Thread: Rosemont Cubs?
View Single Post
  #96  
Old 03-20-2013, 03:13 PM
Mr. Jinx Mr. Jinx is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Well first, yes, if you were to do a head count of people within a reasonable distance of a fixed point, a count centered on Wrigley Field would probably have a higher number than any point in Rosemont, any other suburb, or probably just about any place in the country between New York and San Francisco.

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

And third, any sensible person can read the writing on the wall... Poverty in the suburbs (especially the inner ring suburbs like, say, Rosemont and its immediate neighbors) is increasing while population has been falling, fuel costs are increasing, people are driving less, etc... Even if you remove the whole "Shrine" element that they'd be throwing away, this would be a catastrophically short-sighted move that would go down as one of the worst in professional sports history.
I'm not suggesting that it would make financial sense to move to the suburbs at all, just that I think people are discounting the amount of people that would prefer the ballpark not be in the city as a minor number. Also, if you are going to mention poverty in the suburbs, the city hasn't exactly been doing all that well the past few years either.
Reply With Quote