Rosemont Cubs?

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

I see absolutely no reason to think that this is true. As you said, you can't prove the negative, whether or not the Sox would have drawn any better at the gate if they were in Addison (everything else being equal). Sure, your sister in Arlington Heights might have an easier time getting to games. But, lots of those families originally from the south side moved to southern suburbs. It wouldn't be any easier to get to Addison from Oak Lawn than it is to get to Bridgeport from Oak Lawn.

Those demographic studies would have been done in 1986. The city has changed drastically since then, with lots of gentrification and people (read: money) moving back to the city. As the economic and housing crisis has, arguably, hurt suburbia and exurbia moreso than the city itself, I suspect that a suburban ballpark would also be worse off in these last few years than an urban park. Those demographic shifts from city to suburbia/exurbia in the last few decades are not unique to the Chicagoland area. Despite that, there has been a movement in new ballpark construction from suburb to city, not the other way around. I think there is a good reason behind that.

Neither of us can prove our points but the fact remains the Sox for a big market team have drawn I would say at best mediocre in the new park. First place most of last year and 24th in MLB attendance. That's pathetic.
As far as the other cities none of them have to contend with the darlings from the Northside. I may be wrong but there aren't any teams that are located in the suburbs except for LAA and Texas and no other ones moved out of the city except them, the Rangers from the start were in Arlington. Marlins come close but they would have been better off building next door to Dolphin Stadium.

[kittle42]

Originally Posted by Noneck

You ever think that only so many people want to go to city ball park? And that cubs park for all reasons previously mentioned reasons (location, historical etc) is the preferred choice for these people? Like it or not, the cubs have a stranglehold on the fans that want to go to a city ball park. There are not enough of these type of fans to support two, only nyc can do this, no other city has.

It is one of Chicago's Top 10 tourist destinations, so yeah, I think there are a lot of people who only want to go to a city ballpark.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

I don't get the 1980s reference, I do know that when I was growing up in the 50s the city had 3.6 million people, it's now around 2.7. Are all those people coming back? Chicago is now number 3 in the USA and before long the Dallas and Houston areas will have more people.

When we visit up there we stay with my sister in Arlington Heights and I know it's a lot easier to get to somewhere like Addison or Elmhurst than to 35th and Shields.

I believe you live in the city so you are not going to agree with any talk about suburbia being a better location for the Sox, but based on how the Sox have performed at the box office at USCF since they moved in I believe they would have done better out west. We will never know for sure but if you were to pin down JR, he would say the same thing. The Sox didn't pull Addison out of a hat and say let's go there, they did extensive demographic studies and came up with Addison.

If you're going to point out JR's studies on how Addison is the Land of Milk and Honey, lest we not forget he also had ambition to move the team to Tampa and Tropicana Field, where the local team now draws even lousier than the Sox despite being decidedly better the last half-decade. Oh yes, and then when they did keep the team in Chicago, they commissioned a park that became essentially obsolete in 1 whole season and have had to invest millions of dollars in it to bring it back to even the middle of the pack in the Majors. So it's hardly a ringing endorsement of Addison if JR and EE's plans to move to Addison as the Savior of the Franchise considering everything else they did or considered at that time has been a hilarious flop.

This is not a debate about whether or not the city is better than the burbs, this is about whether the city is a better location for a major attraction like a MLB park and there is simply no doubt to anyone with even the slightest comprehension of basic urban planning and the way the Chicagoland region actually works that the city is better. It's why the Bears threatened to move but didn't. It's why the Cubs threatened to move but didn't. It's why the Bulls are moving all their facilities to the West Loop. It's why DePaul basketball is trying to get out of Rosemont as fast as possible. It's why several major companies have abandoned their suburban office parks to move back downtown. It's just not going to happen.

[Senerch23]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

More people live in the burbs than in the city. That's a fact. Bridgeport is not the center of anything as just to the east is 100 miles of lake.
Looking at a map of the Metro area I would say that Elmhurst is probably the population center of the metro area with an equal amount of people living north, south, east and west. This is a guess but I bet I'm not far off. A stadium located around I 294 and I 290 would not be a bad spot. The CTA could extend the line that runs on the Ike.

Yes, of course there are more people in the burbs, they are spread out around a massive area though in comparison to the city.

There is a reason why nearly all new sports arenas and stadiums are built in cities and not suburbs. The more potential customers within a shorter distance, the better.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

Neither of us can prove our points but the fact remains the Sox for a big market team have drawn I would say at best mediocre in the new park. First place most of last year and 24th in MLB attendance. That's pathetic.

And in 2006 they were one of the top teams in attendance, so your point is meaningless.

[Senerch23]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

Neither of us can prove our points but the fact remains the Sox for a big market team have drawn I would say at best mediocre in the new park. First place most of last year and 24th in MLB attendance. That's pathetic.

That has a lot to do with ticket pricing and the fact that dynamic ticket pricing was an absolute failure. There is a reason that the Sox drastically lowered ticket prices going into this year.

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by doublem23

And in 2006 they were one of the top teams in attendance, so your point is meaningless.

And haven't come close since.

[Senerch23]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

And haven't come close since.

That's what happens when the product on the field gets worse and prices go up every year.

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by Senerch23

That's what happens when the product on the field gets worse and prices go up every year.

The product was in first for 100 plus days last year and could not draw 2 million. You are going to say the prices were too high and I agree but someone said all the high rollers have moved back to the city, they sure as hell didn't spend their money at USCF.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

The product was in first for 100 plus days last year and could not draw 2 million. You are going to say the prices were too high and I agree but someone said all the high rollers have moved back to the city, they sure as hell didn't spend their money at USCF.

Well, if the Sox had a contending product every year, they very well might be. The Sox drew fine before the strike, and there was less money and gentrification and a lot more crime then. 2005 had an echo of a few seasons where attendance was higher. Then both the team and the economy went south. One year where the team ends up 4 games over .500 is not going to suddenly cause a huge uptick in their season-ticket base.

[Senerch23]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

The product was in first for 100 plus days last year and could not draw 2 million. You are going to say the prices were too high and I agree but someone said all the high rollers have moved back to the city, they sure as hell didn't spend their money at USCF.

Ticket prices were outrageous. Even the Red Sox games which routinely sold out only saw crowds of 20,000. Also, dynamic ticket pricing which saw the tickets dynamically priced only one way was an issue that contributed to the high prices.

[LITTLE NELL]

Back to the original subject of this thread, looks like the Cubs are staying put.
Now the Sox can move to Rosemont.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story...cording-report

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

Back to the original subject of this thread, looks like the Cubs are staying put.
Now the Sox can move to Rosemont.
http://espn.go.com/chicago/mlb/story...cording-report

There was never any real reason to think otherwise.

I recall Mayor Stephens' interview on Chicago Tonight, where he appeared to be laughing the whole time.

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

There was never any real reason to think otherwise.

I recall Mayor Stephens' interview on Chicago Tonight, where he appeared to be laughing the whole time.

Nothing surprises me anymore in professional sports. The Dodgers won the their first WS in 1955, 3 short years later they were in LA. Since then, anything goes.

Do the rooftop owners have a legal beef if the Cubs do put up video boards in RF and LF blocking the view?

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

Nothing surprises me anymore in professional sports. The Dodgers won the their first WS in 1955, 3 short years later they were in LA. Since then, anything goes.

Do the rooftop owners have a legal beef if the Cubs do put up video boards in RF and LF blocking the view?

I suppose that depends on the language of the various agreements between rooftop owners and team. What that says, I haven't a clue.