White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
And away we go...

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #136  
Old 08-30-2017, 10:27 PM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
Who pays for it?



about a possible South Loop location



Why?
How is it not obvious that a South Loop ballpark wouldn't be a bigger draw? Do you not realize what a tourist town Chicago is? Do you not see what goes on the North Side? I think a lot of tourist dollars are lost because of our current park's location, the assumed "bad neighborhood" it is in, the reviews the park gets. It is nearly always rated near the bottom, just before Oakland, Tampa and Toronto. So what does that tell you? Why is the subject of a new ballpark brought up? Because it could be better, and a better ballpark as well as a better team will help draw. But in my opinion, if the ballpark was in the S L, it would draw well enough that we wouldn't have to hear how the Sox don't draw well.

As for who pays for it...I am assuming when the time comes, there will be new ownership and that they would hopefully privately finance. If not, then they have to stay where they are with what they're got.
Reply With Quote
  #137  
Old 08-30-2017, 10:40 PM
doogiec doogiec is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 402
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Golden Sox View Post
The City of Chicago offered to build a stadium for the White Sox at Roosevelt + Clark in the mid 1980s. JR stupidly rejected the offer. He wanted a new stadium in Addison/Dupage county on land that he owned. Turning down the South Loop offer by JR has to be the biggest mistake in the modern history of the franchise.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...rs-lake-forest

If you read the Tribune article above, the White Sox did agree to play in the South Loop stadium. The city insisted that both the Bears and White Sox share the stadium. It was the Bears the shot it down. Not sure why Sox fans keep repeating this nonsense story over and over, when what happened is well documented.
Reply With Quote
  #138  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:32 AM
TommyJohn TommyJohn is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Chicago
Posts: 4,676
Blog Entries: 279
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiec View Post
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...rs-lake-forest

If you read the Tribune article above, the White Sox did agree to play in the South Loop stadium. The city insisted that both the Bears and White Sox share the stadium. It was the Bears the shot it down. Not sure why Sox fans keep repeating this nonsense story over and over, when what happened is well documented.
I remember that. Mike McCaskey said there was "no way" the Bears would share a stadium with the White Sox. One of the reasons I have no use for jerkoff McCaskey or the ****ing Bears. **** them. I felt some sense of satisfaction when McCaskey had his stadium quest shoved up his ass and was forced to accept the city's crumbs (the Soldier Field renovation.) Not that it matters, as the holy Bears are revered no matter what the hell they do. Still, ******* McCaskey didn't get his way and that was enough for me.
__________________
I am Dabuiek
Reply With Quote
  #139  
Old 08-31-2017, 12:45 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 31,501
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiec View Post
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...rs-lake-forest

If you read the Tribune article above, the White Sox did agree to play in the South Loop stadium. The city insisted that both the Bears and White Sox share the stadium. It was the Bears the shot it down. Not sure why Sox fans keep repeating this nonsense story over and over, when what happened is well documented.
Because some Sox fans want to blame certain individuals for everything and anything, justified or not.
Reply With Quote
  #140  
Old 08-31-2017, 01:23 AM
Luis11 Luis11 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 36
Default

One thing is absolutely certain. A new owner who pays 1 Billion dollars for the White Sox franchise will never try to compete with the Cubs by playing in the current ball park. They will finance their own new ball park, have a joint finance agreement for a new park with a Suburb or in the South Loop, or ultimately relocate to another city.
Reply With Quote
  #141  
Old 08-31-2017, 05:01 AM
Grzegorz Grzegorz is offline
WSI Church Elder
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Western Suburbs
Posts: 2,886
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnut67 View Post
How is it not obvious that a South Loop ballpark wouldn't be a bigger draw? Do you not realize what a tourist town Chicago is? Do you not see what goes on the North Side? I think a lot of tourist dollars are lost because of our current park's location, the assumed "bad neighborhood" it is in, the reviews the park gets. It is nearly always rated near the bottom, just before Oakland, Tampa and Toronto. So what does that tell you? Why is the subject of a new ballpark brought up? Because it could be better, and a better ballpark as well as a better team will help draw. But in my opinion, if the ballpark was in the S L, it would draw well enough that we wouldn't have to hear how the Sox don't draw well.
That's assuming tourists hit the ballpark consistently and in substantial numbers. As for the northside they draw win or lose. I am not sure what tourists believe about 35th and Shields regarding crime. Maybe you have a source to cite stating such conclusions?

