PDA

View Full Version : Facebook data says Sox are Cook County's favorite team


doublem23
03-31-2014, 09:32 AM
http://deadspin.com/facebook-data-provide-the-most-accurate-mlb-fandom-map-1555222593/all

The Cubs dominate most of Northern Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana but surprise, surprise, look who is #1 in the city.

The Sox also were the favorites in Will, Kankakee, and Lake County, Indiana.

FielderJones
03-31-2014, 09:35 AM
:thud:

Golden Sox
03-31-2014, 09:40 AM
The owners of the bad guys on the Northside keep maintaining that 40% of there attendance comes from out of state. The White Sox don't get that type of attendance from the out of staters.

Soxman219
03-31-2014, 10:38 AM
Not surprised, it's like 90% Sox fans here in Lake County, IN. I go to the city and see more Sox gear than Cubs gear. There's more Cub fans in Iowa, Southern Indiana, and North Illinois and South Wisconsin.

Streets
03-31-2014, 11:08 AM
Not surprised, it's like 90% Sox fans here in Lake County, IN. I go to the city and see more Sox gear than Cubs gear. There's more Cub fans in Iowa, Southern Indiana, and North Illinois and South Wisconsin.

They're Cardinals fans down there, with a few Reds fans as you go east.

Lake county is pretty 50/50 to be honest.

DSpivack
03-31-2014, 11:37 PM
Nome and the North Slope go to the Yankees, but the Northwest Arctic leans toward Boston...

Railsplitter
04-01-2014, 07:55 AM
The owners of the bad guys on the Northside keep maintaining that 40% of there attendance comes from out of state. The White Sox don't get that type of attendance from the out of staters.

Indeed. Had the Tribune company not promoted Wrigley Field as a tourist attraction, we might not be talking about any 100th anniversary celebrations.

OldRomanPizza
04-01-2014, 08:30 AM
Interesting study.

I am not from Chicago but I have come to know a few North Side natives who support the Sox as they feel the Sox are the more "Chicago" team. I'd be interested to know if this is a pattern.

I'd also be interested to see this study done at the neighborhood level. In Logan Square (Around Milwaukee/Fullerton, at least) I see more Tigers hats than Cubs/Sox combined.

DonnieDarko
04-01-2014, 03:11 PM
Interesting study.

I am not from Chicago but I have come to know a few North Side natives who support the Sox as they feel the Sox are the more "Chicago" team. I'd be interested to know if this is a pattern.

In my experience here on the Nortside (really, pretty much from 7200N to about 1000N is Cubs territory from what I've seen), that is most definitely not the case. Cubs gear is much more prevalent than Sox gear.

TDog
04-02-2014, 03:14 AM
Not surprised, it's like 90% Sox fans here in Lake County, IN. I go to the city and see more Sox gear than Cubs gear. There's more Cub fans in Iowa, Southern Indiana, and North Illinois and South Wisconsin.

When I was living in Munster, 1967-1979, Munster was solidly Cubs country. Being a White Sox fan put me in a very small minority. Being known as a White Sox fan at Munster High made you a social outcast, so there were probably a few White Sox fans in the closet. That was even true in 1977, when there was more excitement for the Cubs' run that year than the White Sox run that is more fondly remembered among the respective fan bases. And it was true too for the area of Hammond where the family auto parts store was located. All of my grandfather's employees were Cubs fans. During summer afternoons, Cubs games would be playing in the accounting area. I wondered if it was at least in part a class thing because Munster, at the time at least, was more affluent than the rest of Lake County. Still the Times always treated the Cubs as the No. 1 baseball team in its circulation area. When I went down to Bloomington for school, I was in Reds country. Of course, those were the days of the Big Red Machine.

Everywhere else I've lived since, Arizona, Alaska and California, with the exception of suburban Milwaukee, people have to be reminded that the Cubs are not the only major league baseball team.

I was once in Dublin, Ireland, talking to a man from Liverpool, England about sports. Although he had never been to America, he knew that Wrigley Field was to baseball what St. Andrews in Scotland is to golf.

34rancher
04-02-2014, 06:17 AM
I think the obvious reason is 2005 and the teens/20s. Most kids associate more with the white sox due to winning and being kid friendly. I think the younger demographic is driving the Facebook map here.

asindc
04-02-2014, 08:29 AM
When I was living in Munster, 1967-1979, Munster was solidly Cubs country. Being a White Sox fan put me in a very small minority. Being known as a White Sox fan at Munster High made you a social outcast, so there were probably a few White Sox fans in the closet. That was even true in 1977, when there was more excitement for the Cubs' run that year than the White Sox run that is more fondly remembered among the respective fan bases. And it was true too for the area of Hammond where the family auto parts store was located. All of my grandfather's employees were Cubs fans. During summer afternoons, Cubs games would be playing in the accounting area. I wondered if it was at least in part a class thing because Munster, at the time at least, was more affluent than the rest of Lake County. Still the Times always treated the Cubs as the No. 1 baseball team in its circulation area. When I went down to Bloomington for school, I was in Reds country. Of course, those were the days of the Big Red Machine.

