White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on the Rookie records for HR and RBI in April, Jose!

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
  #31  
Old 04-03-2014, 01:21 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,172
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winstonage View Post
Agreed. I live and work in the northern suburbs. It is impossible to get to the Cell
during the week, so, I am limited to weekends. If they had built in Addison which was talked about, even that would have been easier. They should have built in the Rossevelt Road and Canal St. area. With the development of the south loop, would have created an area as desirable as Wrigleyville. Tough to get to as well, but would have made the Cell a tourist attraction, which certainly would have bumped attendance.
We've talked about this a lot of times, I don't think the problem with the Cell is necessarily the location, the problems are/were:

1) It really was an ugly park when it was built - Yes, the US Cellular money has helped a lot, but first impressions count and for a long time, it was a sterile ball-mall that was more reminiscent of the ugly 70's-era monstrosities like the Vet, 3 Rivers, the Metrodome, etc than the new retro area ballparks that have aged much better and

2) It's a round peg in a square hole - It's still a suburban-style park, surrounded by a dead zone of parking lots. Undoubtedly if the Sox had built the Cell at Roosevelt and Canal and surrounded it with lots, it would have been a similarly dead area. Sox Park is easily the most accessible of all of Chicago's pro sports arenas, it's next to a gigantic super-highway, and has access to 2 L stations and 1 Metra station within a 10-minute walk. It's not the 2 miles from the South Loop that keeps the neighborhood dead, it's because there's no neighborhood there at all. Bridgeport is slowly becoming the next hip place to be in the city, but that's not going to help the Sox so long as they keep the park surrounded by asphalt. It's a suburban park in the city. There's a reason it doesn't work.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-03-2014, 02:33 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,254
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
We've talked about this a lot of times, I don't think the problem with the Cell is necessarily the location, the problems are/were:

1) It really was an ugly park when it was built - Yes, the US Cellular money has helped a lot, but first impressions count and for a long time, it was a sterile ball-mall that was more reminiscent of the ugly 70's-era monstrosities like the Vet, 3 Rivers, the Metrodome, etc than the new retro area ballparks that have aged much better and

2) It's a round peg in a square hole - It's still a suburban-style park, surrounded by a dead zone of parking lots. Undoubtedly if the Sox had built the Cell at Roosevelt and Canal and surrounded it with lots, it would have been a similarly dead area. Sox Park is easily the most accessible of all of Chicago's pro sports arenas, it's next to a gigantic super-highway, and has access to 2 L stations and 1 Metra station within a 10-minute walk. It's not the 2 miles from the South Loop that keeps the neighborhood dead, it's because there's no neighborhood there at all. Bridgeport is slowly becoming the next hip place to be in the city, but that's not going to help the Sox so long as they keep the park surrounded by asphalt. It's a suburban park in the city. There's a reason it doesn't work.
Maybe it's because I've spent so much time outside of Chicago, but I have long put accessibilty far above neighbrohoods for a ballpark. Although football ruined Anaheim for a few years and ruined Oakland apparently forever, I think they would be worse without their accessibility. Anaheim doesn't have the mass transit, but it's SoCal and i't's close to I-5 , surrounded by parking. Milwaukee is insulated from its neighborhood and is just off the freeway, whether you're driving from Waukesha or Chicago. It wasn't such a bad neighborhood when I lived outside of Milwaukee, but the the only thing I found that gave it the edge over Phoenix was the effort it took to get to a Diamonbacks game.

I never found new Comiskey a bad place to watch a ballgame, even in the upper deck. . Sometimes I see people praising parks for aspects that aren't fan-friendly. Of course, Oakland is such a bad place to watch a ballgame, and San Francisco is such a great place to watch a ballgame that the extra effort AT&T demands is more than worth it.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-03-2014, 02:40 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,172
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TDog View Post
Maybe it's because I've spent so much time outside of Chicago, but I have long put accessibilty far above neighbrohoods for a ballpark. Although football ruined Anaheim for a few years and ruined Oakland apparently forever, I think they would be worse without their accessibility. Anaheim doesn't have the mass transit, but it's SoCal and i't's close to I-5 , surrounded by parking. Milwaukee is insulated from its neighborhood and is just off the freeway, whether you're driving from Waukesha or Chicago. It wasn't such a bad neighborhood when I lived outside of Milwaukee, but the the only thing I found that gave it the edge over Phoenix was the effort it took to get to a Diamonbacks game.

