PDA

View Full Version : Bruce Levine Comment Regarding White Sox Proposed 80s Stadium Site


Brian26
06-17-2014, 07:28 PM
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/11/levine-white-sox-attendance-mystifying/

The article is about attendance, but I don't wish to discuss that. Levine adds a comment near the end of the article:

Many believed that a downtown ballpark near the east railroad tracks off of Randolph Street, now condos and office buildings, was the right place to build a a park with a sure draw every night.

What site is he talking about? Is he talking about Millenium Park, between the old tracks and LSD? Or did he mistakenly reference the old site between Canal/Clinton and Lake/Kinzie, where Fulton Station is (which was going to have a Bears/Sox stadium)? I can't seem to match this up with anything.

SI1020
06-17-2014, 08:20 PM
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/06/11/levine-white-sox-attendance-mystifying/

The article is about attendance, but I don't wish to discuss that. Levine adds a comment near the end of the article:

Many believed that a downtown ballpark near the east railroad tracks off of Randolph Street, now condos and office buildings, was the right place to build a a park with a sure draw every night.

What site is he talking about? Is he talking about Millenium Park, between the old tracks and LSD? Or did he mistakenly reference the old site between Canal/Clinton and Lake/Kinzie, where Fulton Station is (which was going to have a Bears/Sox stadium)? I can't seem to match this up with anything. I wonder the same thing. Perhaps he meant this.

http://www.stadiumpage.com/t501.html

Brian26
06-17-2014, 09:27 PM
I wonder the same thing. Perhaps he meant this.

http://www.stadiumpage.com/t501.html

That's the one that I was referring to, but it's actually located with Lake Street being the south border. It's near the tracks that go to Union Station's north end. Randolph is one block south. Perhaps that was it. It's not really on Randolph, but close enough I suppose.

Golden Sox
06-18-2014, 09:44 AM
South Side Sox has gone into detail a few times as to how the City of Chicago offered to build a new White Sox stadium in the South Loop at Roosevelt and Clark in the mid 1980's. JR wanted to build and own a stadium in Addison Illinois. Keep in mind that JR made his fortune in real estate. When that stadium deal in Addison didn't work out a couple of years later the citys offer was off the table. They wound up getting stuck at there present location with the State of Illinois picking up the deal. Not building the stadium in the South Loop has to be one of the biggest if not biggest mistake in the history of the franchise. Author/White Sox historian Richard Lindberg has written a number of articles on the subject and has pointed out that the the White Sox investors weren't at all happy about building the stadium at its present location. The stadium issue has to be the worse thing ever done under JR's ownership. It will be curious to see what happens when the lease on the stadium runs out. (I think the lease runs through 2029) Will the White Sox renew the lease or build another stadium? It's bad enough the stadium was built at its location but the stadium itself is two different parks. I've heard JR talk about the Cell and he said the lower deck of the Cell blows away Wrigley Field in every aspect. I agree with him on that point but he doesn't talk about the upper deck. The upper deck is too high. Even Ernie Harwell (former announcer of the Tigers and one of the nicest men you'll ever meet) said that the Upper Deck seats at the Cell were "as high as the moon". The upper deck was designed wrong and most people don't want to sit up there. All in all, JR's handling of the stadium issue has to be considered a flop. Anybody who thinks the White Sox won't get a new stadium should consider the fact that DePaul is going to get a new basketball arena built for them near McCormick Place. I'm hoping that the the city builds a two stadium complex for the White Sox and the Bears. Soldier Field has the smallest seating capacity in the NFL and a two stadium complex should solve all these problems.

skobabe8
06-18-2014, 09:53 AM
South Side Sox has gone into detail a few times as to how the City of Chicago offered to build a new White Sox stadium in the South Loop at Roosevelt and Clark in the mid 1980's. JR wanted to build and own a stadium in Addison Illinois. Keep in mind that JR made his fortune in real estate. When that stadium deal in Addison didn't work out a couple of years later the citys offer was off the table. They wound up getting stuck at there present location with the State of Illinois picking up the deal. Not building the stadium in the South Loop has to be one of the biggest if not biggest mistake in the history of the franchise. Author/White Sox historian Richard Lindberg has written a number of articles on the subject and has pointed out that the the White Sox investors weren't at all happy about building the stadium at its present location. The stadium issue has to be the worse thing ever done under JR's ownership. It will be curious to see what happens when the lease on the stadium runs out. (I think the lease runs through 2029) Will the White Sox renew the lease or build another stadium?

I always thought the stadium deal was very team beneficial. Not the best from a fans perspective (South Loop would have been incredible), but financially a huge win for the organization.

I don't see how the state of Illinois would WANT to renew the lease. Better start land grabbing now.

Irishsox1
06-18-2014, 10:09 AM
The closer to the city location wasn't picked because the Sox couldn't get the county and state to give a break on the real estate taxes and by break I mean not paying any real estate taxes. US Cellular Field is not on the tax rolls and therefore does not generate any real estate taxes.

kba
06-18-2014, 10:18 AM
Not building the stadium in the South Loop has to be one of the biggest if not biggest mistake in the history of the franchise.

Don't forget what that South Loop stadium was supposed to look like. It was the mid-80's, after all.


http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/4/medium/south_loop.jpg
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/showfull.php?photo=2235
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/showfull.php?photo=2235

slavko
06-18-2014, 01:01 PM
As the drawing tells us, it was a football/baseball stadium and the Bears were not interested in partnering with the Sox, IIRC. Let's not make this into a Sox Goofed Again thing.

TomBradley72
06-18-2014, 01:45 PM
As the drawing tells us, it was a football/baseball stadium and the Bears were not interested in partnering with the Sox, IIRC. Let's not make this into a Sox Goofed Again thing.

What about the Blitz?

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 01:53 PM
I'd like some feedback from some of you why you think the next stadium ( if there is one) should be in the south loop. All I'm hearing this summer is how horrible traffic is and how hard it is to get to USCF, how much easier will it be to get to a south loop location? We might get some of the tourist trade and some loop workers but how much more. When we were up there in 2012, traffic was horrible, we came up from Florida and hit Chicago at 1pm on a Saturday afternoon and since I wanted to go through the city we crawled all the way from I-80 all the way out to Arlington Hgts with traffic letting up a little after the airport. I doubt 294 would have been any better as that road is not a by-pass anymore as it was designed to be when it was built.
I for one wanted the Addison deal to go through, I think the Sox would have built up a much larger fan base and would have drawn way more fans than they have at 35th and Shields and would have gained quite a few more fans who would never venture into the city to see a ball game.
I use the Anaheim Angels as a perfect example along with the Texas Rangers, both drawing very nice in the burbs and don't forget the Braves who will be leaving Atlanta for a new stadium in the suburbs.

DSpivack
06-18-2014, 02:30 PM
I'd like some feedback from some of you why you think the next stadium ( if there is one) should be in the south loop. All I'm hearing this summer is how horrible traffic is and how hard it is to get to USCF, how much easier will it be to get to a south loop location? We might get some of the tourist trade and some loop workers but how much more. When we were up there in 2012, traffic was horrible, we came up from Florida and hit Chicago at 1pm on a Saturday afternoon and since I wanted to go through the city we crawled all the way from I-80 all the way out to Arlington Hgts with traffic letting up a little after the airport. I doubt 294 would have been any better as that road is not a by-pass anymore as it was designed to be when it was built.
I for one wanted the Addison deal to go through, I think the Sox would have built up a much larger fan base and would have drawn way more fans than they have at 35th and Shields and would have gained quite a few more fans who would never venture into the city to see a ball game.
I use the Anaheim Angels as a perfect example along with the Texas Rangers, both drawing very nice in the burbs and don't forget the Braves who will be leaving Atlanta for a new stadium in the suburbs.
I think that move for the Braves is going to be a disaster, if it ever even happens.

