with us would it be the tourist attraction that Wrigley is? I will say maybe a little but it all comes down to location, location, location.

Red Barchetta
04-04-2013, 08:09 AM
The Sox did add Skyboxes in 1982 on either side of the press box in the upper deck from 3rd base to 1st base, probably not enough to give them the revenue they wanted but they could have extended them all the way down the lines but the sight lines were pretty bad down in the corners at the old place.

My original point though was that old Comiskey down through the years was not maintained as well as Wrigley because the Comiskey's money came from baseball while Wrigley had all that chewing gum money. Taking Skyboxes out of the equation, if the Comiskey family had the money Wrigley had, old Comiskey would probably still be with us.
Somone posted a couple months ago that the Comiskey's were devastated when the Cardinals pulled out of Comiskey in 1959 and played their final season at Soldier Field. They actually counted on and needed the rental money the Cards paid them, did not know they counted on that money that much.

Back to skyboxes, the downfall of Comiskey II was that they built one extra tier of skyboxes which led to the steep upper deck which fans avoided in droves. They could have kept 2 tiers of skyboxes if they did not build the club level seats. I give the Sox credit for fixing the errors they made including the remake of the upper deck but unless they start over it will always be a little steep up there for a lot of fans.

Here's a question; if old Comiskey was still with us would it be the tourist attraction that Wrigley is? I will say maybe a little but it all comes down to location, location, location.

All this skybox revenue talk makes we wonder if back in the 40s, some dad took his son to a ballgame and said..."Some day son, there are going to be a bunch of small air-conditioned rooms right below the upper deck where a bunch or rich people and company representatives can come to the ballpark, eat, drink and watch the game on TV." :tongue:

doublem23
04-04-2013, 08:20 AM
Here's a question; if old Comiskey was still with us would it be the tourist attraction that Wrigley is? I will say maybe a little but it all comes down to location, location, location.

On it's own, it's hard to say for sure, we all know one of the big draws about Wrigley is also the atmosphere around the park and even Old Comiskey would still be right next to a 16-lane superhighway, surrounded by parking lots, and still would have spent 40 years just a few blocks away from a relatively notorious high rise project... Not exactly any kind of welcoming environment, even compared to Wrigleyville at it's nadir prior to the Tribune Hype Machine.

Buuuuuuuuuut... If the Sox still had Old Comiskey and the Cubs have Wrigley, I definitely think you'd get a LOT more tourist element coming to Chicago to see both our Jewelbox era ballparks. Right now the Sox capture what? MAYBE 5% of the tourist market in the city and that's almost entirely reliant on Yankees and Red Sox fans coming to Chicago to see their own teams. I think with Old Comiskey you'd see a lot more tourists.

WhiteSox5187
04-04-2013, 01:15 PM
On it's own, it's hard to say for sure, we all know one of the big draws about Wrigley is also the atmosphere around the park and even Old Comiskey would still be right next to a 16-lane superhighway, surrounded by parking lots, and still would have spent 40 years just a few blocks away from a relatively notorious high rise project... Not exactly any kind of welcoming environment, even compared to Wrigleyville at it's nadir prior to the Tribune Hype Machine.

Buuuuuuuuuut... If the Sox still had Old Comiskey and the Cubs have Wrigley, I definitely think you'd get a LOT more tourist element coming to Chicago to see both our Jewelbox era ballparks. Right now the Sox capture what? MAYBE 5% of the tourist market in the city and that's almost entirely reliant on Yankees and Red Sox fans coming to Chicago to see their own teams. I think with Old Comiskey you'd see a lot more tourists.

That is assuming White Sox ownership had marketed the ballpark correctly. When the Tribune Company took over the Cubs (and by extension, Wrigley Field) they crowed about coming to see "Beautiful Wrigley Field!" JR and Eddie Einhorn started talking about how Old Comiskey was falling apart and was unsafe, at one point the City Council even threatened to condemn Old Comiskey. It would be quite the U-Turn for ownership go from howling about how unsafe to the ballpark is to turning into a tourist destination. I don't think many people went to Tiger Stadium to see that until it was closed.

LITTLE NELL
04-04-2013, 01:32 PM
That is assuming White Sox ownership had marketed the ballpark correctly. When the Tribune Company took over the Cubs (and by extension, Wrigley Field) they crowed about coming to see "Beautiful Wrigley Field!" JR and Eddie Einhorn started talking about how Old Comiskey was falling apart and was unsafe, at one point the City Council even threatened to condemn Old Comiskey. It would be quite the U-Turn for ownership go from howling about how unsafe to the ballpark is to turning into a tourist destination. I don't think many people went to Tiger Stadium to see that until it was closed.

If Comiskey was maintained as well as Wrigley down through the years maybe JR and Einhorn would have marketed it better. They spent quite a lot of money in 1982 with the new scoreboard, sky boxes, new dugouts and a remake of the lower boxes. A couple of years later they tell us the park is falling apart. Bottom line is that they wanted out of the neighborhood and hoped for the move to Addison. Considering the attendance issues in the new park I still feel moving to Addison would have been the way to go for the franchise. JR and company are not dummies and I'm sure they did demographic studies and found that the majority of their fan base was in the burbs.

doublem23
04-04-2013, 01:43 PM
That is assuming White Sox ownership had marketed the ballpark correctly. When the Tribune Company took over the Cubs (and by extension, Wrigley Field) they crowed about coming to see "Beautiful Wrigley Field!" JR and Eddie Einhorn started talking about how Old Comiskey was falling apart and was unsafe, at one point the City Council even threatened to condemn Old Comiskey. It would be quite the U-Turn for ownership go from howling about how unsafe to the ballpark is to turning into a tourist destination. I don't think many people went to Tiger Stadium to see that until it was closed.

I don't remember the old ballpark that well but everything I have read suggested that it was in that bad of shape.

If Comiskey was maintained as well as Wrigley down through the years maybe JR and Einhorn would have marketed it better. They spent quite a lot of money in 1982 with the new scoreboard, sky boxes, new dugouts and a remake of the lower boxes. A couple of years later they tell us the park is falling apart. Bottom line is that they wanted out of the neighborhood and hoped for the move to Addison. Considering the attendance issues in the new park I still feel moving to Addison would have been the way to go for the franchise. JR and company are not dummies and I'm sure they did demographic studies and found that the majority of their fan base was in the burbs.

Meh, it's all opinion at this point, but they would have built the same ugly ass ballpark with all the same problems with the added benefit of being in a much less convenient location; I can't imagine they'd be drawing 15,000 people per game at this point had they made that kind of blunder. Not only would the Sox have missed out on the New Retro ballpark craze, they also would have missed out on the "Return to the City" phenomenon that most sports teams nowadays have embraced. If you think the "Chicago is a Cubs town" crap is strong now, I can't even imagine what it would be like if the Sox actually didn't play in Chicago.

getonbckthr
04-04-2013, 01:44 PM
If Comiskey was maintained as well as Wrigley down through the years maybe JR and Einhorn would have marketed it better. They spent quite a lot of money in 1982 with the new scoreboard, sky boxes, new dugouts and a remake of the lower boxes. A couple of years later they tell us the park is falling apart. Bottom line is that they wanted out of the neighborhood and hoped for the move to Addison. Considering the attendance issues in the new park I still feel moving to Addison would have been the way to go for the franchise. JR and company are not dummies and I'm sure they did demographic studies and found that the majority of their fan base was in the burbs.

I'll be honest I would have loved for an Addison stadium. I live up by O'Hare and I hate going to The Cell. The drive through the city sucks as does the public transportation options.

DSpivack
04-04-2013, 01:55 PM
I'll be honest I would have loved for an Addison stadium. I live up by O'Hare and I hate going to The Cell. The drive through the city sucks as does the public transportation options.

If the Sox moved to Addison I'd be a Cub fan.

LITTLE NELL
04-04-2013, 01:55 PM
I'll be honest I would have loved for an Addison stadium. I live up by O'Hare and I hate going to The Cell. The drive through the city sucks as does the public transportation options.

I agree with you, as I said before Addison was picked for a reason, it is probably right in the middle of the metro area, population and location wise, maybe a tad bit west but not enough to make that much of a difference. Only downside was no public transportation but that doesn't seem to hurt teams like the Angels or Rangers.

doublem23
04-04-2013, 01:56 PM
If the Sox moved to Addison I'd be a Cub fan.

I probably would have been one, too

LITTLE NELL
04-04-2013, 01:58 PM
If the Sox moved to Addison I'd be a Cub fan.
Shame on you for even thinking that.

DSpivack
04-04-2013, 02:02 PM
Shame on you for even thinking that.

It's true. Most of my family are Cubs fans, and those that aren't live in the city. Any time I go to a baseball game in Chicago, I take public transportation. If the Sox had moved to Addison in 1987 or so, I would have been 3 years old. I would have grown up in Evanston with one team in Chicago and another in Addison. I became a Sox fan by choice when I was young; one team was as easily accessible as the other (just a longer El ride). Without that ease of access, I would have attended many fewer Sox games, if any at all.

doublem23
04-04-2013, 02:02 PM
I agree with you, as I said before Addison was picked for a reason, it is probably right in the middle of the metro area, population and location wise, maybe a tad bit west but not enough to make that much of a difference. Only downside was no public transportation but that doesn't seem to hurt teams like the Angels or Rangers.