I never found new Comiskey a bad place to watch a ballgame, even in the upper deck. . Sometimes I see people praising parks for aspects that aren't fan-friendly. Of course, Oakland is such a bad place to watch a ballgame, and San Francisco is such a great place to watch a ballgame that the extra effort AT&T demands is more than worth it.
Maybe, but again, there isn't a sports stadium in Chicago more accessible than the Cell; it's incredibly close to the city/transportation network center, immediately adjacent to an enormous highway, and the most easily accessible by all means of public transportation. So while I'm not saying tear up all the lots and put in nothing but residences, obviously something is missing and the fact that Bridgeport has a reputation for being "dangerous and unwelcoming" plays a big part of that.

The main difference between the Cell and Wrigley, the UC, and Soldier Field is that it is the only park that is not in or abutting an affluent neighborhood yet. Take that for what it is worth:


Last edited by doublem23; 04-03-2014 at 02:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-03-2014, 03:47 PM
LITTLE NELL LITTLE NELL is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sebring Florida
Posts: 7,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
Maybe, but again, there isn't a sports stadium in Chicago more accessible than the Cell; it's incredibly close to the city/transportation network center, immediately adjacent to an enormous highway, and the most easily accessible by all means of public transportation. So while I'm not saying tear up all the lots and put in nothing but residences, obviously something is missing and the fact that Bridgeport has a reputation for being "dangerous and unwelcoming" plays a big part of that.

The main difference between the Cell and Wrigley, the UC, and Soldier Field is that it is the only park that is not in or abutting an affluent neighborhood yet. Take that for what it is worth:

I saw this on another site today, it started out in 1970 when the city was mostly grey representing the middle class, as the years went on the grey turned into orange and red representing much more lower income folks as there was an exodus to the burbs. The city since 1950 has lost one million citizens while the entire metro area increased by over 4,000,000.
__________________
Coming up to bat for our White Sox is the Mighty Mite, Nelson Fox.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-03-2014, 03:54 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,172
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL View Post
I saw this on another site today, it started out in 1970 when the city was mostly grey representing the middle class, as the years went on the grey turned into orange and red representing much more lower income folks as there was an exodus to the burbs. The city since 1950 has lost one million citizens while the entire metro area increased by over 4,000,000.
The change in color doesn't necessarily mean people are moving in or out just that the income in those neighborhoods have not kept pace with the rest of the metro area; the color represent income against the metro area's as a whole, by the time this graphic begins in the 1970s most of the worst damage to the city in terms of suburban flight had already occurred.

Also, another major contributor to the decline of Chicago's population is the decline of family size, which is constant across much of the United States. There aren't as many large families any more. I believe the city currently has more HOUSEHOLDS now than it did during its peak population in the 1950 Census.

I think if you compare to the map from 1980 or 1990 you'll see the city, as a whole, is in better economic shape today than it was then: http://danielkayhertz.com/2014/03/31/middle-class/

Last edited by doublem23; 04-04-2014 at 09:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-03-2014, 05:25 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 16,254
Default

Maybe it's a matter of preference, but I don't know how unique that prefernece really is. I don't even know that it's a minority view. I don't have any problems with the Cell. I liked the access when I lived in Munster. In visiting Chicago later, I liked being able to take the Red Line to the ballpark. I like not having to deal with a neighborhood. People who recall Ebbets Field, the ultimate neighborhood ballpark, point out that it was an effort to get to Dodgers games.

There is a debate about the difference between suburban and urban ballparks. Suburban ballparks, which were the trend in the 1970s. Currently urban ballparks are the fasion. But the Cell seems to combine positive aspects of both. It isn't surrounded bars, but I think that's a plus.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-03-2014, 06:59 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 896
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
The change in color doesn't necessarily mean people are moving in or out just that the income in those neighborhoods have not kept pace with the rest of the metro area; the color represent income against the metro area's as a whole, by the time this graphic begins in the 1970s most of the worst damage to the city in terms of suburban flight had already occurred.