Everywhere else I've lived since, Arizona, Alaska and California, with the exception of suburban Milwaukee, people have to be reminded that the Cubs are not the only major league baseball team.

I was once in Dublin, Ireland, talking to a man from Liverpool, England about sports. Although he had never been to America, he knew that Wrigley Field was to baseball what St. Andrews in Scotland is to golf.

Here on the East Coast, I don't have to deal with that very much, since this area (especially before the Nats came to town), NY, and NE all are obviously AL-centric.

SOXSINCE'70
04-02-2014, 08:40 AM
http://deadspin.com/facebook-data-provide-the-most-accurate-mlb-fandom-map-1555222593/all

The Cubs dominate most of Northern Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana but surprise, surprise, look who is #1 in the city.

The Sox also were the favorites in Will, Kankakee, and Lake County, Indiana.

I live in Lake County (Illinois). I like them.:D:

whitem0nkey
04-02-2014, 10:21 AM
Time to take dupage.

Moses_Scurry
04-02-2014, 10:38 AM
I grew up in Mt. Morris (pop. 3000) about 100 miles direct west of Chicago. It was decisively cub country. In fact, my hatred of the cubs stems from being ripped on for being a Sox fan in my 6th grade class (1985-86) that was all cub apart from me. Before that year I liked both teams with the Sox only being slightly favored. I was just as upset when the cubs lost in '84 as when the Sox lost in '83. After that year I rooted against the cubs every chance I got.

BigKlu59
04-02-2014, 10:44 AM
When I was living in Munster, 1967-1979, Munster was solidly Cubs country. Being a White Sox fan put me in a very small minority. Being known as a White Sox fan at Munster High made you a social outcast, so there were probably a few White Sox fans in the closet. That was even true in 1977, when there was more excitement for the Cubs' run that year than the White Sox run that is more fondly remembered among the respective fan bases. And it was true too for the area of Hammond where the family auto parts store was located. All of my grandfather's employees were Cubs fans. During summer afternoons, Cubs games would be playing in the accounting area. I wondered if it was at least in part a class thing because Munster, at the time at least, was more affluent than the rest of Lake County. Still the Times always treated the Cubs as the No. 1 baseball team in its circulation area. When I went down to Bloomington for school, I was in Reds country. Of course, those were the days of the Big Red Machine.

Everywhere else I've lived since, Arizona, Alaska and California, with the exception of suburban Milwaukee, people have to be reminded that the Cubs are not the only major league baseball team.

I was once in Dublin, Ireland, talking to a man from Liverpool, England about sports. Although he had never been to America, he knew that Wrigley Field was to baseball what St. Andrews in Scotland is to golf.

I think the shift you saw cuBs vs Pale Hose can be seen today with the reversal of fortunes. You are always gonna have your die hards and those that jump with the flavor of the day. The Sox were on the wane and the Cubbies were touting their BBHOF Line up that looked good on paper, were bouncing balls onto Waveland and Sheffield, yet couldnt bring home the bacon if the pig was handed to them..

GN cable, Harry pumping personality in to a moribound carcass didnt help the Sox as well...

Had my Black Sox moments as well... Yes Virginia, there is a Chicago Baseball team on the South Side of town as well. Too bad there was no such thing as the wild card back in the Yankee hey day.. Atleast the Sox then would have had more countrywide media attention and somewhat more of a household name.

Fair playing media field established.. Sox run with it and the Cubbies can have all the fans in Uttumwa fer sure...

BK59

MISoxfan
04-02-2014, 11:28 AM
I spent about 5 years bouncing between Oxnard/Ventura when I was stationed there and there were a TON of Sox hats, but they were only worn to represent South Oxnard. Sox hats were banned from many establishments because of this.

Also southwest Michigan has to be close to being Sox territory, it's pretty close to 50/50.

BigKlu59
04-02-2014, 01:43 PM
I spent about 5 years bouncing between Oxnard/Ventura when I was stationed there and there were a TON of Sox hats, but they were only worn to represent South Oxnard. Sox hats were banned from many establishments because of this.

Also southwest Michigan has to be close to being Sox territory, it's pretty close to 50/50.