I don't think an Addison ballpark would've necessarily worked out, either. I probably would have never become a Sox fan if I had to drive to every game--I simply would not have attended (m)any games growing up and probably would have been a Cubs fan.

bunkaroo
06-18-2014, 02:33 PM
Living in Naperville, I can promise you if the Sox were somewhere like Addison, I would have at least a half-season package if not a full season package.

I was born in Bridgeport and grew up on the SW side, and I hate driving into the area by the ballpark now. 55 is always screwed these days it seems, and Archer isn't much better.

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 02:34 PM
I think that move for the Braves is going to be a disaster, if it ever even happens.

I don't think an Addison ballpark would've necessarily worked out, either. I probably would have never become a Sox fan if I had to drive to every game--I simply would not have attended (m)any games growing up and probably would have been a Cubs fan.

Why do you think the Braves move would be a disaster?
I'm sure the Braves have done studies of where their fan base is and from what I read that's why they are looking to Atlanta's northern burbs.

DSpivack
06-18-2014, 02:44 PM
Why do you think the Braves move would be a disaster?
I think the site they selected sounds like a traffic nightmare, plus the deal involved sounds super shady. The city is beginning to fill in with development, more and more young people with money are moving back to the city, so this seems the wrong time to move out to the suburbs. Not to mention that Atlanta's development is wheel and spoke, extending out in every direction surrounding the highways in and out of the city. Turner Field was at least centrally located downtown, the Marietta location will be more difficult to get to, especially from suburbs south and east of the city.

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 02:47 PM
Living in Naperville, I can promise you if the Sox were somewhere like Addison, I would have at least a half-season package if not a full season package.

I was born in Bridgeport and grew up on the SW side, and I hate driving into the area by the ballpark now. 55 is always screwed these days it seems, and Archer isn't much better.

We lived in Wheaton at the time of the new stadium issues and if the Sox had moved out to Addison and though I worked evenings we would have doubled the amount of games we attended.

skobabe8
06-18-2014, 03:32 PM
Why do you think the Braves move would be a disaster?
I'm sure the Braves have done studies of where their fan base is and from what I read that's why they are looking to Atlanta's northern burbs.

I think it was the braves team president who came out and said a few weeks ago if their vote to move was made public, it wouldn't have passed. It's a super shady deal that most in Atlanta hate. But money talks.

I never hear anyone say USCF is difficult to get to. It's one of the easiest sports venues in Chicago to get to. That said, I would love it to be picked up and dropped in the South Loop.

jdm2662
06-18-2014, 03:53 PM
Don't forget what that South Loop stadium was supposed to look like. It was the mid-80's, after all.


http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/data/4/medium/south_loop.jpg
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/showfull.php?photo=2235
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/gallery/showfull.php?photo=2235

And had that thing been built, guess what, both teams would've tried to get out of it about ten years ago, just like every other such stadium that was built in the 70s and 80s. There is a reason why those multi-purpose stadium/domes didn't last. They sucked.

The Sox didn't screw anything up with this. Mickey Boy McCaskey didn't want to share anything with the Sox anyway. The Sox had no problems selling tickets season tickets prior to the strike nor did they when they were in contention. There are two teams in town, and the other team has a competitive advantage over the Sox. It's just life. Just go to whatever games you can have fun.

skobabe8
06-18-2014, 03:57 PM
I assume that was the Tropicana Field original design. Funny how the Sox almost ended up playing there anyway.

jdm2662
06-18-2014, 03:58 PM
I'd like some feedback from some of you why you think the next stadium ( if there is one) should be in the south loop. All I'm hearing this summer is how horrible traffic is and how hard it is to get to USCF, how much easier will it be to get to a south loop location? We might get some of the tourist trade and some loop workers but how much more. When we were up there in 2012, traffic was horrible, we came up from Florida and hit Chicago at 1pm on a Saturday afternoon and since I wanted to go through the city we crawled all the way from I-80 all the way out to Arlington Hgts with traffic letting up a little after the airport. I doubt 294 would have been any better as that road is not a by-pass anymore as it was designed to be when it was built.
I for one wanted the Addison deal to go through, I think the Sox would have built up a much larger fan base and would have drawn way more fans than they have at 35th and Shields and would have gained quite a few more fans who would never venture into the city to see a ball game.
I use the Anaheim Angels as a perfect example along with the Texas Rangers, both drawing very nice in the burbs and don't forget the Braves who will be leaving Atlanta for a new stadium in the suburbs.

Traffic has always sucked during rush hour. It's never going to change. You just have to know to get around it or allow more time. It's just an excuse more than anything else. When I got off work at a decent time prior to kids, I went to a decent amount of week night games. When I no longer got off work early and had to take care of my son, I don't go to weeknight games anymore. the ball park is located by a eight lane highway and by three train lines. There are also other ways to get there, too. When the Sox sell more season tickets, attendance will be better. Until then, enjoy what you can and have fun.

But, to answer your question, the South Loop location really isn't a convenient factor at all. It is just cool to be there. I can assure you driving to Lincoln Park/Lakeview is an even bigger nightmare than to Bridgeport. But, the Cubs have a competitive advantage, so they sell more tickets.

skobabe8
06-18-2014, 04:04 PM
the ball park is located by a eight lane highway and by three train lines. There are also other ways to get there, too.


Such as... Reggies offers a free bus ride to and from the game. And free tickets on Sundays.

http://www.reggieslive.com/busrides/

doublem23
06-18-2014, 04:06 PM
Traffic has always sucked during rush hour. It's never going to change. You just have to know to get around it or allow more time. It's just an excuse more than anything else. When I got off work at a decent time prior to kids, I went to a decent amount of week night games. When I no longer got off work early and had to take care of my son, I don't go to weeknight games anymore. the ball park is located by a eight lane highway and by three train lines. There are also other ways to get there, too. When the Sox sell more season tickets, attendance will be better. Until then, enjoy what you can and have fun.

But, to answer your question, the South Loop location really isn't a convenient factor at all. It is just cool to be there.

I think it is, it's basically at the center of the metro area, yeah traffic sucks, but traffic will suck trying to go to Addison or Rosemont or any other location. Plus, the South Loop is much more easily accessible by public transit.

I think the Fire are a very good warning for teams really considering moving out of the city; they are all but forgotten in Chicago, which is a pretty good soccer market. And I know, the MLS is a minor league, I'm not saying the Sox would sink to that level, but there is a clear drop off, IMO, in how much attention they receive ever since leaving Soldier Field.

There's a reason Ricketts and the Cubs keep trying to spend $500 million of their own money to rehab Wrigley Field instead of taking a free payday from Rosemont, they clearly know the long term ramifications of moving to the burbs are not worth the short term gain.

