Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but it would become a bigger headache for regular rush hour commuters probably.
Yes. This would be an issue with any baseball stadium downtown. Unlike NFL games, which are once a week and usually on Sundays, MLB games are 81 times per year and very often on weekdays. Even at their current locations, Cubs and Sox games mess with commuter traffic, but the closer they get to downtown the worse that would be, I have to imagine.
Not counting blizzards or the Obamas visiting their house, my worst evening commute on the Dan Ryan was one Monday night when both the Bears and Sox had home games.
Interestng. I like some of the thought of putting a stadium near Soldier Field - there's existing parking, it's near more of a touristy/downtown area, can have a great (actually incredible if angled correctly) skyline. It's also feasible they add a small entertainment district on that property if they put a ballpark there. That said, if there's not enough space for that, the nearest place for this type of entertainment district would have to be where there's some current new development next to Wintrust Arena, which still ends up being a few blocks away and the same situation as Bridgeport. Public transit: both the Green Line and a Metra Electric line would be accessible at this site, but less so than the current setup for the Red Line and Rock Island Metra in Bridgeport, lines that I suspect serve fewer people (I know the Green Line for a fact does compared to Red Line). Moving the stadium to this site would maybe be moderately worse for fans as it would require driving further after exiting the Dan Ryan. The access to the Stevenson would be not too different, but it would become a bigger headache for regular rush hour commuters probably.
Yeah the current stadium has an excellent location for commuters, it would be hard to find a different place outside of Bridgeport/Armour Square with Highway,CTA, and Metra access altogether. I also like the idea of the location near Wintrust, as that would add on to the fast-developing McCormick place area; a place that is seeing a boom in restaurants, bars, and hotel rooms at the moment. I think you can't go wrong with either NSS location. Not to mention, being closer to downtown erases the (unfounded) stigma that Sox park is located in "the ghetto" (obviously it's not, but out of towners with little knowledge on the city might think so). Attendance would definitely increase with a ballpark facing the skyline, closer in to the Loop, and with things to do/eat around the outside of the park. I'd say it's either that, Armour Field, or if need be just keep on modernizing the current park.
Outside of this design which I'm not a fan of, this general view of the skyline (but obviously further south) is something we should aim for with a new park:
Edit: Wow, that is truly a horrendous design. Looks like a prison. Also the skyline here is clearly straight out of the 90s
Last edited by CCrest182; 07-22-2019 at 03:37 PM..
I didn't think it was shrinking very much anymore, if any.
The Bay Area is an odd situation, The only situation of its kind in the US I can think of. The Bay Area population is 7.75 million, so I could see how it would be possible to support 2 teams, but the San Francisco metro area is only 4.7 million out of that. So the giants and athletics are supported by 2 metro areas.
Add metro Sacramento (1.5 million) and Stockton (200,000+) within barely an hour away by freeway.
I'm wondering what will happen when Reinsdorf dies. The last two ownership changes, the club almost left. I doubt they'll move, but if they do that's when it will happen.
Have we literally reached the point of "there is no place left to move"? If not, we're virtually there. A move to any of the cities that are left has "short term solution" written all over it. MLB becomes a floating crap game. If you get down there to the dregs, what you will find it as a Tampa Bay....and for baseball, that very well means "garbage in, garbage out."
MLB differs from all other sports. Once the unquestioned #1 sport in the nation (with absolutely no competition), baseball has long since lost that status, but it remains our "national pastime". And, as such, its draw differs from all other sports in the nation (short of college football) in its lore, tradition, history, connection with city. Baseball's different.
There are 30 MLB teams. Only a third of them are vaunted "legacy teams" that are a treasure to the game. Ten teams are still playing in the same city of their birth or should I say the birth of the major leagues at the turn of the 20th century when the AL joined the NL in big league status. Every one of these teams was in place where it is from that 1900 starting point (or a tad later, a year of two, when the early shakeout of the majors' birth saw the original Baltimore Orioles become the New York Yankees)
The Cubs, Cardinals, Reds, Pirates, Phillies, White Sox, Tigers, Indians, Yankees, and Red Sox are special. Every one of them was in place, a place they never left, long before there was an NFL, NHL, and NBA.
If those ten are special teams, Chicago is a special city. It alone has had an NL and AL team every year the two were in existence. And since they no longer exist, circa 2000, that would make it a permanent record.
The Cubs are the oldest team in all professional sports to be playing in the city of their birth. If the Braves were still in Boston, the Cubs would be sharing that status with them. Cincinnati loves to claim its Reds are the oldest, but they'd be wrong. The original Reds, the first professional baseball team, were gone before today's Reds were created.
The White Sox carry the name of the Cubs, the city's NL franchise which were the Chicago White Stockings. The Sox were part of a then minor league, the Western League, and played in other cities, like St. Paul. When that league was reincarnated as a "major", the Sox were in Chicago...so they were there from the start.