I am amazed at the tourist numbers all things considered.

Infrastructure: is it easy to get in and out of the South Loop in volume in the case a stadium is built there? Cost: what would ticket prices cost, parking, concessions, etc... Would a stadium in the suburbs have better pricing for the average fan?


Quote:
Originally Posted by soxnut67 View Post
As for who pays for it...I am assuming when the time comes, there will be new ownership and that they would hopefully privately finance. If not, then they have to stay where they are with what they're got.
I'll believe private financing when I see it happen.
__________________
“There were a few hard rules, but everybody was unique, and he understood that. George’s great strength was he didn’t overcoach. There’s no place for panic on the mound.” - Jim Palmer on George Bamberger “Arms and the man,” Sports Illustrated, April 19, 2004
Reply With Quote
  #142  
Old 08-31-2017, 08:55 AM
Golden Sox Golden Sox is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oswego, Illinois
Posts: 1,490
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doogiec View Post
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...rs-lake-forest

If you read the Tribune article above, the White Sox did agree to play in the South Loop stadium. The city insisted that both the Bears and White Sox share the stadium. It was the Bears the shot it down. Not sure why Sox fans keep repeating this nonsense story over and over, when what happened is well documented.
Southside Sox has had a few articles about the City of Chicago/South Loop Stadium offer to the White Sox. Bruce Levine had a article about the same subject a few years ago also. Levine basically said JR blew it by turning down the South Loop offer.
The offer didn't really matter, JR wanted the stadium in Dupage county on land that he owned. He would have reaped tax benefits on the Dupage stadium even tho the stadium would have been owned by the State of Illinois.
Reply With Quote
  #143  
Old 08-31-2017, 09:36 AM
Golden Sox Golden Sox is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oswego, Illinois
Posts: 1,490
Default South Loop

History Lesson: Former White Sox owner Art Allyn wanted to build a new White Sox stadium at Roosevelt + Clark in 1967. This would have been done with private financing. There is a article about it in the 1967 White Sox Program/Fall edition, page 13. Believe it or not the City of Chicago wouldn't give him the permits to have it built. Read into that anyway you want. That's when Allyn actually considered moving the team to Milwaukee. Imagine a team owner wanting to build a stadium with his own funding and the city not willing to give him the permits to build it.
Reply With Quote
  #144  
Old 08-31-2017, 09:43 AM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grzegorz View Post
That's assuming tourists hit the ballpark consistently and in substantial numbers. As for the northside they draw win or lose. I am not sure what tourists believe about 35th and Shields regarding crime. Maybe you have a source to cite stating such conclusions?

I am amazed at the tourist numbers all things considered.

Infrastructure: is it easy to get in and out of the South Loop in volume in the case a stadium is built there? Cost: what would ticket prices cost, parking, concessions, etc... Would a stadium in the suburbs have better pricing for the average fan?




I'll believe private financing when I see it happen.
I get my conclusions from articles I read regarding ballparks. Some actually think that there are still projects across the expressway, so it's just lazy blogging, journalism whatever. And that perception doesn't help. If you are a ballpark enthusiast or casual ballpark traveler, reading some of these articles and comparing them to other ballparks. Our park usually gets a paragraph consisting of the upper deck, the neighborhood and how it's not Wrigley.

Also, another example, not very scientific or anything, but I used to work at Navy Pier in the summer. I could always tell when the Cubs were in town by how many Cubs, Wrigley and visiting team gear was being worn. Not so much when the Sox were home.

Having a ballpark closer to downtown, I think, would get more people to the game, who might be staying at a hotel: for a convention, wanting something to do in between trade show days, others, who have planned a trip to Chicago and an off chance they decided to go to a game during their stay, again ballpark travelers, who may have been hesitant about going to the South Side, may feel more at ease about going to a South Loop location, where the surroundings seem a lot more attractive.

Just my crazy thoughts.
Reply With Quote
  #145  
Old 08-31-2017, 09:53 AM
Frater Perdurabo Frater Perdurabo is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas
Posts: 19,063
Blog Entries: 1
Default

It seems the Sox twice (Allyn/1967 and Reinsdorf/1986) at least agreed in principle to a stadium in the South Loop area, before the city (1967) and the Bears (1986) killed it.

Missed opportunities? Maybe.

An Allyn/60s stadium would be reaching 50 years old now. Even if it was baseball-only, without substantial renovations in the interim it would be significantly outdated today.