Right about SW MI.... Met alot of Sox fans at the Dunes over the years. I seem to recall once you get to White Pidgeon on the Hoosier Toll Road, thats where the Mo City Kitties fathful start to show their stripes.. I remember as a kid wearing my Sox cap only to be razzed at the Service Plaza.. Didnt help the 68 Tigers woke up since the days of Hank Greenburg.

BK59

LITTLE NELL
04-02-2014, 02:46 PM
We have talked about this many times, the reason the Cubs are more popular than the Sox start in the mid 60s when the Sox were the more popular team but they left WGN to go to UHF TV. That was great, the Sox would televise all their games on WFLD-32 but no one had UHF TVs at the time. No telling how many fans we lost on that fiasco. The turmoil of the late 60s came next as fans were afraid to visit Comiskey. The Cubs are now on WGN full time and after years of sub .500 ball have a contender while the Sox after 17 years of winning seasons hit the skids with 68-69 and 70 being some of their worst years ever. The Sox make a comeback in the early 70s with Harry in the booth and Dick Allen on the field. The rest of the 70s there was basically a tie in popularity. JR comes on the scene in 81 and the Sox by 1983 are #1 again but Harry has gone to the Northside and the Cubs win the division in 1984. The Sox meanwhile bring in Sportsvision and you need to pay to watch the Sox while the Cubs are on WGN for free, what a fiasco that was. The Trib buys the Cubs and it has not been the same since, they market Wrigley Field with Harry leading the way and WGN is a super station and it's no contest . The threat of moving to Florida came next which rubbed most Sox fans the wrong way. The new ballpark helped the Sox for a few years but that didn't last long as fans hated the upper deck. We then lived through the White Flag trade and fans were irate. What hurts me most is they outdrew us in 2005 while we have the best team and win the WS and in 2006 when teams draw gangbusters after a title. They even outdrew us in 2012 while we were in first place until late September and they were in last the whole season.
Looking back if the Sox were only able to build on years like 83, 93, 2000 and 2005 things might have been better but they never were able to make the post-season 2 years in a row, the strike of 1994 really hurt the franchise, seems like JR got more blame than anyone else. After all these blunders by management in almost the last 50 years it's a wonder there are any Sox fans anywhere.

rpmorri
04-02-2014, 05:36 PM
I'd also be interested to see this study done at the neighborhood level. In Logan Square (Around Milwaukee/Fullerton, at least) I see more Tigers hats than Cubs/Sox combined.

Logan is far more Cubs than Sox. It's not close.

MISoxfan
04-02-2014, 05:55 PM
Right about SW MI.... Met alot of Sox fans at the Dunes over the years. I seem to recall once you get to White Pidgeon on the Hoosier Toll Road, thats where the Mo City Kitties fathful start to show their stripes.. I remember as a kid wearing my Sox cap only to be razzed at the Service Plaza.. Didnt help the 68 Tigers woke up since the days of Hank Greenburg.

BK59

Sounds about right. I think you still have Chicago fans in Niles, and up north you're in Tiger country by time you hit Kalamazoo.

asindc
04-02-2014, 06:36 PM
Sounds about right. I think you still have Chicago fans in Niles, and up north you're in Tiger country by time you hit Kalamazoo.

The towns on Lake coast in SW lower MI can pick up Chicago TV and radio. Half hour east of the coast it becomes strictly Tigers territory.

TDog
04-02-2014, 07:32 PM
We have talked about this many times, the reason the Cubs are more popular than the Sox start in the mid 60s when the Sox were the more popular team but they left WGN to go to UHF TV. That was great, the Sox would televise all their games on WFLD-32 but no one had UHF TVs at the time. No telling how many fans we lost on that fiasco. The turmoil of the late 60s came next as fans were afraid to visit Comiskey. The Cubs are now on WGN full time and after years of sub .500 ball have a contender while the Sox after 17 years of winning seasons hit the skids with 68-69 and 70 being some of their worst years ever. The Sox make a comeback in the early 70s with Harry in the booth and Dick Allen on the field. The rest of the 70s there was basically a tie in popularity. JR comes on the scene in 81 and the Sox by 1983 are #1 again but Harry has gone to the Northside and the Cubs win the division in 1984. The Sox meanwhile bring in Sportsvision and you need to pay to watch the Sox while the Cubs are on WGN for free, what a fiasco that was. The Trib buys the Cubs and it has not been the same since, they market Wrigley Field with Harry leading the way and WGN is a super station and it's no contest . The threat of moving to Florida came next which rubbed most Sox fans the wrong way. The new ballpark helped the Sox for a few years but that didn't last long as fans hated the upper deck. We then lived through the White Flag trade and fans were irate. What hurts me most is they outdrew us in 2005 while we have the best team and win the WS and in 2006 when teams draw gangbusters after a title. They even outdrew us in 2012 while we were in first place until late September and they were in last the whole season.
Looking back if the Sox were only able to build on years like 83, 93, 2000 and 2005 things might have been better but they never were able to make the post-season 2 years in a row, the strike of 1994 really hurt the franchise, seems like JR got more blame than anyone else. After all these blunders by management in almost the last 50 years it's a wonder there are any Sox fans anywhere.