I think it's very short-sighted to think that the problems with Sox Park are specifically the accessibility of location; people are more than willing to fight that same traffic to go to Wrigley, the UC, or Soldier Field, all of which are much less convenient (at least for drivers) than Sox Park.

jdm2662
06-18-2014, 04:26 PM
I think it is, it's basically at the center of the metro area, yeah traffic sucks, but traffic will suck trying to go to Addison or Rosemont or any other location. Plus, the South Loop is much more easily accessible by public transit.

Compared to where the ball park is now, I don't see it being that much of a difference. But, I drive so much all over the metro area, it doesn't phase me that much.

I think the Fire are a very good warning for teams really considering moving out of the city; they are all but forgotten in Chicago, which is a pretty good soccer market. And I know, the MLS is a minor league, I'm not saying the Sox would sink to that level, but there is a clear drop off, IMO, in how much attention they receive ever since leaving Soldier Field.

As someone who followed the team hard core during their hey day, the media attention the Fire got never was that great to begin with. They got about the same attention when they were playing in Naperville when SF was being rebuilt. I honestly didn't see much difference when they moved back to SF and then moved to Bridgeview. The Fire stopped being an elite team around the same time the Blackhawks became one. The stadium itself is only a mile or so from the city limits. It's not like it's in St. Charles (but I'm fully aware it's not close to the loop). The team simply hasn't been good in a while. The team was doing just fine when they were making the playoffs AND had marketable players like Blanco and Brian McBride. They also blew chances by not winning the title in 2000 and 2003. If they still played in the city, they would still be getting the same treatment they do today.

There's a reason Ricketts and the Cubs keep trying to spend $500 million of their own money to rehab Wrigley Field instead of taking a free payday from Rosemont, they clearly know the long term ramifications of moving to the burbs are not worth the short term gain.

I personally think Rosemont will work in the short term as you mentioned. It's a decent location by the blue line. However, if the team doesn't win consistently, they can't sell Wrigley Field anymore.

I think it's very short-sighted to think that the problems with Sox Park are specifically the location; people are more than willing to fight that same traffic to go to Wrigley, the UC, or Soldier Field, all of which are much less convenient (at least for drivers) than Sox Park.

Right, it's just an excuse, as already mentioned. Traffic by Wrigley is much worse than it is by Comiskey. There are two teams in this city. The Cubs are the more popular team with a competitive advantage over the Sox. It's not going to change. I remember some were worried when the Sox didn't win the division in 2012 as it would affect ticket sales for next year. At first, i didn't think much of it. It was simply because they weren't built to win in the future. However, I see the point now. Winning the division in 2012 may have increase season tickets for next season. However, it might have been moot after last season's disaster.

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 04:30 PM
I think it is, it's basically at the center of the metro area, yeah traffic sucks, but traffic will suck trying to go to Addison or Rosemont or any other location. Plus, the South Loop is much more easily accessible by public transit.

I think the Fire are a very good warning for teams really considering moving out of the city; they are all but forgotten in Chicago, which is a pretty good soccer market. And I know, the MLS is a minor league, I'm not saying the Sox would sink to that level, but there is a clear drop off, IMO, in how much attention they receive ever since leaving Soldier Field.

There's a reason Ricketts and the Cubs keep trying to spend $500 million of their own money to rehab Wrigley Field instead of taking a free payday from Rosemont, they clearly know the long term ramifications of moving to the burbs are not worth the short term gain.

I think it's very short-sighted to think that the problems with Sox Park are specifically the accessibility of location; people are more than willing to fight that same traffic to go to Wrigley, the UC, or Soldier Field, all of which are much less convenient (at least for drivers) than Sox Park.

Didn't someone post a few weeks ago that Wrigley is in the middle of a very affluent area where 500,000 people live within a 2 mile radius ( walking distance) with incomes between 100,000 and 500,000 dollars. Around USCF that number is about 50,000. That is probably the number one reason Wrigley is a cash cow.

Noneck
06-18-2014, 04:35 PM
People constantly talk about public transportation to the ball park, that does not appeal to families going to games. There is a family market out there that isnt being met by the two current ball parks. Only a suburban stadium would meet those needs.

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 04:44 PM
People constantly talk about public transportation to the ball park, that does not appeal to families going to games. There is a family market out there that isnt being met by the two current ball parks. Only a suburban stadium would meet those needs.

That's why I used Angel Stadium as an example of a team doing very well away from the city. I've been to about 5 games out there in the last 12 years and see many families and they all drive to get there. Even though Dodger Stadium is only a few miles from downtown LA just about everyone drives there also.
I know it's a different culture out there ( just got back from there on Monday) as people think nothing of a 50 mile drive to work but I still think the Sox would have been much better off in the burbs than at the present location.

doublem23
06-18-2014, 04:46 PM
Didn't someone post a few weeks ago that Wrigley is in the middle of a very affluent area where 500,000 people live within a 2 mile radius ( walking distance) with incomes between 100,000 and 500,000 dollars. Around USCF that number is about 50,000. That is probably the number one reason Wrigley is a cash cow.

Probably but a South Loop location would probably equal such a number, or at least come much closer than anywhere you would find in the suburbs.

People constantly talk about public transportation to the ball park, that does not appeal to families going to games. There is a family market out there that isnt being met by the two current ball parks. Only a suburban stadium would meet those needs.

So that's why you appeal to all different kinds of fans. Putting the park in the burbs might be more easy on some families but why would anyone else ever go to a game again? Again, plenty of families make the trek to Wrigley, or the United Center, or Soldier Field. Obviously if they're avoiding the Cell it is for other reasons.

doublem23
06-18-2014, 04:48 PM
That's why I used Angel Stadium as an example of a team doing very well away from the city. I've been to about 5 games out there in the last 12 years and see many families and they all drive to get there. Even though Dodger Stadium is only a few miles from downtown LA just about everyone drives there also.

That's because Los Angeles has basically has the public transportation system equal to that of a small town in the third world.

jdm2662
06-18-2014, 04:49 PM
People constantly talk about public transportation to the ball park, that does not appeal to families going to games. There is a family market out there that isnt being met by the two current ball parks. Only a suburban stadium would meet those needs.

The Sox actually do a very good job of this. Sundays are catered to families. I took my two year old to the Saturday night game before Mother's Day. We got to march in the parade before the game. And, we were able to have him walk on the concourse and in the Fundamentals Deck. But, Sat night games are the only games I can take him to. Day games are during his naps, and I'm sure not going to take him to a weeknight game. By the time the game starts, he be ready for bed.

The Cubs don't cater to families because they don't need to. That doesn't mean families don't go, but between their 20 something partying crowd and tourists, they don't need to tap into another demographic.

TomBradley72
06-18-2014, 04:50 PM
People constantly talk about public transportation to the ball park, that does not appeal to families going to games. There is a family market out there that isnt being met by the two current ball parks. Only a suburban stadium would meet those needs.

Not really working for the Chicago Fire- I'm convinced their attendance would be higher if they had built in the city- downtown Chicago is a great destination- and I think it adds value to anyone looking to go to a sporting event (whether with family or friends).

doublem23
06-18-2014, 04:51 PM
The Cubs don't cater to families because they don't need to. That doesn't mean families don't go, but between their 20 something partying crowd and tourists, they don't need to tap into another demographic.