Those are entirely different metro areas that are much more car-centric than Chicago. There is no public transporation in Anaheim or Arlington basically, so it's not really an apt comparison. Here in our own metro area, Wrigley Field has essentially no available parking and the Cubs are able to draw 35,000+ a night.

Also, the Angels and Rangers both were in the lower half of the AL in attendance before they had their respective runs of success. I have no doubt if the Sox were coming off a decade like the Angels had or the recent run Texas had, we'd be racking 30,000+ per night, too.

The problem isn't where the park is PER SE. The problem is that I'm going to be 30 years old this summer and the Sox have only won 4 playoff games in my lifetime outside of the one year they put it all together.

DSpivack
04-04-2013, 02:04 PM
The Angels and Rangers both were in the lower half of the AL in attendance before they had their respective runs of success. I have no doubt if the Sox were coming off a decade like the Angels had or the recent run Texas had, we'd be racking 30,000+ per night, too.

The Dallas-FW Metroplex and Orange County and the LA area as a whole are also newer and much more car-dependent cities than Chicago.

Noneck
04-04-2013, 02:51 PM
I'll be honest I would have loved for an Addison stadium. I live up by O'Hare and I hate going to The Cell. The drive through the city sucks as does the public transportation options.

Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

LITTLE NELL
04-04-2013, 03:02 PM
Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

Very true, I'm going back a long time but my wife was from Northbrook, when I started dating her in 1969, her and her family had no idea where Comiskey Park was. Our 4th date was to Comiskey, the day that men walked on the moon for the first time. She promised to be a Sox fan from that day on so I married her in October.

DSpivack
04-04-2013, 03:12 PM
Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

If suburbia is such a great untapped market of economic possibility, why has no new ballpark (save two; Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, TX; and the Rays park, in St. Pete, which was not built for them) in the last 25 years been built there?

Noneck
04-04-2013, 03:18 PM
If suburbia is such a great untapped market of economic possibility, why has no new ballpark (save two; Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, TX; and the Rays park, in St. Pete, which was not built for them) in the last 25 years been built there?


I dont know anything about suburbanites in other metro areas, just chicago. But I do know that the inner city ballparks you speak of are not competing with another city ballpark like here in chicago.

doublem23
04-04-2013, 03:24 PM
Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

I sincerely doubt there is that large of a market for people that it would make sense to move the team away from the center of the region's transportation network. Barring some crazy shift in the next 15 years, the region's population and wealth will still be centered deep in the city. This idea that the suburbs are this untapped market of endless prosperity is dead, 1970's era thinking (which is precisely what got us the Cell in the first place as opposed to the more popular retro ballparks). The Sox have already been burned once badly by thinking in the past. Moving to Addison would only cement their legacy.

Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.

DSpivack
04-04-2013, 03:33 PM
I dont know anything about suburbanites in other metro areas, just chicago. But I do know that the inner city ballparks you speak of are not competing with another city ballpark like here in chicago.

To a certain extent, it's an unknowable and just a thought experiment: whether the Sox would have drawn better in Addison. But I think it says a lot that pretty much every new ballpark has been built in a city center (or at least somewhat close to it) and not out in suburbia. I don't think there is anything inherently unique to the Chicago area that makes the White Sox special in that regard, and the Chicago area is not even the smallest market with two teams; that would go to the Bay Area; that A's troubles over the years says more to me of a having a suburban-style dump of an old, cookie-cutter multipurpose stadium than anything else. There is no reason to think that, if the White Sox compete with the Cubs, that the Mets don't compete with the Yankees, or the A's with the Giants, or the Angels with the Dodgers. And in each case, I suppose you could argue that the "second" team in each market is located more in a suburban location than the "first" team; downtown LA for the Dodgers vs. Orange County for the Angels; Flushing, Queens for the Mets vs the Bronx for the Yankees; an oddly located large parking lot in Oakland vs a waterfront, near downtown location for the Giants. The Angels draw well, but only since both remodeling their old park and having a contending team year after year. The A's struggle, while the Mets built a hugely expensive ballpark and have been a bit of a mess, but for unrelated reasons (the owners were victims of a financial scam).

And while the city and suburban fan is concerned with access to the ballpark; the city fan taking public transportation, the suburban fan with distance and ease of access in driving to the park; the team is more concerned with corporate suite revenue. And having a suburban park I would venture a guess would hurt suite revenue the further they are from businesses and corporate offices.

LITTLE NELL
04-04-2013, 03:57 PM
I sincerely doubt there is that large of a market for people that it would make sense to move the team away from the center of the region's transportation network. Barring some crazy shift in the next 15 years, the region's population and wealth will still be centered deep in the city. This idea that the suburbs are this untapped market of endless prosperity is dead, 1970's era thinking (which is precisely what got us the Cell in the first place as opposed to the more popular retro ballparks). The Sox have already been burned once badly by thinking in the past. Moving to Addison would only cement their legacy.

Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.

For the most part the team has sucked but even in 2006 on the heels of the greatest Sox season ever they could not even hit the 3,000,000 mark. That ballpark should have been sold out every night. The Flubs outdrew us by 200,000 in 06, ***. Even in its first year it failed to hit the 3 million mark. We will never know if Addison was the answer but 35th and Shields is not.

Noneck
04-04-2013, 04:10 PM
To a certain extent, it's an unknowable and just a thought experiment: whether the Sox would have drawn better in Addison. But I think it says a lot that pretty much every new ballpark has been built in a city center (or at least somewhat close to it) and not out in suburbia. I don't think there is anything inherently unique to the Chicago area that makes the White Sox special in that regard, and the Chicago area is not even the smallest market with two teams; that would go to the Bay Area; that A's troubles over the years says more to me of a having a suburban-style dump of an old, cookie-cutter multipurpose stadium than anything else. There is no reason to think that, if the White Sox compete with the Cubs, that the Mets don't compete with the Yankees, or the A's with the Giants, or the Angels with the Dodgers. And in each case, I suppose you could argue that the "second" team in each market is located more in a suburban location than the "first" team; downtown LA for the Dodgers vs. Orange County for the Angels; Flushing, Queens for the Mets vs the Bronx for the Yankees; an oddly located large parking lot in Oakland vs a waterfront, near downtown location for the Giants. The Angels draw well, but only since both remodeling their old park and having a contending team year after year. The A's struggle, while the Mets built a hugely expensive ballpark and have been a bit of a mess, but for unrelated reasons (the owners were victims of a financial scam).

And while the city and suburban fan is concerned with access to the ballpark; the city fan taking public transportation, the suburban fan with distance and ease of access in driving to the park; the team is more concerned with corporate suite revenue. And having a suburban park I would venture a guess would hurt suite revenue the further they are from businesses and corporate offices.

The cities mentioned with the exception of new york are not the type of competition that the Sox have. The distance is much further between parks.

There are many corporate headquarters in suburbia here and I dont see why they couldn't fill the corporate suites in a suburban location.

doublem23
04-04-2013, 04:11 PM
For the most part the team has sucked but even in 2006 on the heels of the greatest Sox season ever they could not even hit the 3,000,000 mark. That ballpark should have been sold out every night. Even in its first year it failed to hit the 3 million mark. We will never know if Addison was the answer but 35th and Shields is not.

Meh, I'm not going to get too worked up over the Sox falling just shy of some neat looking round number that's ultimately kind of meaningless. They would have finished 3rd in the AL in attendance if they got the additional 526 fans per game they needed to break 3 M or not.

We've had this discussion a number of times and it always comes to the same old thing; I think the problem with the Cell is it is already too suburban; it doesn't try to fit in with it's neighborhood, it's in the middle of a bunch of parking lots, there's basically nothing to do within walking distance. The team HAS to be the draw. The park has the personality of a shopping mall. It's not like Wrigley which has a whole separate world around it that would help draw people in. So regardless of where the Cell was built; Bridgeport, South Loop, West Side, Addison, etc. they'd be struggling to draw fans with the on-field track record they've had because if the Sox aren't very good, what is there to make diehards want to come visit?

LITTLE NELL
04-04-2013, 04:27 PM
Meh, I'm not going to get too worked up over the Sox falling just shy of some neat looking round number that's ultimately kind of meaningless. They would have finished 3rd in the AL in attendance if they got the additional 526 fans per game they needed to break 3 M or not.

We've had this discussion a number of times and it always comes to the same old thing; I think the problem with the Cell is it is already too suburban; it doesn't try to fit in with it's neighborhood, it's in the middle of a bunch of parking lots, there's basically nothing to do within walking distance. The team HAS to be the draw. The park has the personality of a shopping mall. It's not like Wrigley which has a whole separate world around it that would help draw people in. So regardless of where the Cell was built; Bridgeport, South Loop, West Side, Addison, etc. they'd be struggling to draw fans with the on-field track record they've had because if the Sox aren't very good, what is there to make diehards want to come visit?

I guess it all boils down to is we are the second team in town, have a lousy team with a lousy ballpark in a lousy location with not enough fans.