This is the analysis I've been hearing for years, some of it since 1982. I think it's oversimplified, although it sounds great in theory. I recall that Munster, where I grew up, was heavily Cubs country before the Sox moved to UHF. And Muster was heavily Cubs country and anti-Harry Caray until he moved to the Cubs. You could come out of the closet in 1972, but it didn't last much beyond that.

The White Sox didn't draw 2 million until after Harry Caray went to the Cubs. They didn't draw 2 million in 1977. And the White Sox drew 2 million before the Cubs did. I don't think Harry Carary had much of an effect on team allegiances. He was loud and brash and people could be more excited about being Sox fans because of him at the beginning as the team started playing better, but Cubs households didn't become White Sox households because of Harry Caray. Kids coming home from school to see the Cubs in the afternoon would have still seen the Cubs in the afternoon if WGN was only doing afternoon home games of the two teams, the way they pretty much were doing by 1967. I don't know of any Cubs fan in the early 1970s, when there weren't many Sox fans in Munster, whose families used to be White Sox fans or were on the fence about which team to support.

IronFisk
04-02-2014, 07:33 PM
As a life-long Lake Co. IN resident, it was nice to see this. Even so "The Region" is pretty split - so much so that I didn't even bother to catch any 2005 ALCS or World Series games out here due to the numerous cub d-baggers. I opted for Bridgeport...and would do it again in a heartbeat :bandance:

LITTLE NELL
04-02-2014, 07:49 PM
This is the analysis I've been hearing for years, some of it since 1982. I think it's oversimplified, although it sounds great in theory. I recall that Munster, where I grew up, was heavily Cubs country before the Sox moved to UHF. And Muster was heavily Cubs country and anti-Harry Caray until he moved to the Cubs. You could come out of the closet in 1972, but it didn't last much beyond that.

The White Sox didn't draw 2 million until after Harry Caray went to the Cubs. They didn't draw 2 million in 1977. And the White Sox drew 2 million before the Cubs did. I don't think Harry Carary had much of an effect on team allegiances. He was loud and brash and people could be more excited about being Sox fans because of him at the beginning as the team started playing better, but Cubs households didn't become White Sox households because of Harry Caray. Kids coming home from school to see the Cubs in the afternoon would have still seen the Cubs in the afternoon if WGN was only doing afternoon home games of the two teams, the way they pretty much were doing by 1967. I don't know of any Cubs fan in the early 1970s, when there weren't many Sox fans in Munster, whose families used to be White Sox fans or were on the fence about which team to support.

Harry is only one part of the equation, I have been a Sox fan since the early 50s and I've seen the Sox outdrawing the Cubs 2 to 1 in the 50s and 60, not every year but quite a few years. I'm pretty sure that the turn-around with the Cubs now more popular than the Sox has to do with all the things I mentioned but if I had to pick the number one reason it would the Sox leaving WGN after the 1967 season. You make a good point about kids watching the Cubs after school. I always watched the Cubs after school or even in my working years as I worked evenings but never pulled for them, I can still hear Brickhouse muttering "Oh brother".

Soxman219
04-02-2014, 08:30 PM
I guess the Sox are more popular with the youth.

TDog
04-02-2014, 08:43 PM
Harry is only one part of the equation, I have been a Sox fan since the early 50s and I've seen the Sox outdrawing the Cubs 2 to 1 in the 50s and 60, not every year but quite a few years. I'm pretty sure that the turn-around with the Cubs now more popular than the Sox has to do with all the things I mentioned but if I had to pick the number one reason it would the Sox leaving WGN after the 1967 season. You make a good point about kids watching the Cubs after school. I always watched the Cubs after school or even in my working years as I worked evenings but never pulled for them, I can still hear Brickhouse muttering "Oh brother".