I really don't know where you guys are getting this idea the Cubs don't market or cater to families with kids because it is obviously not true. OK, maybe the bleachers aren't packed with kids but go to any Cubs game and you'll see plenty of parents with kids ranging from toddler to teen.

jdm2662
06-18-2014, 04:51 PM
That's because Los Angeles has basically has the public transportation system equal to that of a small town in the third world.

After driving a night in LA traffic and experiencing LAX, I will never complain about Chicago traffic or OHare ever again...

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 04:51 PM
That's because Los Angeles has basically has the public transportation system equal to that of a small town in the third world.

Not quite that bad, in fact I saw more buses on last weeks trip than ever before.
Have to mention that besides seeing my son and the grandkids we got to eat Italian Beef at Portillo's in Buena Park, a great treat.

Golden Sox
06-18-2014, 04:55 PM
We're never going to find out but looking back at a White Sox move to Addison Illinois, I think it would of been a BIG mistake to move there. There is absolutely no public transportation in that neck of the woods. I've read were 20% of White Sox fans use public transportation to go to the games. The only reason that I can think of as to why JR wanted to move to Addison is simply because he would of owned the property and the stadium. I wish they would of built there stadium in the South Loop.

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 05:05 PM
We're never going to find out but looking back at a White Sox move to Addison Illinois, I think it would of been a BIG mistake to move there. There is absolutely no public transportation in that neck of the woods. I've read were 20% of White Sox fans use public transportation to go to the games. The only reason that I can think of as to why JR wanted to move to Addison is simply because he would of owned the property and the stadium. I wish they would of built there stadium in the South Loop.

IIRC, Reinsdorf and Co did extensive research on a move to the burbs and the results said the Addison area was the best spot for the majority of Sox fans.

DSpivack
06-18-2014, 05:06 PM
That's because Los Angeles has basically has the public transportation system equal to that of a small town in the third world.

LA will likely always have a very car-dependent culture, but they've done a very good job in the last couple decades of building out their mass transit system.

Not really working for the Chicago Fire- I'm convinced their attendance would be higher if they had built in the city- downtown Chicago is a great destination- and I think it adds value to anyone looking to go to a sporting event (whether with family or friends).

As someone who followed the team hard core during their hey day, the media attention the Fire got never was that great to begin with. They got about the same attention when they were playing in Naperville when SF was being rebuilt. I honestly didn't see much difference when they moved back to SF and then moved to Bridgeview. The Fire stopped being an elite team around the same time the Blackhawks became one. The stadium itself is only a mile or so from the city limits. It's not like it's in St. Charles (but I'm fully aware it's not close to the loop). The team simply hasn't been good in a while. The team was doing just fine when they were making the playoffs AND had marketable players like Blanco and Brian McBride. They also blew chances by not winning the title in 2000 and 2003. If they still played in the city, they would still be getting the same treatment they do today.

As for the Fire, Toyota Park is annoying to get to from a lot of the Chicago area and the public transportation options are non-existent (though they do run those $10 buses from a half dozen bars or so). Comparing the Fire now to their history I agree that lack of success is probably their biggest problem right now. Put some investment back into the team, and there is no reason they shouldn't start succeeding again. That said, when comparing the Fire to the rest of the league, the game has grown since the league's inception in 1997. Besides building their own stadium, as nearly every other team has done, they haven't really grown their brand in what admittedly is a very difficult market for sports (much moreso than Portland or Seattle, for that matter). Like their one-time rivals DC United, what were once model organizations sitting at or near the top of the league every year seem to have stagnated and seen the rest of the league, including a number of new teams, pass them by.
That's why I used Angel Stadium as an example of a team doing very well away from the city. I've been to about 5 games out there in the last 12 years and see many families and they all drive to get there. Even though Dodger Stadium is only a few miles from downtown LA just about everyone drives there also.
I know it's a different culture out there ( just got back from there on Monday) as people think nothing of a 50 mile drive to work but I still think the Sox would have been much better off in the burbs than at the present location.

The Angels only started really drawing well when they completely renovated the park and had a billionaire owner spend a ton of money on payroll. I think that's the biggest reason for their attendance success. Although Orange County is not LA; you could put the stadium anywhere in the large, populous county and call it the suburbs, but it's also a huge area containing a lot of people. I don't think it's quite analogous to a suburban Chicago location.

Brian26
06-18-2014, 05:26 PM
Putting a stadium out in the suburbs would bury the franchise with the Chicago media, in addition to making it a less attractive place for players who live downtown.

Brian26
06-18-2014, 05:36 PM
The Angels only started really drawing well when they completely renovated the park and had a billionaire owner spend a ton of money on payroll. I think that's the biggest reason for their attendance success. Although Orange County is not LA; you could put the stadium anywhere in the large, populous county and call it the suburbs, but it's also a huge area containing a lot of people. I don't think it's quite analogous to a suburban Chicago location.

Exactly. It is nowhere close to the same situation. The comparison between Orange County and Disneyland to DuPage County is comical.


This is a classic grass-is-greener argument. The Sox need to remain within the City limits. Moving farther away from the downtown area would be a disastrous move.

DSpivack
06-18-2014, 05:55 PM
Exactly. It is nowhere close to the same situation. The comparison between Orange County and Disneyland to DuPage County is comical.


This is a classic grass-is-greener argument. The Sox need to remain within the City limits. Moving farther away from the downtown area would be a disastrous move.
Also, I think it's kind of cool that the Sox have played in the same neighborhood for so long. I'm not sure how many other teams can claim that (I think the Pirates, for one).

Golden Sox
06-18-2014, 06:18 PM
JR also did extensive research that showed White Sox fans would buy Sportsvision in 1982. Sportsvision might of worked if the Chicagoland area had been wired for cable. The area wasn't wired for cable and it flopped. There's not only no public transportation in the Addison area, alot of the White Sox fans that are in Oak Lawn, Orland Park, Tinley Park and other Southern suburbs are not exactly close to Addison. The entire perception of the White Sox would of been different with a South Loop ballpark. The White Sox would of been viewed as a Chicago team as opposed to a South Side team. The owners of the bad guys on the northside have said over and over that 40% of their attendance comes from out of state. Those people don't want to come to the Southside of Chicago. We would of drawn alot more out of towners with a South Loop location.

TommyJohn
06-18-2014, 06:29 PM
Putting a stadium out in the suburbs would bury the franchise with the Chicago media, in addition to making it a less attractive place for players who live downtown.

You mean it isn't buried already?

But I think you're right. The media sneers at the Sox enough as it is.

roylestillman
06-18-2014, 06:39 PM
The window is starting to close on a South Loop site for a new ballpark. The only large parcel left is the old rail yards south of Roosevelt to 18th, the River to the Rock Island (Metra) tracks on the east. Given the recent late blooming success of the Roosevelt Collection, I can't believe it will be long before that parcel is sold and developed. The Ryan, Stevenson and Kennedy can all feed into that site easily, and the announced Wells Street Connection will be an easy route from the Loop. The distance from the Loop is no different than the United Center, which does OK.

I think the drum beat for a new park will begin soon. The Cell is either the 8th or 9th oldest park in the MLB. I wouldn't doubt that losses from bad weather start a retractable dome discussion. The appetite for public funding is just not there, but a new owner with deep pockets may make a privately funded stadium feasible.

Hitmen77
06-18-2014, 06:47 PM
The question to me isn't whether the Sox would have drawn better at a suburban location (the answer to that is no). It's whether they would have drawn better if they built at a South Loop location.