A Sox/Bears stadium would be reaching 30 years old now, and as a multipurpose facility (even with movable grandstands) it would still not be well-suited for baseball, and probably would not have the outfield skyline views that so many of us covet.
__________________
The universe is the practical joke of the General at the expense of the Particular, quoth Frater Perdurabo, and laughed. The disciples nearest him wept, seeing the Universal Sorrow. Others laughed, seeing the Universal Joke. Others wept. Others laughed. Others wept because they couldn't see the Joke, and others laughed lest they should be thought not to see the Joke. But though FRATER laughed openly, he wept secretly; and really he neither laughed nor wept. Nor did he mean what he said.
Reply With Quote
  #146  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:07 AM
Flight #24 Flight #24 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 8,911
Default

South Loop is booming, close to the Loop, young families, and a bunch of colleges. That translates to improved walkup traffic, and with the plethora of restaurants and bars coming up there that adds more possibilities. As already stated, also makes it convenient/easy for convention goers, business travelers staying downtown, etc. It's not that the current location is prohibitive, but S Loop is a lot easier/top of mind. And for better or worse, there's still some south side stigma IMO even though it's not deserved.

Is it financeable? I can't say. But if you buy the franchise on a price based on the current location, then move it I fully believe you substantially increase the value of your asset. All you need is for that value to be at or more than the incremental cost of the stadium.
__________________
"You don't quit. You don't go home before it's time. You don't come out of a game, even if you are in pain and feel as if you can't go one more step"
"Never give up, Never, never, never give up."
- Luther Head after Elite 8 win v. Arizona
Reply With Quote
  #147  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:31 AM
Noir Noir is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Perth Amboy, NJ
Posts: 175
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noneck View Post
Thats what I always thought. People west of the city have no interest in coming to the south side of the city. When you consider the population in the nw, w and sw suburbs thats a huge untapped resource.

People like the south loop location now because it could supposedly garner the working force in the downtown area. No one has any idea what the actually number of people working downtown will be over a decade from now. Working from home seems to becoming the way of the future now.
Let's not make the same mistake the Braves are doing. I will tell you, Atlanta is a completely different beast compared to Chicago and quite frankly, I like being the one team that has played on the same corner since 1910.
__________________
Your Aspie score: 186 of 200
Your neurotypical (non-autistic) score: 25 of 200
You are very likely an Aspie
Reply With Quote
  #148  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:50 AM
Chez's Avatar
Chez Chez is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Clarendon Hills
Posts: 6,196
Default

My knowledge about real estate and real estate development is minimal. Maybe someone with knowledge and experience can chime in. But it seems to me that given the recent boom in the South Loop, whatever land that is available in that area (assuming there is enough available land for a ballpark and parking) would be more profitable to the owner/developer as residential, retail and commercial use than it would be if sold to the White Sox for a ballpark.
__________________
2017 Attendance Tracker: 7-7

All time Sox Attendance Tracker:
272-234.
Reply With Quote
  #149  
Old 08-31-2017, 10:56 AM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noir View Post
Let's not make the same mistake the Braves are doing. I will tell you, Atlanta is a completely different beast compared to Chicago and quite frankly, I like being the one team that has played on the same corner since 1910.
I like that they've played on the same corner since 1910 as well, but how has that really worked to the Sox advantage?

The possibilities of a South Loop ballpark I think are much more attractive. A suburban location would be a huge mistake in my opinion. You have to have reasons for people to want to go to the ballpark when the team isn't doing so well, because, it's sports and there's no guarantee that a team will be good in any season. Years when the Sox aren't doing so well in a suburban location would make this season look like a sellout every night. Therefore, having an attractive combination should help attendance in a South Loop location. Again, just my crazy opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #150  
Old 08-31-2017, 11:00 AM
soxnut67 soxnut67 is offline
WSI Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 496
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chez View Post
My knowledge about real estate and real estate development is minimal. Maybe someone with knowledge and experience can chime in. But it seems to me that given the recent boom in the South Loop, whatever land that is available in that area (assuming there is enough available land for a ballpark and parking) would be more profitable to the owner/developer as residential, retail and commercial use than it would be if sold to the White Sox for a ballpark.
I'm not sure, but I supposed it would depend on what kind of deal was made with the Sox. Would the Sox buy the land? Or would it be leased to them? What would they pay in rent? Would there be a percentage of concession/parking going to the land owner if not the Sox? Would parking be open to the public on non-game/event days?
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:53 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.