I think the WGN impact is exaggerated by analysts, who have been talking about it for years. The Cubs and White Sox were almost even in attendance by 1967 when the Sox were still on WGN. The Sox were in first place for a bunch of the summer, something like May 25 to August 12, and they only finished 3 games out after losing their last five. If the Sox were considered to have the inside track to the World Series at the end of September, they were on WGN, and in many ways, the Cubs, who were in first place in in late July before falling way out of it had become the more popular team, outdrawing the Sox in September despite the pennant race. The Sox losing their first 10 games of 1968 had more to do with attendance that year than UHF did.

The 1972 season did for the White Sox what the 1967 season did for the Cubs, but Dick Allen breaking his arm in 1973 ensured the fans of bad teams until the 1980s and a back seat to the Cubs until the Reisdorf regime took over.

Golden Sox
04-03-2014, 08:00 AM
Building the Cell at its present location sure didn't help matters. Years ago the White Sox fan base was on the Southside of Chicago. That's not the case anymore. I would make a guess that 80% of there attendance comes from somewhere else than the Southside of Chicago. You build a stadium where your fan base is. The Cell isn't near there fan base and potential fan base. It will be interesting to see what the White Sox do when the lease at the Cell is up in 2029.

winstonage
04-03-2014, 12:51 PM
Building the Cell at its present location sure didn't help matters. Years ago the White Sox fan base was on the Southside of Chicago. That's not the case anymore. I would make a guess that 80% of there attendance comes from somewhere else than the Southside of Chicago. You build a stadium where your fan base is. The Cell isn't near there fan base and potential fan base. It will be interesting to see what the White Sox do when the lease at the Cell is up in 2029.

Agreed. I live and work in the northern suburbs. It is impossible to get to the Cell
during the week, so, I am limited to weekends. If they had built in Addison which was talked about, even that would have been easier. They should have built in the Rossevelt Road and Canal St. area. With the development of the south loop, would have created an area as desirable as Wrigleyville. Tough to get to as well, but would have made the Cell a tourist attraction, which certainly would have bumped attendance.

voodoochile
04-03-2014, 01:01 PM
I think the obvious reason is 2005 and the teens/20s. Most kids associate more with the white sox due to winning and being kid friendly. I think the younger demographic is driving the Facebook map here.
That's a great point. The Sox have been the more kid friendly experience for a long time. That well could be paying dividends. Add in the championship and continued high-payroll aggressive front office trying to build another championship team (even if not successful, can't say they haven't been trying) and younger generation folks maybe tuning more and more into the Sox.

Urinal troughs only get you so far with today's youth market.

doublem23
04-03-2014, 01:21 PM
Agreed. I live and work in the northern suburbs. It is impossible to get to the Cell
during the week, so, I am limited to weekends. If they had built in Addison which was talked about, even that would have been easier. They should have built in the Rossevelt Road and Canal St. area. With the development of the south loop, would have created an area as desirable as Wrigleyville. Tough to get to as well, but would have made the Cell a tourist attraction, which certainly would have bumped attendance.

We've talked about this a lot of times, I don't think the problem with the Cell is necessarily the location, the problems are/were:

1) It really was an ugly park when it was built - Yes, the US Cellular money has helped a lot, but first impressions count and for a long time, it was a sterile ball-mall that was more reminiscent of the ugly 70's-era monstrosities like the Vet, 3 Rivers, the Metrodome, etc than the new retro area ballparks that have aged much better and

2) It's a round peg in a square hole - It's still a suburban-style park, surrounded by a dead zone of parking lots. Undoubtedly if the Sox had built the Cell at Roosevelt and Canal and surrounded it with lots, it would have been a similarly dead area. Sox Park is easily the most accessible of all of Chicago's pro sports arenas, it's next to a gigantic super-highway, and has access to 2 L stations and 1 Metra station within a 10-minute walk. It's not the 2 miles from the South Loop that keeps the neighborhood dead, it's because there's no neighborhood there at all. Bridgeport is slowly becoming the next hip place to be in the city, but that's not going to help the Sox so long as they keep the park surrounded by asphalt. It's a suburban park in the city. There's a reason it doesn't work.

TDog
04-03-2014, 02:33 PM
We've talked about this a lot of times, I don't think the problem with the Cell is necessarily the location, the problems are/were:

1) It really was an ugly park when it was built - Yes, the US Cellular money has helped a lot, but first impressions count and for a long time, it was a sterile ball-mall that was more reminiscent of the ugly 70's-era monstrosities like the Vet, 3 Rivers, the Metrodome, etc than the new retro area ballparks that have aged much better and

2) It's a round peg in a square hole - It's still a suburban-style park, surrounded by a dead zone of parking lots. Undoubtedly if the Sox had built the Cell at Roosevelt and Canal and surrounded it with lots, it would have been a similarly dead area. Sox Park is easily the most accessible of all of Chicago's pro sports arenas, it's next to a gigantic super-highway, and has access to 2 L stations and 1 Metra station within a 10-minute walk. It's not the 2 miles from the South Loop that keeps the neighborhood dead, it's because there's no neighborhood there at all. Bridgeport is slowly becoming the next hip place to be in the city, but that's not going to help the Sox so long as they keep the park surrounded by asphalt. It's a suburban park in the city. There's a reason it doesn't work.