Since USCF is so easy to get to from the Loop, why would the Sox have been any better at a South Loop location? Sure, everyone agrees that the skyline view from a South Loop park could have been pretty cool. But, would that location make the Sox that much better off than at 35th St?

Putting a stadium out in the suburbs would bury the franchise with the Chicago media, in addition to making it a less attractive place for players who live downtown.

You mean it isn't buried already?

But I think you're right. The media sneers at the Sox enough as it is.

Agreed. It's already bad enough with the media (especially before 2005) acting as if the Cubs are the "real" Chicago sports team and the Sox are irrelevant. It would have been 100x worse if the Sox had moved to Addison.

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 06:52 PM
JR also did extensive research that showed White Sox fans would buy Sportsvision in 1982. Sportsvision might of worked if the Chicagoland area had been wired for cable. The area wasn't wired for cable and it flopped. There's not only no public transportation in the Addison area, alot of the White Sox fans that are in Oak Lawn, Orland Park, Tinley Park and other Southern suburbs are not exactly close to Addison. The entire perception of the White Sox would of been different with a South Loop ballpark. The White Sox would of been viewed as a Chicago team as opposed to a South Side team. The owners of the bad guys on the northside have said over and over that 40% of their attendance comes from out of state. Those people don't want to come to the Southside of Chicago. We would of drawn alot more out of towners with a South Loop location.

I'm not so sure about any extensive research on Sportsvision, I think that was all Einhorn's idea and because he was a TV sports genius he thought Sportvision would fly. Horrible idea but because I was a die hard I was one of the idiots that bought into it.

doublem23
06-18-2014, 07:05 PM
IIRC, Reinsdorf and Co did extensive research on a move to the burbs and the results said the Addison area was the best spot for the majority of Sox fans.

Yeah, and their backup plan was to move to Tampa Bay and look what a disaster that's been.

Brian26
06-18-2014, 07:25 PM
Yeah, and their backup plan was to move to Tampa Bay and look what a disaster that's been.

Also of note, their research in the mid 80s would be irrelevant to the current day circumstances, whereas downtown Chicago in the mid 80s was a ghost-town after 6pm. The development, both residential and commercial, in the past 15 years was unforeseen. I know there are studies stating that there has been a population decline in the city, but the core city center has seen nothing but growth which would support a new stadium.

I'm not sold on the traffic being any better. For a family to get there from Naperville, 95% of the trip is going to be the same. In fact it might be worse. That Roosevelt Corridor is a zoo around 6pm.

LITTLE NELL
06-18-2014, 07:39 PM
Yeah, and their backup plan was to move to Tampa Bay and look what a disaster that's been.

What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.

dickallen15
06-18-2014, 07:47 PM
The window is starting to close on a South Loop site for a new ballpark. The only large parcel left is the old rail yards south of Roosevelt to 18th, the River to the Rock Island (Metra) tracks on the east. Given the recent late blooming success of the Roosevelt Collection, I can't believe it will be long before that parcel is sold and developed. The Ryan, Stevenson and Kennedy can all feed into that site easily, and the announced Wells Street Connection will be an easy route from the Loop. The distance from the Loop is no different than the United Center, which does OK.

I think the drum beat for a new park will begin soon. The Cell is either the 8th or 9th oldest park in the MLB. I wouldn't doubt that losses from bad weather start a retractable dome discussion. The appetite for public funding is just not there, but a new owner with deep pockets may make a privately funded stadium feasible.

Not to mention a lot closer to all downtown train stations and the thousands of workers who would be able to almost walk to a weeknight game.

jdm2662
06-18-2014, 07:55 PM
What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.

It doesn't matter where they are. There are going to be issues getting to the stadium no matter what. Addison would've been nice for myself since I live in the near west burbs. I probably would've been in a season ticket holder in my 20s and single days. However, I'm just one person who lives in the West burbs. If they built the stadium in say, Orland Park, it be a worse location for myself than the current stadium. The stadium may not be in a cool neighborhood, but the accessibility is the easiest of all the stadiums in Chicago. Traffic around the ball park really isn't THAT bad considering I've lived by the Eisenhower most of my life...

Traffic would still suck if it's in the west/south loop or anywhere else. It's just life. It's been proven many times if the Sox aren't expected to contend, their advance sales for non-prime games are rather poor. It's life and it would be the same way if they played anywhere else in the area.

jdm2662
06-18-2014, 08:11 PM
As for the Fire, Toyota Park is annoying to get to from a lot of the Chicago area and the public transportation options are non-existent (though they do run those $10 buses from a half dozen bars or so). Comparing the Fire now to their history I agree that lack of success is probably their biggest problem right now. Put some investment back into the team, and there is no reason they shouldn't start succeeding again. That said, when comparing the Fire to the rest of the league, the game has grown since the league's inception in 1997. Besides building their own stadium, as nearly every other team has done, they haven't really grown their brand in what admittedly is a very difficult market for sports (much moreso than Portland or Seattle, for that matter). Like their one-time rivals DC United, what were once model organizations sitting at or near the top of the league every year seem to have stagnated and seen the rest of the league, including a number of new teams, pass them by.

You can also throw in NE, too. They never got over the hump, but the Fire and the Revs had some memorable playoff series year after year.

The Fire sold out both of their playoff games in 2009. They also drew over 17K for their playoff games in 2007 and 2008. Only one playoff game at SF was attended more, and that was 1998 when they were the new cool thing. Playoff games never did so well because they were hard to promote in a short time (similar to what the Wolves go through). The media coverage never was great to begin with. The team just hasn't been very good in the past five years. The moving out of the city topic is over exaggerated.

DSpivack
06-18-2014, 08:55 PM
You can also throw in NE, too. They never got over the hump, but the Fire and the Revs had some memorable playoff series year after year.

The Fire sold out both of their playoff games in 2009. They also drew over 17K for their playoff games in 2007 and 2008. Only one playoff game at SF was attended more, and that was 1998 when they were the new cool thing. Playoff games never did so well because they were hard to promote in a short time (similar to what the Wolves go through). The media coverage never was great to begin with. The team just hasn't been very good in the past five years. The moving out of the city topic is over exaggerated.
The Revs actually have a decent team this year, but they might be in an even worse situation as an organization considering their location. It's one thing to get fans out to Foxboro for the Patriots 8 times a year, on weekends in the fall, but it's quite another for Revs games.

I think all other things being equal, a more centrally located stadium would've been better for the Fire. But I don't know where that would be, and the team got a pretty sweet deal from a tiny suburb. Whether it's the park or the team on the field or the organization as a whole, I look on at other MLS teams, many of which are much newer, with a bit of envy.

Railsplitter
06-18-2014, 09:31 PM
I'm closer to Addison to any point in the city. What might not work with some would work well with others.

SI1020
06-18-2014, 09:34 PM
Also, I think it's kind of cool that the Sox have played in the same neighborhood for so long. I'm not sure how many other teams can claim that (I think the Pirates, for one). The Pirates played at Exposition Park 1882-3, Recreation Park 1884-90, and a newer Exposition Park 1891-1909. Those parks were located in the city of Allegheny which was annexed by Pittsburgh in 1907. It is Pittsburgh's north side. The Pirates moved into a brand spanking new baseball stadium Forbes Field on June 30, 1909. Forbes Field was located in the Oakland neighborhood in the eastern part of the city. Oakland is a high density urban neighborhood where the University of Pittsburgh is located. In 1970 the Pirates returned to their north side roots with the opening of Three Rivers Stadium. They moved into the impressive PNC Park, also on the north side in 2001.