Noneck
04-04-2013, 04:46 PM
Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.


Winning consistently would cure attendance problems no matter where a park was but that hasnt happened in my lifetime and doubt it will happen in yours.

DSpivack
04-04-2013, 04:52 PM
Winning consistently would cure attendance problems no matter where a park was but that hasnt happened in my lifetime and doubt it will happen in yours.

Ultimately, this is true of pretty much every team, with just a couple exceptions.

Golden Sox
04-04-2013, 06:38 PM
A forgotten part of White Sox history was when the City of Chicago led by Mayor Washington wanted to build a new stadium for the White Sox at Roosevelt and Clark in the mid 1980's. The White Sox and the city could not agree on the finances. The White Sox would of paid more to lease the South Loop location as opposed to what they're paying at the Cell. They also would not of received the concessions and parking money which they are receiving at the Cell. I wish the White Sox and the city could of worked out their differences. The White Sox would of drawn alot more people playing in the South Loop than at its present location. The present lease at the Cell expires in 2026. I would imagine ten years from now, (in 2013) the White Sox will be looking for another stadium in a different location in the Chicagoland location. Maybe Rosemont will make the same offer to the White Sox then.

DSpivack
04-04-2013, 06:53 PM
A forgotten part of White Sox history was when the City of Chicago led by Mayor Washington wanted to build a new stadium for the White Sox at Roosevelt and Clark in the mid 1980's. The White Sox and the city could not agree on the finances. The White Sox would of paid more to lease the South Loop location as opposed to what they're paying at the Cell. They also would not of received the concessions and parking money which they are receiving at the Cell. I wish the White Sox and the city could of worked out their differences. The White Sox would of drawn alot more people playing in the South Loop than at its present location. The present lease at the Cell expires in 2026. I would imagine ten years from now, (in 2013) the White Sox will be looking for another stadium in a different location in the Chicagoland location. Maybe Rosemont will make the same offer to the White Sox then.

I seriously doubt that. They aren't paying for the $600 million (or whatever it would take) stadium on their own, and I doubt public money will be around to build it for them.

Golden Sox
04-04-2013, 08:18 PM
Anybody who thinks the location of a stadium doesn't make a difference in attendance is kidding themselves. For years I've asked numerous people the following question: If Wrigley Field was located at 35th + Shields, would the Cubs franchise be as popular as it is? I've never had one person answer yes. It seems to me as if the White Sox are back to drawing around 2 million people a year. i don't think that's such a bad number when you consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of the White Sox attendance comes from somewhere thats not from the Southside of Chicago. Many years ago, the White Sox fan base came from the neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago. That's simply not the case anymore. If the Cell had been built in a location closer to their fan base, the White Sox would be drawing more people. Since they made some adjustments at the Cell a few years ago, its really a beautiful park. Its a shame it was built where its at.

Brian26
04-04-2013, 10:24 PM
Anybody who thinks the location of a stadium doesn't make a difference in attendance is kidding themselves. For years I've asked numerous people the following question: If Wrigley Field was located at 35th + Shields, would the Cubs franchise be as popular as it is? I've never had one person answer yes. It seems to me as if the White Sox are back to drawing around 2 million people a year. i don't think that's such a bad number when you consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of the White Sox attendance comes from somewhere thats not from the Southside of Chicago. Many years ago, the White Sox fan base came from the neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago. That's simply not the case anymore. If the Cell had been built in a location closer to their fan base, the White Sox would be drawing more people. Since they made some adjustments at the Cell a few years ago, its really a beautiful park. Its a shame it was built where its at.

Your entire theory is flawed.

Where is the Sox fanbase?

Where is the Cubs fanbase?

jdm2662
04-04-2013, 10:45 PM
A forgotten part of White Sox history was when the City of Chicago led by Mayor Washington wanted to build a new stadium for the White Sox at Roosevelt and Clark in the mid 1980's. The White Sox and the city could not agree on the finances. The White Sox would of paid more to lease the South Loop location as opposed to what they're paying at the Cell. They also would not of received the concessions and parking money which they are receiving at the Cell. I wish the White Sox and the city could of worked out their differences. The White Sox would of drawn alot more people playing in the South Loop than at its present location. The present lease at the Cell expires in 2026. I would imagine ten years from now, (in 2013) the White Sox will be looking for another stadium in a different location in the Chicagoland location. Maybe Rosemont will make the same offer to the White Sox then.

Um, I remember Lip posting years ago that Washington would only support the ball park where it is today. And, I trust his memory and knowledge of the White Sox more than anyone here. Lip, can you confirm that?

Lip Man 1
04-04-2013, 11:18 PM
JDM:

You are correct. The Illinois Sports Stadium Authority was divided along political lines between those appointed by Gov. Thompson and those appointed by Mayor Washington.

Washington insisted that the only location he'd approve (as the elected representative of the city of Chicago) was across the street from the location of Comiskey Park. He was adament about it and said under no circumstances would his decision by compromised. He wanted whatever revenue the Sox could generate to stay within that neighborhood.

Lip

DonnieDarko
04-04-2013, 11:52 PM
JDM:

You are correct. The Illinois Sports Stadium Authority was divided along political lines between those appointed by Gov. Thompson and those appointed by Mayor Washington.

Washington insisted that the only location he'd approve (as the elected representative of the city of Chicago) was across the street from the location of Comiskey Park. He was adament about it and said under no circumstances would his decision by compromised. He wanted whatever revenue the Sox could generate to stay within that neighborhood.

Lip

Without getting too political...that's a damned good idea. Glad that it became that.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 05:27 AM
Anybody who thinks the location of a stadium doesn't make a difference in attendance is kidding themselves. For years I've asked numerous people the following question: If Wrigley Field was located at 35th + Shields, would the Cubs franchise be as popular as it is? I've never had one person answer yes. It seems to me as if the White Sox are back to drawing around 2 million people a year. i don't think that's such a bad number when you consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of the White Sox attendance comes from somewhere thats not from the Southside of Chicago. Many years ago, the White Sox fan base came from the neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago. That's simply not the case anymore. If the Cell had been built in a location closer to their fan base, the White Sox would be drawing more people. Since they made some adjustments at the Cell a few years ago, its really a beautiful park. Its a shame it was built where its at.

If the whole Wrigleyville "experience" was at 35th and Shields, yes, I have no doubt the Cubs would be as popular as they are up north. If you just moved Wrigley Field to 35th and Shields today, in the middle of a dead neighborhood surrounded by acres of empty parking lots, no of course not. You really think the majority of people who are at Cubs games are from the neighborhoods around the park? That's ****ing nuts, most of them are from the suburbs or out of town tourists, too.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 07:53 AM
Lot of places on the interwebs reporting that a deal is close, although WBBM 780 AM this morning says the deal is done and will be announced during the home opener festivites for the Cubs on Monday.

Golden Sox
04-05-2013, 09:40 AM
Mcgrath was on Chicago Tonight last September and was asked by the host Why didn't the White Sox draw a better attendance in 2012?. Mcgrath said the "White Sox fans in the suburbs didn't want to come down to the dangerous Southside of Chicago. With all the shootings the Southside had last year, they were afraid to come there." Mcgrath is a lifelong Southsider and a Principal (Leo High School?) and knows the City of Chicago and the Southside as well as anybody. Tourists prefer going to Wrigley Field as opposed to the Cell. If the Cell had been built in a better area, the White Sox would draw more tourists than what they do now.I've gone to both Comiskey Park and the Cell during my lifetime at least a thousand times and never had any trouble in the area. Fact is, the area around the Cell has a perception of it being in a bad neighborhood in alot of peoples minds. And I still believe the White Sox will try to get another stadium in the Chicagoland area when the present lease at the Cell expires.

Hitmen77
04-05-2013, 09:54 AM
I sincerely doubt there is that large of a market for people that it would make sense to move the team away from the center of the region's transportation network. Barring some crazy shift in the next 15 years, the region's population and wealth will still be centered deep in the city. This idea that the suburbs are this untapped market of endless prosperity is dead, 1970's era thinking (which is precisely what got us the Cell in the first place as opposed to the more popular retro ballparks). The Sox have already been burned once badly by thinking in the past. Moving to Addison would only cement their legacy.

Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.

You're spot on in saying that the Sox primary issue is because the team hasn't made the playoffs often enough. This is the 18th season since MLB went to the 3-division/wild card format and the Sox have only made the playoffs 3 times during this period. 2005 was wonderful and Sox attendance skyrocketed because of it. But that boost isn't going to last forever without additional successful seasons. The problem is that, aside from that one glorious season, the Sox have only 1 playoff win in all the other years of the AL Central's existence.

Meh, I'm not going to get too worked up over the Sox falling just shy of some neat looking round number that's ultimately kind of meaningless. They would have finished 3rd in the AL in attendance if they got the additional 526 fans per game they needed to break 3 M or not.