Maybe it's because I've spent so much time outside of Chicago, but I have long put accessibilty far above neighbrohoods for a ballpark. Although football ruined Anaheim for a few years and ruined Oakland apparently forever, I think they would be worse without their accessibility. Anaheim doesn't have the mass transit, but it's SoCal and i't's close to I-5 , surrounded by parking. Milwaukee is insulated from its neighborhood and is just off the freeway, whether you're driving from Waukesha or Chicago. It wasn't such a bad neighborhood when I lived outside of Milwaukee, but the the only thing I found that gave it the edge over Phoenix was the effort it took to get to a Diamonbacks game.

I never found new Comiskey a bad place to watch a ballgame, even in the upper deck. . Sometimes I see people praising parks for aspects that aren't fan-friendly. Of course, Oakland is such a bad place to watch a ballgame, and San Francisco is such a great place to watch a ballgame that the extra effort AT&T demands is more than worth it.

doublem23
04-03-2014, 02:40 PM
Maybe it's because I've spent so much time outside of Chicago, but I have long put accessibilty far above neighbrohoods for a ballpark. Although football ruined Anaheim for a few years and ruined Oakland apparently forever, I think they would be worse without their accessibility. Anaheim doesn't have the mass transit, but it's SoCal and i't's close to I-5 , surrounded by parking. Milwaukee is insulated from its neighborhood and is just off the freeway, whether you're driving from Waukesha or Chicago. It wasn't such a bad neighborhood when I lived outside of Milwaukee, but the the only thing I found that gave it the edge over Phoenix was the effort it took to get to a Diamonbacks game.

I never found new Comiskey a bad place to watch a ballgame, even in the upper deck. . Sometimes I see people praising parks for aspects that aren't fan-friendly. Of course, Oakland is such a bad place to watch a ballgame, and San Francisco is such a great place to watch a ballgame that the extra effort AT&T demands is more than worth it.

Maybe, but again, there isn't a sports stadium in Chicago more accessible than the Cell; it's incredibly close to the city/transportation network center, immediately adjacent to an enormous highway, and the most easily accessible by all means of public transportation. So while I'm not saying tear up all the lots and put in nothing but residences, obviously something is missing and the fact that Bridgeport has a reputation for being "dangerous and unwelcoming" plays a big part of that.

The main difference between the Cell and Wrigley, the UC, and Soldier Field is that it is the only park that is not in or abutting an affluent neighborhood yet. Take that for what it is worth:

http://danielhertz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/seg12a.png

LITTLE NELL
04-03-2014, 03:47 PM
Maybe, but again, there isn't a sports stadium in Chicago more accessible than the Cell; it's incredibly close to the city/transportation network center, immediately adjacent to an enormous highway, and the most easily accessible by all means of public transportation. So while I'm not saying tear up all the lots and put in nothing but residences, obviously something is missing and the fact that Bridgeport has a reputation for being "dangerous and unwelcoming" plays a big part of that.

The main difference between the Cell and Wrigley, the UC, and Soldier Field is that it is the only park that is not in or abutting an affluent neighborhood yet. Take that for what it is worth:

http://danielhertz.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/seg12a.png

I saw this on another site today, it started out in 1970 when the city was mostly grey representing the middle class, as the years went on the grey turned into orange and red representing much more lower income folks as there was an exodus to the burbs. The city since 1950 has lost one million citizens while the entire metro area increased by over 4,000,000.

doublem23
04-03-2014, 03:54 PM
I saw this on another site today, it started out in 1970 when the city was mostly grey representing the middle class, as the years went on the grey turned into orange and red representing much more lower income folks as there was an exodus to the burbs. The city since 1950 has lost one million citizens while the entire metro area increased by over 4,000,000.

The change in color doesn't necessarily mean people are moving in or out just that the income in those neighborhoods have not kept pace with the rest of the metro area; the color represent income against the metro area's as a whole, by the time this graphic begins in the 1970s most of the worst damage to the city in terms of suburban flight had already occurred.

Also, another major contributor to the decline of Chicago's population is the decline of family size, which is constant across much of the United States. There aren't as many large families any more. I believe the city currently has more HOUSEHOLDS now than it did during its peak population in the 1950 Census.