FielderJones
06-18-2014, 09:44 PM
What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.

I think the Sox are better off in the city.

It's going to be Reinsdorf's successor that will have to deal with a new ballpark.

Golden Sox
06-18-2014, 10:00 PM
I read a interesting article last year about one of the politicians from Milwaukee. He said if they had to do it all over again they would of built Miller Park in downtown Milwaukee. He said there's one location in the downtown area where the park could of been built. He said the city of Milwaukee rushed to build a park without giving alot of thought to it. Building stadiums in the downtown areas of the city brings people downtown and keeps them downtown if they decide to go to a game after work. This has worked for most cities and I wish the White Sox had done the same thing.

DSpivack
06-18-2014, 10:07 PM
The Pirates played at Exposition Park 1882-3, Recreation Park 1884-90, and a newer Exposition Park 1891-1909. Those parks were located in the city of Allegheny which was annexed by Pittsburgh in 1907. It is Pittsburgh's north side. The Pirates moved into a brand spanking new baseball stadium Forbes Field on June 30, 1909. Forbes Field was located in the Oakland neighborhood in the eastern part of the city. Oakland is a high density urban neighborhood where the University of Pittsburgh is located. In 1970 the Pirates returned to their north side roots with the opening of Three Rivers Stadium. They moved into the impressive PNC Park, also on the north side in 2001.
Thanks! I was looking into this a couple weeks ago and either forgot or got that wrong. I do remember there being 1 or 2 teams that have played in more or less the same location longer than the Sox, but I don't remember who those teams were.

Steelrod
06-19-2014, 07:00 AM
I'm not so sure about any extensive research on Sportsvision, I think that was all Einhorn's idea and because he was a TV sports genius he thought Sportvision would fly. Horrible idea but because I was a die hard I was one of the idiots that bought into it.

Pay to watch sports on television. A genius idea, but before it's time. Look thru your channel guide and see how much of it is there now!

WhiffleBall
06-19-2014, 08:43 AM
The window is starting to close on a South Loop site for a new ballpark. The only large parcel left is the old rail yards south of Roosevelt to 18th, the River to the Rock Island (Metra) tracks on the east. Given the recent late blooming success of the Roosevelt Collection, I can't believe it will be long before that parcel is sold and developed. The Ryan, Stevenson and Kennedy can all feed into that site easily, and the announced Wells Street Connection will be an easy route from the Loop. The distance from the Loop is no different than the United Center, which does OK.

I think the drum beat for a new park will begin soon. The Cell is either the 8th or 9th oldest park in the MLB. I wouldn't doubt that losses from bad weather start a retractable dome discussion. The appetite for public funding is just not there, but a new owner with deep pockets may make a privately funded stadium feasible.


I would guess that the talk for a new Sox stadium won't begin until the US Cellular sponsorship runs out at the very earliest, which is around 2023? It also would never happen as long as JR is running things. A deep pocketed new owner would probably love the idea of moving to the South Loop but the state of IL might make them an incredible deal to stay at 35th. The state will not have much leverage when the stadium deal comes to an end. They would be stuck with this massive stadium that would see little to no use if the Sox move.

I live in Frankfort and have no problem with the current location (other than wishing there was a skyline view). Tons of families take metra to games and use the 35th stop. It's around a 30 minute drive from most south suburbs which is where a large majority of Sox fans live.

The condition of the current stadium is great. While it does not feel brand new, everything is nice and clean. The seats are fine, restrooms are clean, and there definitely is not that rundown feeling that you get at Wrigley or old Comiskey. It would almost be a crime to tear the place down any time soon.

I would also love to see this so called "study" that said that Addison would have been the ideal spot to build a new stadium in relationship to where the majority of sox fans lived at the time. I'm 100% sure JR the tax lawyer/real estate developer picked the Addison location for financial reasons and the study was fabricated.

Hitmen77
06-19-2014, 08:45 AM
What I'm seeing here for the most part is that WSI members who live in the city think that the Sox are better off somewhere in Chicago while suburban residents feel the opposite.

I live in DuPage and the Addison park would have been more convenient for me personally. But, I still think it would have been a disaster overall. I'm willing to bet that many suburbanites think the Sox were better off staying in the city than moving to the suburbs.

I have learned long ago to not believe JR and EE when it comes to what they learned from market research.

Pay to watch sports on television. A genius idea, but before it's time. Look thru your channel guide and see how much of it is there now!

Looking through my channel guide, I see MLB teams that show their games on basic cable, not high priced premium channels. Paying $15/month (equivalent to $35 today) for one poorly rated team (especially with a crosstown competitor showing their games for free) was a complete failure in 1982 and it still would be a complete failure today.

As usual with Sox ownership, there was a kernel of truth to what they were trying to do, but they were totally tone deaf to the reaction of the fans and badly missed the mark.

I suppose if Einhorn was truly allowed to implement his genius unfettered by anyone else, the Sox would be making a fortune playing on a premium channel in Tampa/St. Pete.

Golden Sox
06-19-2014, 09:55 AM
Don't let anybody tell you differently, Einhorn wanted to move the White Sox to St. Pete. When the White Sox agreed to stay in Chicago, Einhorn sold virtually all of his White Sox stock to JR. He then disappeared from the scene in Chicago and moved to Arizona. I was surprised to see him at the World Series parade. He is rarely here in Chicago. Maybe he was badly wounded by the Sportsvision fiasco. He thought the franchise was better off in Florida. He didn't like playing second fiddle to the Cubs here. I have no doubt in my mind that he would of still rather moved the team to Florida. He would of rather been a big fish in a small pond than play second fiddle to the Cubs. He even threw a dig at White Sox fans the week of the final stadium vote when he said "I really don't know how much of a fanbase the White Sox have in Chicago". Former sportswriter Jerome Holtzman responded by saying'' Did he forget the 2 million plus people the White Sox drew in 1983 and 1984"? He not only was wrong about Sportsvision but he was also wrong about St. Pete. The present ownerships handling of Sportsvision and the stadium issue have hurt the franchise badly.

SoxFanCPA
06-19-2014, 12:18 PM
When I lived in Beverly, I attended games all the time, but now that I'm in the suburbs, the travel time is always above an hour. I just don't want to sit in traffic anymore. A suburban stadium would be great for me.

SaltyPretzel
06-19-2014, 12:31 PM
Not really working for the Chicago Fire- I'm convinced their attendance would be higher if they had built in the city- downtown Chicago is a great destination- and I think it adds value to anyone looking to go to a sporting event (whether with family or friends).

I think they should have built the Bears a new stadium south of Soldier Field and downsize Soldier Field for soccer.

SI1020
06-19-2014, 12:39 PM
When I lived in Beverly, I attended games all the time, but now that I'm in the suburbs, the travel time is always above an hour. I just don't want to sit in traffic anymore. A suburban stadium would be great for me. OK but the suburbs of Chicago are so vast that depending on the location of a new suburban stadium you might miss the commute you have now.

doublem23
06-19-2014, 12:42 PM
OK but the suburbs of Chicago are so vast that depending on the location of a new suburban stadium you might miss the commute you have now.

