Originally Posted by doublem23
On it's own, it's hard to say for sure, we all know one of the big draws about Wrigley is also the atmosphere around the park and even Old Comiskey would still be right next to a 16-lane superhighway, surrounded by parking lots, and still would have spent 40 years just a few blocks away from a relatively notorious high rise project... Not exactly any kind of welcoming environment, even compared to Wrigleyville at it's nadir prior to the Tribune Hype Machine.
Buuuuuuuuuut... If the Sox still had Old Comiskey and the Cubs have Wrigley, I definitely think you'd get a LOT more tourist element coming to Chicago to see both our Jewelbox era ballparks. Right now the Sox capture what? MAYBE 5% of the tourist market in the city and that's almost entirely reliant on Yankees and Red Sox fans coming to Chicago to see their own teams. I think with Old Comiskey you'd see a lot more tourists.
That is assuming White Sox ownership had marketed the ballpark correctly. When the Tribune Company took over the Cubs (and by extension, Wrigley Field) they crowed about coming to see "Beautiful Wrigley Field!" JR and Eddie Einhorn started talking about how Old Comiskey was falling apart and was unsafe, at one point the City Council even threatened to condemn Old Comiskey. It would be quite the U-Turn for ownership go from howling about how unsafe to the ballpark is to turning into a tourist destination. I don't think many people went to Tiger Stadium to see that until it was closed.