I think if you compare to the map from 1980 or 1990 you'll see the city, as a whole, is in better economic shape today than it was then: http://danielkayhertz.com/2014/03/31/middle-class/

TDog
04-03-2014, 05:25 PM
Maybe it's a matter of preference, but I don't know how unique that prefernece really is. I don't even know that it's a minority view. I don't have any problems with the Cell. I liked the access when I lived in Munster. In visiting Chicago later, I liked being able to take the Red Line to the ballpark. I like not having to deal with a neighborhood. People who recall Ebbets Field, the ultimate neighborhood ballpark, point out that it was an effort to get to Dodgers games.

There is a debate about the difference between suburban and urban ballparks. Suburban ballparks, which were the trend in the 1970s. Currently urban ballparks are the fasion. But the Cell seems to combine positive aspects of both. It isn't surrounded bars, but I think that's a plus.

MISoxfan
04-03-2014, 06:59 PM
The change in color doesn't necessarily mean people are moving in or out just that the income in those neighborhoods have not kept pace with the rest of the metro area; the color represent income against the metro area's as a whole, by the time this graphic begins in the 1970s most of the worst damage to the city in terms of suburban flight had already occurred.

I think if you compare to the map from 1980 or 1990 you'll see the city, as a whole, is in better economic shape today than it was then: http://danielkayhertz.com/2014/03/31/middle-class/

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion at all. The only difference shown in the maps is an increase of people making more than 125% of the city's median and an increase of people making less than 75% of the city's median. You can't have one without the other. It is not possible to draw a conclusion for how much wealth is in the city from these maps at all, only the increasing disparity of wealth.

doublem23
04-03-2014, 07:16 PM
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion at all. The only difference shown in the maps is an increase of people making more than 125% of the city's median and an increase of people making less than 75% of the city's median. You can't have one without the other. It is not possible to draw a conclusion for how much wealth is in the city from these maps at all, only the increasing disparity of wealth.

It's the metropolitan area's median income, not the city's, these aren't zero-sum maps

MISoxfan
04-03-2014, 07:56 PM
How much does that change things? Is the increased wealth in those neighborhoods coming from a better distribution of wealth with the suburbs? There isn't enough information present to say for sure, but I see a lot more red and a lot more green and a lot less grey. If there isn't a significant change in the rest of the metropolitan area it doesn't really matter that the median comes from those figures.

doublem23
04-03-2014, 08:16 PM
How much does that change things? Is the increased wealth in those neighborhoods coming from a better distribution of wealth with the suburbs? There isn't enough information present to say for sure, but I see a lot more red and a lot more green and a lot less grey. If there isn't a significant change in the rest of the metropolitan area it doesn't really matter that the median comes from those figures.

Well I also know some of this stuff because demographic data for the county is part of my job. Another thing you don't get with this map is overall population, in short, the population of those green areas has exploded (especially in the city center) whereas the population of the red areas has shrunk.

IronFisk
04-04-2014, 12:43 AM
The area is definitely on the way up, and if the Cell would have been built only 5 to 10 years later, it would have fit nicely into the redevelopment. Now it sits as a giant hulk in the middle of parking - which will remain since they bring in a hefty amount of profit for the owners (see Miller Park).

Of interest to me is the new developments east of the Ryan by IIT. That's a campus of nearly 8,000 students. The new mixed development is also taking shape as well - I park down by the police station on Michigan and stop in for Miller Pizza.

All of this despite the piss-poor design and location of the stadium (for the love of all that's good...why does it face AWAY from downtown!??!).

doublem23
04-04-2014, 05:21 AM
All of this despite the piss-poor design and location of the stadium (for the love of all that's good...why does it face AWAY from downtown!??!).

I've always heard it made the construction easier since the park uses a bunch of utilities buried underneath 35th Street that were formerly used by the old park. I don't really think it's as big of a deal, even if it faced the city, you wouldn't see much. It's not like you'd have an awesome skyline view like you do in Pittsburgh

mahagga73
04-07-2014, 06:13 PM
They're Cardinals fans down there, with a few Reds fans as you go east.

Lake county is pretty 50/50 to be honest.

Yeah most of Indiana is Reds, Cardinals.

Hitmen77
04-08-2014, 12:36 PM
http://deadspin.com/facebook-data-provide-the-most-accurate-mlb-fandom-map-1555222593/all

The Cubs dominate most of Northern Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana but surprise, surprise, look who is #1 in the city.

The Sox also were the favorites in Will, Kankakee, and Lake County, Indiana.

