Originally Posted by Mr. Jinx
You're right, clearly there are more bros living in Lincoln Park and Wrigleyville then there are families in suburban Chicago.
Well first, yes, if you were to do a head count of people within a reasonable distance of a fixed point, a count centered on Wrigley Field would probably have a higher number than any point in Rosemont, any other suburb, or probably just about any place in the country between New York and San Francisco.
Second, you're convienently lopping off the tourist draw, which is the golden goose in this conversation. The Sox built a park that in every way caters to the suburban crowd; more central location, right next to a 16-lane superhighway, within walking distance of 3 train lines, all of which are closer to downtown than the trek up the Red Line to Wrigley... and the Cubs trounce us in attendance nowadays because of the Wrigley Field factor. It's a pretty sizable gamble to roll the dice on losing a cash cow tourist trap in favor of the traditionally fickle suburban family demographic.
And third, any sensible person can read the writing on the wall... Poverty in the suburbs (especially the inner ring suburbs like, say, Rosemont and its immediate neighbors) is increasing while population has been falling, fuel costs are increasing, people are driving less, etc... Even if you remove the whole "Shrine" element that they'd be throwing away, this would be a catastrophically short-sighted move that would go down as one of the worst in professional sports history.