We've had this discussion a number of times and it always comes to the same old thing; I think the problem with the Cell is it is already too suburban; it doesn't try to fit in with it's neighborhood, it's in the middle of a bunch of parking lots, there's basically nothing to do within walking distance. The team HAS to be the draw. The park has the personality of a shopping mall. It's not like Wrigley which has a whole separate world around it that would help draw people in. So regardless of where the Cell was built; Bridgeport, South Loop, West Side, Addison, etc. they'd be struggling to draw fans with the on-field track record they've had because if the Sox aren't very good, what is there to make diehards want to come visit?

I disagree with this statement. I think the complaint that the ballpark itself sucks and that its too much like a shopping mall hasn't been accurate since they successfully renovated the place starting 10 years ago. In 2006, after the World Series win, I don't remember people complaining about the ballpark.

You're right about the neighborhood though. I think Bridgeport is a nice place and the area has improved dramatically in the last 20 years, but there's not enough there to make Sox games a strong draw to counteract the year after year of 2nd or 3rd place finishes.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 10:04 AM
Mcgrath was on Chicago Tonight last September and was asked by the host Why didn't the White Sox draw a better attendance in 2012?. Mcgrath said the "White Sox fans in the suburbs didn't want to come down to the dangerous Southside of Chicago. With all the shootings the Southside had last year, they were afraid to come there." Mcgrath is a lifelong Southsider and a Principal (Leo High School?) and knows the City of Chicago and the Southside as well as anybody. Tourists prefer going to Wrigley Field as opposed to the Cell. If the Cell had been built in a better area, the White Sox would draw more tourists than what they do now.I've gone to both Comiskey Park and the Cell during my lifetime at least a thousand times and never had any trouble in the area. Fact is, the area around the Cell has a perception of it being in a bad neighborhood in alot of peoples minds. And I still believe the White Sox will try to get another stadium in the Chicagoland area when the present lease at the Cell expires.

That's definitely part of it, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The White Sox were one of the top draws in the American League for most of the early 90s even though the city was FAR MORE dangerous back then than it is now. The difference is the Sox of the early 90s were good and exciting to watch and the team had some real starpower as opposed to Sox teams of recent vintage that have been, frankly, mediocre with no real "must-see" players.

There are plenty of things wrong with the Cell; it has a repuation for being ugly and soulless, the neighborhood around the park may not be as dangerous as some perceive it to be, but it's still a really ****ing boring place, but most importantly: THE SOX HAVEN'T BEEN VERY GOOD. The reality is for almost every team in the league, you have to win consistently to draw well at the gate. Someone pointed at the Angels as a model for a team that doesn't need a central location in their metro area and can rely heavily on suburban folks in their cars to pack the park... The Angels also went to the playoffs 6 times in an 8 year span from 2002-2009. They've missed the playoffs three seasons in a row now and their attendance has steadily decreased each of those three seasons.

We'll see how things look when the Cell's lease expires; gentrificaton is slowly making it's way south along the lakefront and the Red Line... Who knows what the area will look like in another 10-15 years? That said, I do think the Sox might consider a move, as well, but it would probably just be a mile or two north, either into the South Loop or the new Motor Row Entertainment district the city is trying to develop in the S. Michigan Ave. corridor near McCormick Place... I sincerely doubt a move to the suburbs will happen; Rosemont tried to give the Cubs millions of dollars of free land and they didn't bite, it's just never going to be a realistic option.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 10:11 AM
I disagree with this statement. I think the complaint that the ballpark itself sucks and that its too much like a shopping mall hasn't been accurate since they successfully renovated the place starting 10 years ago. In 2006, after the World Series win, I don't remember people complaining about the ballpark.


Well, that is obviously for everyone's own taste to decide; the park is A LOT NICER since the renovations, of course, but it's ultimately still just a Modern Era ballpark pretending to be Retro Classic. There's only a handful of teams that play in ballparks of the same era and they've also either undergone massive renovations (Anaheim, Kansas City) or their teams are desperately trying to move out (Oakland, Tampa).

But I was referring to more of the whole ballpark experience in general. You park in a surface lot, walk across the asphalt, enter, leave, and drive out. I'm not saying the Sox NEED to cultivate a Wrigleyville South party atmosphere, but they're waaaaaaaay too far away for their own good. Plenty of suburban families with kids find a way to get to Wrigley during the season, even if they don't partake in the bar/party scene that surrounds the park. But just having that extra draw makes the place more appealing.

Hitmen77
04-05-2013, 10:14 AM
I sincerely doubt there is that large of a market for people that it would make sense to move the team away from the center of the region's transportation network. Barring some crazy shift in the next 15 years, the region's population and wealth will still be centered deep in the city. This idea that the suburbs are this untapped market of endless prosperity is dead, 1970's era thinking (which is precisely what got us the Cell in the first place as opposed to the more popular retro ballparks). The Sox have already been burned once badly by thinking in the past. Moving to Addison would only cement their legacy.

Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.

Mcgrath was on Chicago Tonight last September and was asked by the host Why didn't the White Sox draw a better attendance in 2012?. Mcgrath said the "White Sox fans in the suburbs didn't want to come down to the dangerous Southside of Chicago. With all the shootings the Southside had last year, they were afraid to come there." Mcgrath is a lifelong Southsider and a Principal (Leo High School?) and knows the City of Chicago and the Southside as well as anybody. Tourists prefer going to Wrigley Field as opposed to the Cell. If the Cell had been built in a better area, the White Sox would draw more tourists than what they do now.I've gone to both Comiskey Park and the Cell during my lifetime at least a thousand times and never had any trouble in the area. Fact is, the area around the Cell has a perception of it being in a bad neighborhood in alot of peoples minds. And I still believe the White Sox will try to get another stadium in the Chicagoland area when the present lease at the Cell expires.

I think McGrath is wrong. I agree with Doub, suburbanites who refuse to go to Sox games because they're in the city or in a "dangerous" neighborhood are by far a minority.

I doubt the Sox would have been better off relocating to the suburbs. IMO, it would have been a total disaster. First of all, that would have cemented the Cubs as Chicago's "real" team in the minds of most people. Also, the suburbs are too spread out to bring in enough people from across the metro area. Sure, a move to Addison would have made the team more accessible to DuPage area fans, but it would have killed attendance from people from the city, south suburbs, and north suburbs.

I think very few people seriously think the Sox would have been better off in Addison.

Lip Man 1
04-05-2013, 10:32 AM
Interesting discussion and the points are valid in my opinion especially the part about the Sox not consistently winning but I also think part of the issue is that the franchise has refused to take on the Cubs directly.

Chicago is the White Sox home too but they don't seem to act like it. When they've had chances to make serious in-roads (because the Cubs were floundering) they have refused to do it. I can't recall anything along the lines from a marketing or advertsing standpoint since the "us vs. them" campaign.

As far as the neighborhood perception, that's not a new issue. The race riots of the mid 1960's coupled with the location of the ballpark fueled that notion and it's been with the Sox ever since. In that case it's not the franchise's fault, they certainly had no control of the social issues of the day.

Lip

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 10:47 AM
I'm probably in the minority here but it doesn't matter where the Sox play to me, I don't care if its in the middle of a parking lot or in Addison or in some great neighborhood in the city. I go to the park for 2 reasons, to see the team I have had a love affair with for over 60 years and to see them win. Nothing else matters, I don't need exploding scoreboards or sausage races or ear deafening rock music. I don't need a ballpark surrounded by restaurants and bars. I still get up there every 2 years or so and the trip is always planned after looking at the schedule to make sure the Sox are in town. We make it over to TB every year also to see the Sox. What I do want from the Sox are a competitive team, fair prices for tickets, fair parking fees and concessions. I also love organ music at the park, Nancy was the greatest.

Hitmen77
04-05-2013, 10:59 AM
Well, that is obviously for everyone's own taste to decide; the park is A LOT NICER since the renovations, of course, but it's ultimately still just a Modern Era ballpark pretending to be Retro Classic. There's only a handful of teams that play in ballparks of the same era and they've also either undergone massive renovations (Anaheim, Kansas City) or their teams are desperately trying to move out (Oakland, Tampa).

But I was referring to more of the whole ballpark experience in general. You park in a surface lot, walk across the asphalt, enter, leave, and drive out. I'm not saying the Sox NEED to cultivate a Wrigleyville South party atmosphere, but they're waaaaaaaay too far away for their own good. Plenty of suburban families with kids find a way to get to Wrigley during the season, even if they don't partake in the bar/party scene that surrounds the park. But just having that extra draw makes the place more appealing.

I agree that the problem is the whole ballpark area experience and not so much the park itself. Your quote of me cutoff the rest of my post where I said this. I too agree that they don't need to be "Wrigleyville South", but the Sox would be better off with something more than the current surrounding neighborhood atmosphere. I just don't think the ballpark itself is terrible or is the biggest problem.

IMO, park location isn't keeping suburban families away. In fact, I would guess that the parking lots vs. Wrigleyville neighborhood thing evens out for them. Some will be drawn to Wrigleyville's atmosphere while others will find that the parking availability at the Cell is more family friendly. Really, the ultimate problem is that there are just so many more Cubs fans than Sox fans out there. There are plenty of suburban Cubs fans who hardly go to any games because of cost, distance, accessibility, time constraints, etc. They are no different than Sox fans in this regard. But when you have a huge fanbase to begin with that includes a big following from all over the Midwest thanks to years on WGN, the tourist crowd, etc., the Cubs aren't quiet as reliant on getting every suburban fan to come out to a ton of games as the Sox are.