Am I missing something or is this based on Facebook "likes"? I'm glad to see the Sox on top in Cook and some of the other counties in the metro area, but I wouldn't exactly call that evidence that the Sox are the #1 team in Cook County.


I've always heard it made the construction easier since the park uses a bunch of utilities buried underneath 35th Street that were formerly used by the old park. I don't really think it's as big of a deal, even if it faced the city, you wouldn't see much. It's not like you'd have an awesome skyline view like you do in Pittsburgh

Agreed. Of all the problems that have plagued "New Comiskey" over the years, I think not facing downtown has had a minimal impact on the success or lack of success of the new park.

Milw
04-08-2014, 12:40 PM
Am I missing something or is this based on Facebook "likes"? I'm glad to see the Sox on top in Cook and some of the other counties in the metro area, but I wouldn't exactly call that evidence that the Sox are the #1 team in Cook County.

Nobody's saying it's 100% accurate, but given the overall market penetration of Facebook, it's surely a very, very large sample size. Yeah, it's a self-selected sample size, but I rather doubt the percentage of Sox fans who are active Facebook users is somehow larger than the percentage of Cubs fans who are active Facebook users. Unless you think that -- and I'd be quite interested to hear why you think that -- you have to assume that the data is at least crudely accurate.

doublem23
04-08-2014, 01:20 PM
Am I missing something or is this based on Facebook "likes"? I'm glad to see the Sox on top in Cook and some of the other counties in the metro area, but I wouldn't exactly call that evidence that the Sox are the #1 team in Cook County.

Which is why I included the caveat that this is according to Facebook's data

IronFisk
04-09-2014, 12:26 AM
I've always heard it made the construction easier since the park uses a bunch of utilities buried underneath 35th Street that were formerly used by the old park. I don't really think it's as big of a deal, even if it faced the city, you wouldn't see much. It's not like you'd have an awesome skyline view like you do in Pittsburgh

Understood, but utilities can be moved, and in this case it should have happened. If the Cell would face the same direction as Wrigley (NE) then you'd afford much of the upper deck a stunning view of downtown, which would be an attraction in itself. Just look at all those folks snapping shots with the skyline backdrop from the top of the ramp on 35th.

And heck, the UD could use all the help it can get!

doublem23
04-24-2014, 08:29 AM
The New York Times did an awesome job analyzing the Facebook data, breaking it down even further, by ZIP Code and shows the Sox still have a very strong hold on most of the South Side of the city as well as most of the South and Southwest suburbs and a large chunk of near NW Indiana

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/24/upshot/facebook-baseball-map.html?_r=0#6,42.943,-87.547

Really cool ****.

asindc
04-24-2014, 08:37 AM
The New York Times did an awesome job analyzing the Facebook data, breaking it down even further, by ZIP Code and shows the Sox still have a very strong hold on most of the South Side of the city as well as most of the South and Southwest suburbs and a large chunk of near NW Indiana

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/24/upshot/facebook-baseball-map.html?_r=0#6,42.943,-87.547

Really cool ****.

That's a cool map, but I think their numbers for the DC/Balt. area are off. They show no presence for the Nats in some of the MD outer suburbs, which is simply not true.

As far as Berrien Co. Mich is concerned, there is no way the Sox only have a 9% presence there. Ditto for St. Joe County Ind. (South Bend area).

Hitmen77
04-24-2014, 09:40 AM
The New York Times did an awesome job analyzing the Facebook data, breaking it down even further, by ZIP Code and shows the Sox still have a very strong hold on most of the South Side of the city as well as most of the South and Southwest suburbs and a large chunk of near NW Indiana

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/04/24/upshot/facebook-baseball-map.html?_r=0#6,42.943,-87.547

Really cool ****.

That maps shows my ZIP being pretty much evenly split Sox/Cubs. As much as I'd love that to be the case, that really doesn't match my experience with people in this area. I still feel like I'm "one of those guys who is a Sox fan" in an area where most everyone else is Cubs! Cubs! Cubs! Maybe this map reflects younger fans (teens/early 20s) who have become Sox fans thanks to 2005 and the last decade or so that seems to have brought one Cubs embarrassment after another.

All the better reason to hope that Rick Hahn & Co turn this franchise around and make the Sox a playoff team again while I hope Theo's master plan stretches on for another decade of waiting for success.

FielderJones
04-25-2014, 03:28 PM
That map shows my ZIP being pretty much evenly split Sox/Cubs. As much as I'd love that to be the case, that really doesn't match my experience with people in this area.

It seems pretty accurate for Clarendon Hills / Hinsdale. I see a lot more Sox gear on the streets close to home.