Thread: Rosemont Cubs?
View Single Post
  #186  
Old 04-05-2013, 05:27 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 53,997
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Sox View Post
Anybody who thinks the location of a stadium doesn't make a difference in attendance is kidding themselves. For years I've asked numerous people the following question: If Wrigley Field was located at 35th + Shields, would the Cubs franchise be as popular as it is? I've never had one person answer yes. It seems to me as if the White Sox are back to drawing around 2 million people a year. i don't think that's such a bad number when you consider the fact that the overwhelming majority of the White Sox attendance comes from somewhere thats not from the Southside of Chicago. Many years ago, the White Sox fan base came from the neighborhoods of the Southside of Chicago. That's simply not the case anymore. If the Cell had been built in a location closer to their fan base, the White Sox would be drawing more people. Since they made some adjustments at the Cell a few years ago, its really a beautiful park. Its a shame it was built where its at.
If the whole Wrigleyville "experience" was at 35th and Shields, yes, I have no doubt the Cubs would be as popular as they are up north. If you just moved Wrigley Field to 35th and Shields today, in the middle of a dead neighborhood surrounded by acres of empty parking lots, no of course not. You really think the majority of people who are at Cubs games are from the neighborhoods around the park? That's ****ing nuts, most of them are from the suburbs or out of town tourists, too.
__________________
2014 Obligatory Attendance & Record Tracker

0-5

LAST GAME: August 4 - Twins 16, Sox 3
NEXT GAME: I don't know, but I'll be sure to warn you when I know
Reply With Quote