Right exactly not to mention the entire transit network here is completely terrible for inter-suburban travel. When I visit my in-laws in the NW burbs it blows my mind how hard it is to get anywhere.

hawkjt
06-19-2014, 12:42 PM
I hope that Reinsdorf sells out before the lease expires, to someone like Mark Cuban, a billionaire who will build a new stadium with a retractable roof in the South Loop. He got shut out of the Cub purchase, but he knows that these franchises do not depreciate, and are a decent investment.

fram40
06-19-2014, 12:55 PM
I hope that Reinsdorf sells out before the lease expires, to someone like Mark Cuban, a billionaire who will build a new stadium with a retractable roof in the South Loop. He got shut out of the Cub purchase, but he knows that these franchises do not depreciate, and are a decent investment.

I just hope JR sells. Soon

I work in Elk Grove - weeknight games are at least a one hour commute. Just sitting on 290. Every single time. Just sitting in traffic. Sometimes close to 90 minutes desk to gate

I live in Downers Grove. If the Stevenson doesn't have lane closures (which happen quite frequently) the drive home after the game is less than hour. And this includes a stop in Clearing to drop off the friend I meet at the game. He works downtown and takes the Red Line to the games

We do very few weekend games, and we choose a few get-away weekday games. I love those games - the 1/2 day of work followed by the afternoon off at the game. But then I have a 90 minute drive home on the Stevenson. arghhh - just sitting in traffic

I am sick and tired of the pre-game drive but I continue to do it, despite the hassle. 14 games a year, mostly weeknight games. I'll keep doing it - no matter what - because I like going to Sox games. It's always a good time - even if they get blow a late lead.

dickallen15
06-19-2014, 12:55 PM
Don't let anybody tell you differently, Einhorn wanted to move the White Sox to St. Pete. When the White Sox agreed to stay in Chicago, Einhorn sold virtually all of his White Sox stock to JR. He then disappeared from the scene in Chicago and moved to Arizona. I was surprised to see him at the World Series parade. He is rarely here in Chicago. Maybe he was badly wounded by the Sportsvision fiasco. He thought the franchise was better off in Florida. He didn't like playing second fiddle to the Cubs here. I have no doubt in my mind that he would of still rather moved the team to Florida. He would of rather been a big fish in a small pond than play second fiddle to the Cubs. He even threw a dig at White Sox fans the week of the final stadium vote when he said "I really don't know how much of a fanbase the White Sox have in Chicago". Former sportswriter Jerome Holtzman responded by saying'' Did he forget the 2 million plus people the White Sox drew in 1983 and 1984"? He not only was wrong about Sportsvision but he was also wrong about St. Pete. The present ownerships handling of Sportsvision and the stadium issue have hurt the franchise badly.

Einhorn was President of the White Sox into the 90s and currently Vice Chairman. He lives in New Jersey. He dissappeared from being a front man, but has always remained involved with the team, and still owns significant shares.

Steelrod
06-19-2014, 02:26 PM
Don't let anybody tell you differently, Einhorn wanted to move the White Sox to St. Pete. When the White Sox agreed to stay in Chicago, Einhorn sold virtually all of his White Sox stock to JR. He then disappeared from the scene in Chicago and moved to Arizona. I was surprised to see him at the World Series parade. He is rarely here in Chicago. Maybe he was badly wounded by the Sportsvision fiasco. He thought the franchise was better off in Florida. He didn't like playing second fiddle to the Cubs here. I have no doubt in my mind that he would of still rather moved the team to Florida. He would of rather been a big fish in a small pond than play second fiddle to the Cubs. He even threw a dig at White Sox fans the week of the final stadium vote when he said "I really don't know how much of a fanbase the White Sox have in Chicago". Former sportswriter Jerome Holtzman responded by saying'' Did he forget the 2 million plus people the White Sox drew in 1983 and 1984"? He not only was wrong about Sportsvision but he was also wrong about St. Pete. The present ownerships handling of Sportsvision and the stadium issue have hurt the franchise badly.
Your information is not correct. Florida was no more than a fallback. Einhorn lives in New Jersey, not Arizona. Your financial information is also incorrect as to why he sold.

TomBradley72
06-19-2014, 02:32 PM
i think they should have built the bears a new stadium south of soldier field and downsize soldier field for soccer.

+1

FielderJones
06-19-2014, 02:37 PM
I think they should have built the Bears a new stadium south of Soldier Field and downsize Soldier Field for soccer.

If "they" refers to the McCaskey family, then yes. If "they" refers to the taxpayers of Illinois, then no.

SI1020
06-19-2014, 02:44 PM
Your information is not correct. Florida was no more than a fallback. Einhorn lives in New Jersey, not Arizona. Your financial information is also incorrect as to why he sold. I don't believe that for a nanosecond. Of course I was and am no insider but I remember thinking that Einhorn and Reinsdorf seemed disappointed they weren't going to Florida. Like there was gold to be mined in Florida similar to California in 1958. They wouldn't have been the only ones to think that. I remember when the Marlins came to south Florida all the comparisons to LA and the Dodgers. Never happened. Florida has not been kind to MLB.

DoItForDanPasqua
06-19-2014, 10:57 PM
There is a surge of companies shuttering their suburban office parks and moving their headquarters into the city without any tax incentive. The reason is that many young people, whom they wish to attract as employees, prefer the city and the things that go along with it, such as not having a car. Certainly they are not seeing traffic on the roads as something that they should care about. Moving the team out to the middle of the Yukon so there can be clear highways and vast parking lots will not help a team appeal to younger generations.

What's wrong with US Cellular Field is that it's too suburban. The park is surrounded by parking lots and it is a long walk to get to most bars and restaurants in the area (though there are good ones). ChiSox Bar & Grill has the feeling of a Chili's in a shopping mall right next to Chicago Sports Depot. The saving quality of the park is that it's near two L lines, a Metra station and there is even a place to pick up a Divvy. For many people it's actually really easy to get to, though those are people not in cars.

russ99
06-20-2014, 07:20 AM
I don't think either the South Loop or West Side locations were a good idea, due to the possible shady deals, traffic, and/or sharing with other teams.

And if Addision went through, I'm convinced the Sox could have left town, since they would have cut ties with the city and a large part of the fanbase. Had they not planned things properly economically, they'd easily could have found a better deal in another city, with no Chicago dealmakers or fan ties to keep them here.

Besides, the Sox staying in Bridgeport was a big deal back then.

IMO, where they are now was the best move, even though some choices made weren't the best - like facing the stadium south, not north; not redeveloping neighborhood businesses that were torn down (like how Arsenal redeveloped the surrounding area after building Emirates) instead of leaving big parking lots, stadium design errors (plus Jerry being in love with Dodgers Stadium, that forced architects hands) that have been partially rectified, etc.

I often wonder how much better the Cell would be had they stayed in Comiskey 2-4 more years and seen the impact of Camden Yards' city views and architecture, and the stadiums built afterwards.

skobabe8
06-20-2014, 09:12 AM
There is a surge of companies shuttering their suburban office parks and moving their headquarters into the city without any tax incentive. The reason is that many young people, whom they wish to attract as employees, prefer the city and the things that go along with it, such as not having a car. Certainly they are not seeing traffic on the roads as something that they should care about. Moving the team out to the middle of the Yukon so there can be clear highways and vast parking lots will not help a team appeal to younger generations.