Noneck
04-05-2013, 11:00 AM
The argument of good teams draw is a given but how about a team like the brewers? They have outdrawn the Sox since 2005 and their success rate hasnt been as good. Attendance doesnt have to predicated on the area around the park but the experience in the park and accessibility to the park. As Ive said many times before, some people dont like going into the city, some people dont like taking public transportation and the people that do have the cubs for that. Two parks in the city is one too many.

Hitmen77
04-05-2013, 11:14 AM
....let me put it another way. I have a family and live out in western DuPage. I try to go to about 5 games a year....some years it turns out to be less than that. Sorry, life is busy. But, when I talk about time constraints, etc. that keep me from going to more games, I get accused of "making excuses" for not going to more games even from fellow Sox fans on WSI (this is not aimed at anyone or any post in this thread, but it has happened before in past years in other threads).

However, where I live, I am surrounded by a large majority of Cubs fan families and many of them maybe go to 1 or 2 games and some don't necessarily go every year. They have the same reasons as I do: time constraints, cost, etc. I've have never heard anyone question their loyalty or support of their team. EVER. Being a fan of a popular team that has a huge fan base and draws huge crowds makes them "great fans" even if they hardly go to any games. I, on the other hand, have to often defend the support of my team - even to fellow Sox fans - despite my efforts to go to at least a handful of games every year. Go figure.

Lip Man 1
04-05-2013, 11:19 AM
Hitmen:

Very good point.

Lip

doublem23
04-05-2013, 12:00 PM
I'm probably in the minority here but it doesn't matter where the Sox play to me, I don't care if its in the middle of a parking lot or in Addison or in some great neighborhood in the city. I go to the park for 2 reasons, to see the team I have had a love affair with for over 60 years and to see them win. Nothing else matters, I don't need exploding scoreboards or sausage races or ear deafening rock music. I don't need a ballpark surrounded by restaurants and bars. I still get up there every 2 years or so and the trip is always planned after looking at the schedule to make sure the Sox are in town. We make it over to TB every year also to see the Sox. What I do want from the Sox are a competitive team, fair prices for tickets, fair parking fees and concessions. I also love organ music at the park, Nancy was the greatest.

Right, but we're the diehard fans, the Sox aren't, and shouldn't, be marketing to us, we're going to come to games no matter what. The problem is the Sox right now probably draw, on average, 5% of the fairweather/tourist market in Chicago because if the team's not winning, there really is no other reason to go to a game at the Cell.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 12:13 PM
As Ive said many times before, some people dont like going into the city, some people dont like taking public transportation and the people that do have the cubs for that. Two parks in the city is one too many.

Then why didn't the Cubs just pounce on that opportunity? Rosemont would have bent over backwards to lure them from the city. There's a reason the Ricketts are about to spend another half a billion dollars of their own money to stay in Chicago, moving to the suburbs would be an enormous, historical blunder. You can keep advocating for the minority of suburbanites who don't want to drive to the city or ride the L, but they're a distinct minority. You can't make everyone happy, but you don't disenfranchise the majority for the sake of the minority.

Red Barchetta
04-05-2013, 12:37 PM
If the argument is that there is only room for one MLB team in Chicago, while there is a market for a MLB team in the suburbs, the SOX are the logical team to move when the time comes. As mentioned, the core SOX fanbase is no longer on the south side of Chicago.

Rickett's should throw everything he can into rebuilding Wrigely in it's current footprint/location, even if that means shutting the ballpark down for 1-2 seasons as he rebuilds the grandstands, concourses and upper deck from the ground up. If he does, he will pretty much be guaranteed 3 million fans each season wanting to visit historic Wrigley Field and perhaps actually see a Cubs game while they are there. :rolleyes:

I've enjoyed going to SOX/Cubs game at Wrigely due to the party atmosphere. I wish the SOX had a similar atmosphere outside their ballpark but no matter how much they try, they still only have the nicest house in a bad neighborhood.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 12:42 PM
If the argument is that there is only room for one MLB team in Chicago, while there is a market for a MLB team in the suburbs, the SOX are the logical team to move when the time comes. As mentioned, the core SOX fanbase is no longer on the south side of Chicago.

I think it's quite the opposite, if there was one team that could have theoretically convinced their fanbase to follow them to the burbs, it might have been the Cubs (still think that would have been an enormous long-term mistake, however). You guys don't really think all the people crammed at Cubs games are only from the city's North Side neighborhoods, do you? Frankly, the Cubs' following the suburbs is probably greater than the Sox's. The Sox, OTOH, are already suffering from building a modern era ballpark a year before they became obsolete, another gigantic misstep and in a few years they'll essentially be the A's.

Noneck
04-05-2013, 02:07 PM
Then why didn't the Cubs just pounce on that opportunity? Rosemont would have bent over backwards to lure them from the city. There's a reason the Ricketts are about to spend another half a billion dollars of their own money to stay in Chicago, moving to the suburbs would be an enormous, historical blunder. You can keep advocating for the minority of suburbanites who don't want to drive to the city or ride the L, but they're a distinct minority. You can't make everyone happy, but you don't disenfranchise the majority for the sake of the minority.

You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 02:25 PM
You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

What makes you think the Chicago area doesn't have enough fans to support 2 city ballparks? What defines a city ballpark? Flushing is right on the limits of NYC and Citi Field is surrounded by parking lots.

The Cub "stranglehold" is because of marketing their old ballpark. The Sox attendance rises and falls with the quality of the team, just like the vast majority of other MLB franchises. There is no reason to think that Chicago can't support the White Sox in the city when they've been in the same neighborhood longer than any other team in baseball.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 02:25 PM
You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

No, that's ridiculous

Senerch23
04-05-2013, 02:45 PM
The Sox moving to the suburbs would have made them an even bigger afterthought in the media, especially Addison.

Also, why any team would move away from the main population center in the region is mind boggling. Not that Bridgeport is that spot but it is much closer than Addison.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 04:05 PM
The Sox moving to the suburbs would have made them an even bigger afterthought in the media, especially Addison.

Also, why any team would move away from the main population center in the region is mind boggling. Not that Bridgeport is that spot but it is much closer than Addison.

More people live in the burbs than in the city. That's a fact. Bridgeport is not the center of anything as just to the east is 100 miles of lake.
Looking at a map of the Metro area I would say that Elmhurst is probably the population center of the metro area with an equal amount of people living north, south, east and west. This is a guess but I bet I'm not far off. A stadium located around I 294 and I 290 would not be a bad spot. The CTA could extend the line that runs on the Ike.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 04:20 PM
More people live in the burbs than in the city. That's a fact. Bridgeport is not the center of anything as just to the east is 100 miles of lake.
Looking at a map of the Metro area I would say that Elmhurst is probably the population center of the metro area with an equal amount of people living north, south, east and west. This is a guess but I bet I'm not far off. A stadium located around I 294 and I 290 would not be a bad spot. The CTA could extend the line that runs on the Ike.

Uh, the city still accounts for about 1/4 to 1/5 of the area's population (depending on where you draw the line) and guessing the center is in Elmhurst makes me think you are unaware of this thing we call "Indiana." Either way, regardless of where the point is on a map, the bottom line is that doesn't mean anything because for planning purposes, the center of the transporation network is far more important. People don't travel "as the crow flies," so to speak, they're reliant on the infrastructure that is already in place. Looking at the metro area and thinking the Sox could be successful anywhere but the central core of the city makes me think you have not realized the '80s ended.

It's a cute thought, guys, but ultimately it's a terrible idea. As has been pointed out, there's a reason literally nobody has already done it.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 04:51 PM
Uh, the city still accounts for about 1/4 to 1/5 of the area's population (depending on where you draw the line) and guessing the center is in Elmhurst makes me think you are unaware of this thing we call "Indiana." Either way, regardless of where the point is on a map, the bottom line is that doesn't mean anything because for planning purposes, the center of the transporation network is far more important. People don't travel "as the crow flies," so to speak, they're reliant on the infrastructure that is already in place. Looking at the metro area and thinking the Sox could be successful anywhere but the central core of the city makes me think you have not realized the '80s ended.

It's a cute thought, guys, but ultimately it's a terrible idea. As has been pointed out, there's a reason literally nobody has already done it.


I don't get the 1980s reference, I do know that when I was growing up in the 50s the city had 3.6 million people, it's now around 2.7. Are all those people coming back? Chicago is now number 3 in the USA and before long the Dallas and Houston areas will have more people.
When we visit up there we stay with my sister in Arlington Heights and I know it's a lot easier to get to somewhere like Addison or Elmhurst than to 35th and Shields.
I believe you live in the city so you are not going to agree with any talk about suburbia being a better location for the Sox, but based on how the Sox have performed at the box office at USCF since they moved in I believe they would have done better out west. We will never know for sure but if you were to pin down JR, he would say the same thing. The Sox didn't pull Addison out of a hat and say let's go there, they did extensive demographic studies and came up with Addison.