I think if you compare to the map from 1980 or 1990 you'll see the city, as a whole, is in better economic shape today than it was then: http://danielkayhertz.com/2014/03/31/middle-class/
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion at all. The only difference shown in the maps is an increase of people making more than 125% of the city's median and an increase of people making less than 75% of the city's median. You can't have one without the other. It is not possible to draw a conclusion for how much wealth is in the city from these maps at all, only the increasing disparity of wealth.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-03-2014, 07:16 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,172
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
I don't see how you can draw that conclusion at all. The only difference shown in the maps is an increase of people making more than 125% of the city's median and an increase of people making less than 75% of the city's median. You can't have one without the other. It is not possible to draw a conclusion for how much wealth is in the city from these maps at all, only the increasing disparity of wealth.
It's the metropolitan area's median income, not the city's, these aren't zero-sum maps
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-03-2014, 07:56 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 896
Default

How much does that change things? Is the increased wealth in those neighborhoods coming from a better distribution of wealth with the suburbs? There isn't enough information present to say for sure, but I see a lot more red and a lot more green and a lot less grey. If there isn't a significant change in the rest of the metropolitan area it doesn't really matter that the median comes from those figures.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-03-2014, 08:16 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,172
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
How much does that change things? Is the increased wealth in those neighborhoods coming from a better distribution of wealth with the suburbs? There isn't enough information present to say for sure, but I see a lot more red and a lot more green and a lot less grey. If there isn't a significant change in the rest of the metropolitan area it doesn't really matter that the median comes from those figures.
Well I also know some of this stuff because demographic data for the county is part of my job. Another thing you don't get with this map is overall population, in short, the population of those green areas has exploded (especially in the city center) whereas the population of the red areas has shrunk.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-04-2014, 12:43 AM
IronFisk IronFisk is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Clown Point, IN
Posts: 1,010
Default

The area is definitely on the way up, and if the Cell would have been built only 5 to 10 years later, it would have fit nicely into the redevelopment. Now it sits as a giant hulk in the middle of parking - which will remain since they bring in a hefty amount of profit for the owners (see Miller Park).

Of interest to me is the new developments east of the Ryan by IIT. That's a campus of nearly 8,000 students. The new mixed development is also taking shape as well - I park down by the police station on Michigan and stop in for Miller Pizza.

All of this despite the piss-poor design and location of the stadium (for the love of all that's good...why does it face AWAY from downtown!??!).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-04-2014, 05:21 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,172
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by IronFisk View Post
All of this despite the piss-poor design and location of the stadium (for the love of all that's good...why does it face AWAY from downtown!??!).
I've always heard it made the construction easier since the park uses a bunch of utilities buried underneath 35th Street that were formerly used by the old park. I don't really think it's as big of a deal, even if it faced the city, you wouldn't see much. It's not like you'd have an awesome skyline view like you do in Pittsburgh
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-07-2014, 06:13 PM
mahagga73 mahagga73 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Downs, Il.
Posts: 585
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Streets View Post
They're Cardinals fans down there, with a few Reds fans as you go east.

Lake county is pretty 50/50 to be honest.
Yeah most of Indiana is Reds, Cardinals.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-08-2014, 12:36 PM
Hitmen77 Hitmen77 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 10,415
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
http://deadspin.com/facebook-data-pr...1555222593/all

The Cubs dominate most of Northern Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana but surprise, surprise, look who is #1 in the city.

The Sox also were the favorites in Will, Kankakee, and Lake County, Indiana.
Am I missing something or is this based on Facebook "likes"? I'm glad to see the Sox on top in Cook and some of the other counties in the metro area, but I wouldn't exactly call that evidence that the Sox are the #1 team in Cook County.


Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
I've always heard it made the construction easier since the park uses a bunch of utilities buried underneath 35th Street that were formerly used by the old park. I don't really think it's as big of a deal, even if it faced the city, you wouldn't see much. It's not like you'd have an awesome skyline view like you do in Pittsburgh
Agreed. Of all the problems that have plagued "New Comiskey" over the years, I think not facing downtown has had a minimal impact on the success or lack of success of the new park.
__________________

Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-08-2014, 12:40 PM
Milw Milw is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Naperville
Posts: 946
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitmen77 View Post
Am I missing something or is this based on Facebook "likes"? I'm glad to see the Sox on top in Cook and some of the other counties in the metro area, but I wouldn't exactly call that evidence that the Sox are the #1 team in Cook County.
Nobody's saying it's 100% accurate, but given the overall market penetration of Facebook, it's surely a very, very large sample size. Yeah, it's a self-selected sample size, but I rather doubt the percentage of Sox fans who are active Facebook users is somehow larger than the percentage of Cubs fans who are active Facebook users. Unless you think that -- and I'd be quite interested to hear why you think that -- you have to assume that the data is at least crudely accurate.
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 07:17 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.