What's wrong with US Cellular Field is that it's too suburban. The park is surrounded by parking lots and it is a long walk to get to most bars and restaurants in the area (though there are good ones). ChiSox Bar & Grill has the feeling of a Chili's in a shopping mall right next to Chicago Sports Depot. The saving quality of the park is that it's near two L lines, a Metra station and there is even a place to pick up a Divvy. For many people it's actually really easy to get to, though those are people not in cars.

I can't complain about ChiSox Bar & Grill. Us fans bitched for years for development in the parking lots and the organization responded with a really nice 2 story bar and an equally nice 2 story team shop.

Maximo
06-20-2014, 09:27 AM
This discussion is mute until Reinsdorf decides to sell his interest in the club. When he does we can only hope that it is sold to an indiviual or group who who are steadfast in wanting to see the White Sox remain in Chicago. There is at least one minority shareholder who has the abliity to come up with the cash who feels strongly about this and has already made his feelings known to JR.

XplodingScorbord
06-20-2014, 03:47 PM
This discussion is mute until Reinsdorf decides to sell his interest in the club. When he does we can only hope that it is sold to an indiviual or group who who are steadfast in wanting to see the White Sox remain in Chicago. There is at least one minority shareholder who has the abliity to come up with the cash who feels strongly about this and has already made his feelings known to JR.

Moot.

DoItForDanPasqua
06-20-2014, 08:08 PM
I don't think either the South Loop or West Side locations were a good idea, due to the possible shady deals, traffic, and/or sharing with other teams.

And if Addision went through, I'm convinced the Sox could have left town, since they would have cut ties with the city and a large part of the fanbase. Had they not planned things properly economically, they'd easily could have found a better deal in another city, with no Chicago dealmakers or fan ties to keep them here.

Besides, the Sox staying in Bridgeport was a big deal back then.

IMO, where they are now was the best move, even though some choices made weren't the best - like facing the stadium south, not north; not redeveloping neighborhood businesses that were torn down (like how Arsenal redeveloped the surrounding area after building Emirates) instead of leaving big parking lots, stadium design errors (plus Jerry being in love with Dodgers Stadium, that forced architects hands) that have been partially rectified, etc.

I often wonder how much better the Cell would be had they stayed in Comiskey 2-4 more years and seen the impact of Camden Yards' city views and architecture, and the stadiums built afterwards.

Good points. With a little urban planning this really could have worked. It's nice that they stayed in Bridgeport because it means they've always played in the same part of town. Even South Side Park was located just a few blocks south of where they play now.

white sox bill
06-22-2014, 11:38 AM
A few things, first re the proposed move to Addison, IIRC one of the stumbling blocks there was where the park was to be built, it would have displaced some wildlife, (in Addison?) so the Sox would be fighting the environmentalists, another reason for the public not to like them back in the 80's, so that idea was trashed

Also a few yrs after the dust settled on decision to build at 35th Street, the was a report, not sure if it had validity that the State of Florida and the City of St Pete had not offered everything that JR had claimed they did and the St Pete deal wasn't the sweetheart package that was represented.

Wish I could say just win and they will come but not all true. Like a previous poster said, if the Sox had waited a few more yrs to see what the new parks looked like, they might be better at least cosmetically. I think US Cell was the last 80's type built in MLB

ChicagoG19
06-22-2014, 02:26 PM
I would be sad if they ever moved to the suburbs. First, the team is the Chicago White Sox, not the Addison White Sox. Second, I think stadiums bring economic activity to areas that need it. The suburbs don't need the help and generally more affluent folks move out to the burbs.

Foulke You
06-23-2014, 02:15 PM
I would be sad if they ever moved to the suburbs. First, the team is the Chicago White Sox, not the Addison White Sox. Second, I think stadiums bring economic activity to areas that need it. The suburbs don't need the help and generally more affluent folks move out to the burbs.
If memory serves, Reinsdorf hired a market research firm which came to the conclusion that many of the Sox fans that used to live on the south side and near the ballpark had moved out to the suburbs and settled in Addison and the surrounding areas (Berwyn, Hinsdale, Westmont, Westchester, etc.). It wasn't just a matter of land but the demographics of the area as they tried to move their ballpark closer to their core fans. I'm not sure if it would have worked but it would have been interesting to see if a suburban ballpark could have thrived. It certainly would have been far more convenient for suburban fans to get to the games and they would have a lot more people with money living close to the ballpark that wouldn't have to battle the brutal Chicago traffic arteries like the Kennedy or Dan Ryan.

SoxFanCPA
06-24-2014, 11:26 PM
I would be sad if they ever moved to the suburbs. First, the team is the Chicago White Sox, not the Addison White Sox. Second, I think stadiums bring economic activity to areas that need it. The suburbs don't need the help and generally more affluent folks move out to the burbs.

This makes my head hurt. I know you're a Fire fan, where do they play? The Wolves? The Rush? And how about these teams?


Buffalo Bills
Dallas Cowboys
Miami Dolphins
New York Giants
New York Jets
Washington Redskins
Detroit Pistons
Phoenix Coyotes
Los Angeles Angels
Atlanta Braves (soon to be)

ChicagoG19
06-25-2014, 12:30 PM
This makes my head hurt. I know you're a Fire fan, where do they play? The Wolves? The Rush? And how about these teams?


Buffalo Bills
Dallas Cowboys
Miami Dolphins
New York Giants
New York Jets
Washington Redskins
Detroit Pistons
Phoenix Coyotes
Los Angeles Angels
Atlanta Braves (soon to be)


Just because I am a Fire fan doesn't mean I agree with their decision to build a stadium in the suburbs. I think they belong in the city as well and would probably draw better as well. Just because you have a couple of examples of teams that are in suburbs doesn't mean I agree with it or think it's a good idea. The Angels at least acknowledge they are in Anaheim despite the stupid name.

ChicagoG19
06-25-2014, 12:31 PM
If memory serves, Reinsdorf hired a market research firm which came to the conclusion that many of the Sox fans that used to live on the south side and near the ballpark had moved out to the suburbs and settled in Addison and the surrounding areas (Berwyn, Hinsdale, Westmont, Westchester, etc.). It wasn't just a matter of land but the demographics of the area as they tried to move their ballpark closer to their core fans. I'm not sure if it would have worked but it would have been interesting to see if a suburban ballpark could have thrived. It certainly would have been far more convenient for suburban fans to get to the games and they would have a lot more people with money living close to the ballpark that wouldn't have to battle the brutal Chicago traffic arteries like the Kennedy or Dan Ryan.

Market research also probably said putting baseball teams in Florida was a good idea.

SoxFanCPA
06-25-2014, 01:22 PM
Just because I am a Fire fan doesn't mean I agree with their decision to build a stadium in the suburbs. I think they belong in the city as well and would probably draw better as well. Just because you have a couple of examples of teams that are in suburbs doesn't mean I agree with it or think it's a good idea. The Angels at least acknowledge they are in Anaheim despite the stupid name.

So should the name be changed to the Bridgeview Fire?

ChicagoG19
06-25-2014, 01:30 PM
So should the name be changed to the Bridgeview Fire?

Yes or change the name to Fire F.C. and add back Chicago when/if the team moves back to the city.