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 05:21 PM
I don't get the 1980s reference, I do know that when I was growing up in the 50s the city had 3.6 million people, it's now around 2.7. Are all those people coming back? Chicago is now number 3 in the USA and before long the Dallas and Houston areas will have more people.
When we visit up there we stay with my sister in Arlington Heights and I know it's a lot easier to get to somewhere like Addison or Elmhurst than to 35th and Shields.
I believe you live in the city so you are not going to agree with any talk about suburbia being a better location for the Sox, but based on how the Sox have performed at the box office at USCF since they moved in I believe they would have done better out west. We will never know for sure but if you were to pin down JR, he would say the same thing. The Sox didn't pull Addison out of a hat and say let's go there, they did extensive demographic studies and came up with Addison.

I see absolutely no reason to think that this is true. As you said, you can't prove the negative, whether or not the Sox would have drawn any better at the gate if they were in Addison (everything else being equal). Sure, your sister in Arlington Heights might have an easier time getting to games. But, lots of those families originally from the south side moved to southern suburbs. It wouldn't be any easier to get to Addison from Oak Lawn than it is to get to Bridgeport from Oak Lawn.

Those demographic studies would have been done in 1986. The city has changed drastically since then, with lots of gentrification and people (read: money) moving back to the city. As the economic and housing crisis has, arguably, hurt suburbia and exurbia moreso than the city itself, I suspect that a suburban ballpark would also be worse off in these last few years than an urban park. Those demographic shifts from city to suburbia/exurbia in the last few decades are not unique to the Chicagoland area. Despite that, there has been a movement in new ballpark construction from suburb to city, not the other way around. I think there is a good reason behind that.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 05:48 PM
I see absolutely no reason to think that this is true. As you said, you can't prove the negative, whether or not the Sox would have drawn any better at the gate if they were in Addison (everything else being equal). Sure, your sister in Arlington Heights might have an easier time getting to games. But, lots of those families originally from the south side moved to southern suburbs. It wouldn't be any easier to get to Addison from Oak Lawn than it is to get to Bridgeport from Oak Lawn.

Those demographic studies would have been done in 1986. The city has changed drastically since then, with lots of gentrification and people (read: money) moving back to the city. As the economic and housing crisis has, arguably, hurt suburbia and exurbia moreso than the city itself, I suspect that a suburban ballpark would also be worse off in these last few years than an urban park. Those demographic shifts from city to suburbia/exurbia in the last few decades are not unique to the Chicagoland area. Despite that, there has been a movement in new ballpark construction from suburb to city, not the other way around. I think there is a good reason behind that.

Neither of us can prove our points but the fact remains the Sox for a big market team have drawn I would say at best mediocre in the new park. First place most of last year and 24th in MLB attendance. That's pathetic.
As far as the other cities none of them have to contend with the darlings from the Northside. I may be wrong but there aren't any teams that are located in the suburbs except for LAA and Texas and no other ones moved out of the city except them, the Rangers from the start were in Arlington. Marlins come close but they would have been better off building next door to Dolphin Stadium.

kittle42
04-05-2013, 05:58 PM
You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

It is one of Chicago's Top 10 tourist destinations, so yeah, I think there are a lot of people who only want to go to a city ballpark.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 05:59 PM
I don't get the 1980s reference, I do know that when I was growing up in the 50s the city had 3.6 million people, it's now around 2.7. Are all those people coming back? Chicago is now number 3 in the USA and before long the Dallas and Houston areas will have more people.

When we visit up there we stay with my sister in Arlington Heights and I know it's a lot easier to get to somewhere like Addison or Elmhurst than to 35th and Shields.

I believe you live in the city so you are not going to agree with any talk about suburbia being a better location for the Sox, but based on how the Sox have performed at the box office at USCF since they moved in I believe they would have done better out west. We will never know for sure but if you were to pin down JR, he would say the same thing. The Sox didn't pull Addison out of a hat and say let's go there, they did extensive demographic studies and came up with Addison.

If you're going to point out JR's studies on how Addison is the Land of Milk and Honey, lest we not forget he also had ambition to move the team to Tampa and Tropicana Field, where the local team now draws even lousier than the Sox despite being decidedly better the last half-decade. Oh yes, and then when they did keep the team in Chicago, they commissioned a park that became essentially obsolete in 1 whole season and have had to invest millions of dollars in it to bring it back to even the middle of the pack in the Majors. So it's hardly a ringing endorsement of Addison if JR and EE's plans to move to Addison as the Savior of the Franchise considering everything else they did or considered at that time has been a hilarious flop.

This is not a debate about whether or not the city is better than the burbs, this is about whether the city is a better location for a major attraction like a MLB park and there is simply no doubt to anyone with even the slightest comprehension of basic urban planning and the way the Chicagoland region actually works that the city is better. It's why the Bears threatened to move but didn't. It's why the Cubs threatened to move but didn't. It's why the Bulls are moving all their facilities to the West Loop. It's why DePaul basketball is trying to get out of Rosemont as fast as possible. It's why several major companies have abandoned their suburban office parks to move back downtown. It's just not going to happen.

Senerch23
04-05-2013, 06:00 PM
More people live in the burbs than in the city. That's a fact. Bridgeport is not the center of anything as just to the east is 100 miles of lake.
Looking at a map of the Metro area I would say that Elmhurst is probably the population center of the metro area with an equal amount of people living north, south, east and west. This is a guess but I bet I'm not far off. A stadium located around I 294 and I 290 would not be a bad spot. The CTA could extend the line that runs on the Ike.
Yes, of course there are more people in the burbs, they are spread out around a massive area though in comparison to the city.

There is a reason why nearly all new sports arenas and stadiums are built in cities and not suburbs. The more potential customers within a shorter distance, the better.

doublem23
04-05-2013, 06:00 PM
Neither of us can prove our points but the fact remains the Sox for a big market team have drawn I would say at best mediocre in the new park. First place most of last year and 24th in MLB attendance. That's pathetic.

And in 2006 they were one of the top teams in attendance, so your point is meaningless.

Senerch23
04-05-2013, 06:03 PM
Neither of us can prove our points but the fact remains the Sox for a big market team have drawn I would say at best mediocre in the new park. First place most of last year and 24th in MLB attendance. That's pathetic.
That has a lot to do with ticket pricing and the fact that dynamic ticket pricing was an absolute failure. There is a reason that the Sox drastically lowered ticket prices going into this year.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 06:11 PM
And in 2006 they were one of the top teams in attendance, so your point is meaningless.

And haven't come close since.

Senerch23
04-05-2013, 06:12 PM
And haven't come close since.
That's what happens when the product on the field gets worse and prices go up every year.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 06:18 PM
That's what happens when the product on the field gets worse and prices go up every year.

The product was in first for 100 plus days last year and could not draw 2 million. You are going to say the prices were too high and I agree but someone said all the high rollers have moved back to the city, they sure as hell didn't spend their money at USCF.

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 06:32 PM
The product was in first for 100 plus days last year and could not draw 2 million. You are going to say the prices were too high and I agree but someone said all the high rollers have moved back to the city, they sure as hell didn't spend their money at USCF.

Well, if the Sox had a contending product every year, they very well might be. The Sox drew fine before the strike, and there was less money and gentrification and a lot more crime then. 2005 had an echo of a few seasons where attendance was higher. Then both the team and the economy went south. One year where the team ends up 4 games over .500 is not going to suddenly cause a huge uptick in their season-ticket base.

Senerch23
04-05-2013, 06:40 PM
The product was in first for 100 plus days last year and could not draw 2 million. You are going to say the prices were too high and I agree but someone said all the high rollers have moved back to the city, they sure as hell didn't spend their money at USCF.
Ticket prices were outrageous. Even the Red Sox games which routinely sold out only saw crowds of 20,000. Also, dynamic ticket pricing which saw the tickets dynamically priced only one way was an issue that contributed to the high prices.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 06:49 PM
Back to the original subject of this thread, looks like the Cubs are staying put.
Now the Sox can move to Rosemont.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/9139426/chicago-cubs-city-chicago-close-wrigley-field-renovation-deal-according-report

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 06:51 PM
Back to the original subject of this thread, looks like the Cubs are staying put.
Now the Sox can move to Rosemont.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story/_/id/9139426/chicago-cubs-city-chicago-close-wrigley-field-renovation-deal-according-report

There was never any real reason to think otherwise.

I recall Mayor Stephens' interview on Chicago Tonight, where he appeared to be laughing the whole time.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 06:59 PM
There was never any real reason to think otherwise.

I recall Mayor Stephens' interview on Chicago Tonight, where he appeared to be laughing the whole time.

Nothing surprises me anymore in professional sports. The Dodgers won the their first WS in 1955, 3 short years later they were in LA. Since then, anything goes.

Do the rooftop owners have a legal beef if the Cubs do put up video boards in RF and LF blocking the view?

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 07:29 PM
Nothing surprises me anymore in professional sports. The Dodgers won the their first WS in 1955, 3 short years later they were in LA. Since then, anything goes.

Do the rooftop owners have a legal beef if the Cubs do put up video boards in RF and LF blocking the view?

I suppose that depends on the language of the various agreements between rooftop owners and team. What that says, I haven't a clue.

roylestillman
04-05-2013, 07:31 PM
Nothing surprises me anymore in professional sports. The Dodgers won the their first WS in 1955, 3 short years later they were in LA. Since then, anything goes.

Do the rooftop owners have a legal beef if the Cubs do put up video boards in RF and LF blocking the view?

Never saw the contract, but it sounds like the Cubs agreed not to block their view. Now block their view is open to interpretation, but money and the courts could solve everything. That spokesperson, Beth Murphy, sounds like great fun to negotiate with. Don't have much sympathy for the rooftop owners, but if they push the issue too far, potential clients could just choose not to use them.

Noneck
04-05-2013, 07:35 PM
What makes you think the Chicago area doesn't have enough fans to support 2 city ballparks? What defines a city ballpark? Flushing is right on the limits of NYC and Citi Field is surrounded by parking lots.

The Cub "stranglehold" is because of marketing their old ballpark. The Sox attendance rises and falls with the quality of the team, just like the vast majority of other MLB franchises. There is no reason to think that Chicago can't support the White Sox in the city when they've been in the same neighborhood longer than any other team in baseball.

Can the Sox draw better in the burbs without a consistent winning team? I think they could but cant prove it.(The brewers have been doing it) Can the Sox draw without a consistent winning team where they are at? No, thats been proven.

No one will be proven right or wrong in this discussion because so many things will change if and when change ever happens. The bottom line is the Sox management are doing very well in the situation they are in now. I am sure they are extremely happy with the worth of their club increasing by leaps and bounds in current years. I am sure they have no regrets in where the park is currently because thats where they got the deal of the century.

It was an enjoyable what if discussion.

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 07:48 PM
Can the Sox draw better in the burbs without a consistent winning team? I think they could but cant prove it.(The brewers have been doing it) Can the Sox draw without a consistent winning team where they are at? No, thats been proven.

No one will be proven right or wrong in this discussion because so many things will change if and when change ever happens. The bottom line is the Sox management are doing very well in the situation they are in now. I am sure they are extremely happy with the worth of their club increasing by leaps and bounds in current years. I am sure they have no regrets in where the park is currently because thats where they got the deal of the century.

It was an enjoyable what if discussion.

It's on 200 acres surrounded by parking lots, but Miller Park is not in a suburb.

LITTLE NELL
04-05-2013, 07:56 PM
It's on 200 acres surrounded by parking lots, but Miller Park is not in a suburb.

Only 2.5 miles from downtown Milwaukee.

Noneck
04-05-2013, 09:01 PM
Only 2.5 miles from downtown Milwaukee.

How far from West Allis and Wauwatosa? Its not a city like park.

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 09:17 PM
How far from West Allis and Wauwatosa? Its not a city like park.

It's near the border of West Allis.

Many city ballparks are not really in tune with their neighborhoods in that sense. USCF would obviously be one. But many others also come to mind: Citi Field, Dodger Stadium, Citizens Bank Park, Oakland Coliseum, and Turner Field.

SI1020
04-05-2013, 09:44 PM
IMO, park location isn't keeping suburban families away. In fact, I would guess that the parking lots vs. Wrigleyville neighborhood thing evens out for them. Some will be drawn to Wrigleyville's atmosphere while others will find that the parking availability at the Cell is more family friendly. Really, the ultimate problem is that there are just so many more Cubs fans than Sox fans out there. There are plenty of suburban Cubs fans who hardly go to any games because of cost, distance, accessibility, time constraints, etc. They are no different than Sox fans in this regard. But when you have a huge fanbase to begin with that includes a big following from all over the Midwest thanks to years on WGN, the tourist crowd, etc., the Cubs aren't quiet as reliant on getting every suburban fan to come out to a ton of games as the Sox are. That says it best for me. The tide began to turn in 1967 when the Cubs began their mini revival under Leo Durocher and the Sox hitless wonders couldn't seal the deal. After the 84 season the Cubs really began to pull away and have lapped the Sox many times over in the fan department since then. The Sox haven't helped themselves over the years with one PR and business gaffe after another. Now the situation is such that the Sox have to put out a consistent winner in order to start reversing the situation. They have failed in that regard.

DSpivack
04-05-2013, 10:00 PM
That says it best for me. The tide began to turn in 1967 when the Cubs began their mini revival under Leo Durocher and the Sox hitless wonders couldn't seal the deal. After the 84 season the Cubs really began to pull away and have lapped the Sox many times over in the fan department since then. The Sox haven't helped themselves over the years with one PR and business gaffe after another. Now the situation is such that the Sox have to put out a consistent winner in order to start reversing the situation. They have failed in that regard.

It's not like the Sox are unique in that regard. That's true for most every team. The Cubs just got very, very lucky.

Hitmen77
04-06-2013, 12:17 AM
The product was in first for 100 plus days last year and could not draw 2 million. You are going to say the prices were too high and I agree but someone said all the high rollers have moved back to the city, they sure as hell didn't spend their money at USCF.

I feel like the argument over last year's attendance has been beaten to death. You can't just look at that 100 or so days in a vacuum. After 3 previous seasons of disappointment which caused season ticket/advance sale erosion, they simply weren't going to flip that switch and pack the park every night with a 3 month run of success. Remember, we were coming off the awful 2011 Ozzie-quitting-on-his-team debacle at the start of last year plus KW was implicitly telling the fans last off season that the Sox weren't serious about competing in 2012 when they hired a manager with zero professional coaching experience for on-the-job training.

These points are constantly pointed out and yet we continue to beat the dead horse of last year's attendance over and over again.

jdm2662
04-06-2013, 07:45 AM
I feel like the argument over last year's attendance has been beaten to death. You can't just look at that 100 or so days in a vacuum. After 3 previous seasons of disappointment which caused season ticket/advance sale erosion, they simply weren't going to flip that switch and pack the park every night with a 3 month run of success. Remember, we were coming off the awful 2011 Ozzie-quitting-on-his-team debacle at the start of last year plus KW was implicitly telling the fans last off season that the Sox weren't serious about competing in 2012 when they hired a manager with zero professional coaching experience for on-the-job training.

These points are constantly pointed out and yet we continue to beat the dead horse of last year's attendance over and over again.

Some people are never going to get it. 20,000 aren't just going to wake up and flock to the ballpark. If advanced ticket sales are very low, you aren't going to get a lot of people.

There was a game in early April on a Sunday a coupe of years ago. There was no lake breeze, either. 23K was the announced attendance. Sure, the nice day attracted SOME people (like myself and wife), but the park wasn't magically going to be full. In 2007, the Sox lost 90 games, but drew 2.7K. Those tickets were sold in advance. It's really not that hard to grasp. Since Sox tickets are so easy to get, I have no motivation to buy tickets in advance.

jdm2662
04-06-2013, 07:50 AM
....let me put it another way. I have a family and live out in western DuPage. I try to go to about 5 games a year....some years it turns out to be less than that. Sorry, life is busy. But, when I talk about time constraints, etc. that keep me from going to more games, I get accused of "making excuses" for not going to more games even from fellow Sox fans on WSI (this is not aimed at anyone or any post in this thread, but it has happened before in past years in other threads).

However, where I live, I am surrounded by a large majority of Cubs fan families and many of them maybe go to 1 or 2 games and some don't necessarily go every year. They have the same reasons as I do: time constraints, cost, etc. I've have never heard anyone question their loyalty or support of their team. EVER. Being a fan of a popular team that has a huge fan base and draws huge crowds makes them "great fans" even if they hardly go to any games. I, on the other hand, have to often defend the support of my team - even to fellow Sox fans - despite my efforts to go to at least a handful of games every year. Go figure.

What's funny is when Cubs fan say this very thing, I ask them how many games they went to last year, the year before, etc. Each time, I always end up going to more games than them. Hell, I went to five last year despite the fact we had a baby born the day before the Sox's home opener.

jdm2662
04-06-2013, 08:30 AM
More people live in the burbs than in the city. That's a fact. Bridgeport is not the center of anything as just to the east is 100 miles of lake.
Looking at a map of the Metro area I would say that Elmhurst is probably the population center of the metro area with an equal amount of people living north, south, east and west. This is a guess but I bet I'm not far off. A stadium located around I 294 and I 290 would not be a bad spot. The CTA could extend the line that runs on the Ike.

Hillside is called the hub of the suburbs for a reason. I lived by 290/294/88 by St. Charles for much of my life. We just moved from one side of the bridge to the other in the late 90s. My Mom still lives in Elmhurst. In my 20s, I probably would've been a season ticket holder. Since I still live only ten mins. from the proposed land, I probably would still venture to the ballpark more. But, I'm one person. Had the ballpark been built where Dave and Busters now is, they probably wouldn't be drawing much more than they do now.

Had they built the park there, they probably would be trying to get back into city ten years later. By the late 90s, it was cool to be in the city again. I never bought into this, but lots of 20 somethings did. The casual fan always makes a difference at the gate. I saw plenty of them in 2006. Us die-hards don't like it, but that's how it is.

Quite honestly, I never found traffic around the ballpark be that big of a deal. Of course, I probably been there so many times, I know my way around.

doublem23
04-06-2013, 02:09 PM
And haven't come close since.

Because the team hasn't been nearly as good since, either.

SI1020
04-06-2013, 03:23 PM
It's not like the Sox are unique in that regard. That's true for most every team. The Cubs just got very, very lucky. Of course it's true for almost every team but the Sox are a distant second in a two team area and that makes it all the more difficult for them. Yes the Cubs are very lucky for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is all they need to do is show up at home for every game to draw 3 million or so fans.

Dan H
04-06-2013, 05:41 PM
That says it best for me. The tide began to turn in 1967 when the Cubs began their mini revival under Leo Durocher and the Sox hitless wonders couldn't seal the deal. After the 84 season the Cubs really began to pull away and have lapped the Sox many times over in the fan department since then. The Sox haven't helped themselves over the years with one PR and business gaffe after another. Now the situation is such that the Sox have to put out a consistent winner in order to start reversing the situation. They have failed in that regard.

I agree with this completely. But I must say I think the Cubs bubble is getting ready to burst and there are cracks in it already. They still out draw the Sox but there are more and more no-shows. I know one Cub fan who is still somewhat delusional and half believes that the current rebuild will net a World Series. But he limits himself to attending one game a year. The guy is near retirement age and has not experienced a World Series as a Cub fan. He is tired of the constant failure and Wrigley Field is not enough to draw him out more than once a year.

Hitmen77
04-06-2013, 09:44 PM
Some people are never going to get it. 20,000 aren't just going to wake up and flock to the ballpark. If advanced ticket sales are very low, you aren't going to get a lot of people.

There was a game in early April on a Sunday a coupe of years ago. There was no lake breeze, either. 23K was the announced attendance. Sure, the nice day attracted SOME people (like myself and wife), but the park wasn't magically going to be full. In 2007, the Sox lost 90 games, but drew 2.7K. Those tickets were sold in advance. It's really not that hard to grasp. Since Sox tickets are so easy to get, I have no motivation to buy tickets in advance.

.....and yet, this will assuredly keep coming up here again and again: "Hey, the Sox were winning last year and the fans still didn't show up! What else do you want the Sox to do!" One playoff appearance (and one lone playoff win) in the last 7 seasons since the 2006 attendance high point and people stubbornly want to keep clinging to the falsehood that Sox fans won't even support a winner.

Because the team hasn't been nearly as good since, either.

Yep, a bunch of seasons in a row where the Sox get hot in June and July before finally finishing in 2nd or 3rd isn't going to make them more competitive at the ticket window. At least they showed heart and stuck around in 1st until September last year, but it still isn't a good way to win over the Chicago market.

Dan H
04-07-2013, 08:12 AM
Yep, a bunch of seasons in a row where the Sox get hot in June and July before finally finishing in 2nd or 3rd isn't going to make them more competitive at the ticket window. At least they showed heart and stuck around in 1st until September last year, but it still isn't a good way to win over the Chicago market.

This is true. Playing well in the middle of summer only to fade in September doesn't cut it especially when it happens season after season. This only shows the team isn't good enough to weather a 162-game season.

After 2005, many of us fans thought the Sox got over the hump and would really establish a sustained, winning tradition. Unfortunately that didn't happen. What is frustrating is that team-fan relations are still not good. More frustatiing is that the club has the ability to put a decent product on the field but not a great one. So the Sox can put up win totals in the mid-80's like they will this year, but can't break into the playoffs even with an additional wild card slot. And with only five playoff appearances in almost 45 years of divisional play, that gets old.

Hitmen77
04-10-2013, 10:40 AM
This is true. Playing well in the middle of summer only to fade in September doesn't cut it especially when it happens season after season. This only shows the team isn't good enough to weather a 162-game season.

After 2005, many of us fans thought the Sox got over the hump and would really establish a sustained, winning tradition. Unfortunately that didn't happen. What is frustrating is that team-fan relations are still not good. More frustrating is that the club has the ability to put a decent product on the field but not a great one. So the Sox can put up win totals in the mid-80's like they will this year, but can't break into the playoffs even with an additional wild card slot. And with only five playoff appearances in almost 45 years of divisional play, that gets old.

This is the heart of the team's problem. It's not Sox fans' lack of loyalty or ugliness of the ballpark.

Unfortunately, the Sox have been squandering a golden opportunity the last 5 years to really make significant, lasting gains in the Chicago market with the Cubs continuing to flounder on the field and frustration building with fans of the team up North.

IMO, the Sox need to become a consistent playoff team before the Cubs get Wrigley renovations done and climb out their current mess. Sure, I can easily see the Cubs continuing on with more failed promises on the field and Theo just becoming the next in a line of failures (McPhail, Hendry, etc.). But, if the Sox are operating their team as if they can just assume the Cubs will continue to suck forever, then shame on the Sox.

Lip Man 1
04-10-2013, 11:29 AM
Hitmen:

You and Dan make some great points but remember again that when talking about the Cubs, the Sox do not feel and haven't since the current owners took over that they are in competitition with them for the Chicago market. (Can you imagine either JR or EE calling the Tribune for example and complaining to the editor about the number of column inches the Sox were getting as Bill Veeck did??)

To me that explains a lot of what they have done in the past and why. They honestly feel they are in a 'one team town' in the sense that they are to use Einhorn's exact quote "Chicago's American League team..."

That philosophy has lasted over 30 years now. I don't understand it myself but I never claimed to be a businessman.

Lip

Red Barchetta
04-10-2013, 01:41 PM
Hitmen:

You and Dan make some great points but remember again that when talking about the Cubs, the Sox do not feel and haven't since the current owners took over that they are in competitition with them for the Chicago market. (Can you imagine either JR or EE calling the Tribune for example and complaining to the editor about the number of column inches the Sox were getting as Bill Veeck did??)

To me that explains a lot of what they have done in the past and why. They honestly feel they are in a 'one team town' in the sense that they are to use Einhorn's exact quote "Chicago's American League team..."

That philosophy has lasted over 30 years now. I don't understand it myself but I never claimed to be a businessman.

Lip

I agree. In contrast to the SOX, due to the brilliant (Yes it was!) marketing of Wrigley Field by the Tribune, the Cubs now have the luxury of attracting 3M fans" per season while not re-investing into the on field talent. This allows them to continue to focus on building their brand (Wrigley Field, neighborhood, tourist attraction, hotels, etc.) while they hide behind another rebuilding effort on-field.

I believe Theo will eventually get them back to the playoffs, however I really don't think they are in a hurry and probably enjoy the fact that they can get their prize possession renovated during the process.

SI1020
04-10-2013, 03:20 PM
I agree. In contrast to the SOX, due to the brilliant (Yes it was!) marketing of Wrigley Field by the Tribune, the Cubs now have the luxury of attracting 3M fans" per season while not re-investing into the on field talent. This allows them to continue to focus on building their brand (Wrigley Field, neighborhood, tourist attraction, hotels, etc.) while they hide behind another rebuilding effort on-field.

I believe Theo will eventually get them back to the playoffs, however I really don't think they are in a hurry and probably enjoy the fact that they can get their prize possession renovated during the process. Great post. Also good work by Lip Man, Dan H and Hitmen 77.

Noneck
04-10-2013, 03:36 PM
Hitmen:

You and Dan make some great points but remember again that when talking about the Cubs, the Sox do not feel and haven't since the current owners took over that they are in competitition with them for the Chicago market. (Can you imagine either JR or EE calling the Tribune for example and complaining to the editor about the number of column inches the Sox were getting as Bill Veeck did??)

To me that explains a lot of what they have done in the past and why. They honestly feel they are in a 'one team town' in the sense that they are to use Einhorn's exact quote "Chicago's American League team..."

That philosophy has lasted over 30 years now. I don't understand it myself but I never claimed to be a businessman.

Lip


Lip,

This ownership has always had "pigs get fat, hogs go to market" philosophy. Why take a chance when you got a sure stream of money rolling in. I think their pocketbooks can attest to that.

doublem23
04-15-2013, 08:10 AM
It is official official... Cubs and city agree to $500 million Wrigley renovation deal

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/cubs-city-reach-500-million-wrigley-renovation-deal

Still not 100% sure how the rooftop owners will respond to this.

jdm2662
04-15-2013, 08:28 AM
It is official official... Cubs and city agree to $500 million Wrigley renovation deal

http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/cubs-city-reach-500-million-wrigley-renovation-deal

Still not 100% sure how the rooftop owners will respond to this.

From what I understand, there is still 11 years left on the agreement they made with the Trib company so many years ago. So, if they feel the agreement is not being met, they could sue the team. After the 11 years is up, and the Cubs don't want to renew, they really can't do anything.

The Immigrant
04-15-2013, 09:56 AM
Still not 100% sure how the rooftop owners will respond to this.

They'll have a tough time arguing that the Cubs are breaching the contract if the video board blocks the views from the right field rooftops. The contract provides that "any expansion of Wrigley Field approved by governmental authorities shall not be a violation" of the deal.