Let's keep in mind that for well over half a century, Chicago was a most competitive two team city, pretty much equal fitting for both. Chicago was all about "the Cubs and Sox". Equals...Cubs, Sox, WGN-TV...that was what it was all about. Heck, in the 1950s, Chicago only had one baseball team, the Sox. Or two if you want to make it the Sox and Ernie Banks.
There were many reasons the Sox fell into second status, but I have to wonder (and in this case I am dove tailing back to the idea of tradition and its relationship to the game) what would have happening if Comiskey Park had been in a more viable location and had been a ballpark like Wrigley Field which through PK Wrigley was always kept up to date and in great shape. PK Wrigley was no baseball man, inheriting his father's team and his interest centered around the fan and making a great experience of going to a ball game. Wrigley's "team", in many ways, was not the Cubs...but Wrigley Field. The Sox on the other hand, played in a ballpark that was crumbling apart and was virtually unfixable at the time when the Sox were seeking a new home.
So what might have happened if (1) the South Side location hadn't turned into a negative and (2) Comiskey Park was kept in the type of shape Wrigley Field was: Could Chicago have kept the magic of the golden ballparks of a different era on both sides of town?
In other words, could Comiskey Park have done for the White Sox what Wrigley Field does for the Cubs and Fenway Park for the Red Sox?
Have we literally reached the point of "there is no place left to move"? If not, we're virtually there. A move to any of the cities that are left has "short term solution" written all over it. MLB becomes a floating crap game. If you get down there to the dregs, what you will find it as a Tampa Bay....and for baseball, that very well means "garbage in, garbage out."
MLB differs from all other sports. Once the unquestioned #1 sport in the nation (with absolutely no competition), baseball has long since lost that status, but it remains our "national pastime". And, as such, its draw differs from all other sports in the nation (short of college football) in its lore, tradition, history, connection with city. Baseball's different.
There are 30 MLB teams. Only a third of them are vaunted "legacy teams" that are a treasure to the game. Ten teams are still playing in the same city of their birth or should I say the birth of the major leagues at the turn of the 20th century when the AL joined the NL in big league status. Every one of these teams was in place where it is from that 1900 starting point (or a tad later, a year of two, when the early shakeout of the majors' birth saw the original Baltimore Orioles become the New York Yankees)
The Cubs, Cardinals, Reds, Pirates, Phillies, White Sox, Tigers, Indians, Yankees, and Red Sox are special. Every one of them was in place, a place they never left, long before there was an NFL, NHL, and NBA.
If those ten are special teams, Chicago is a special city. It alone has had an NL and AL team every year the two were in existence. And since they no longer exist, circa 2000, that would make it a permanent record.
The Cubs are the oldest team in all professional sports to be playing in the city of their birth. If the Braves were still in Boston, the Cubs would be sharing that status with them. Cincinnati loves to claim its Reds are the oldest, but they'd be wrong. The original Reds, the first professional baseball team, were gone before today's Reds were created.
The White Sox carry the name of the Cubs, the city's NL franchise which were the Chicago White Stockings. The Sox were part of a then minor league, the Western League, and played in other cities, like St. Paul. When that league was reincarnated as a "major", the Sox were in Chicago...so they were there from the start.
Let's keep in mind that for well over half a century, Chicago was a most competitive two team city, pretty much equal fitting for both. Chicago was all about "the Cubs and Sox". Equals...Cubs, Sox, WGN-TV...that was what it was all about. Heck, in the 1950s, Chicago only had one baseball team, the Sox. Or two if you want to make it the Sox and Ernie Banks.
There were many reasons the Sox fell into second status, but I have to wonder (and in this case I am dove tailing back to the idea of tradition and its relationship to the game) what would have happening if Comiskey Park had been in a more viable location and had been a ballpark like Wrigley Field which through PK Wrigley was always kept up to date and in great shape. PK Wrigley was no baseball man, inheriting his father's team and his interest centered around the fan and making a great experience of going to a ball game. Wrigley's "team", in many ways, was not the Cubs...but Wrigley Field. The Sox on the other hand, played in a ballpark that was crumbling apart and was virtually unfixable at the time when the Sox were seeking a new home.
So what might have happened if (1) the South Side location hadn't turned into a negative and (2) Comiskey Park was kept in the type of shape Wrigley Field was: Could Chicago have kept the magic of the golden ballparks of a different era on both sides of town?
In other words, could Comiskey Park have done for the White Sox what Wrigley Field does for the Cubs and Fenway Park for the Red Sox?
Very interesting post. In the last 30 minutes, I just read pages 109-112 of Paul Goldberger's Ballpark discussing Wrigley Field and Wrigley and Veeck's desire to market Wrigley Field moreso than the actual play on the field. That marketing concept dates back about 80 years.
Interesting idea. The current stadium is already significantly closer to The Loop than Wrigley is, even if you don't include South Loop, and the Sox identity is firmly entwined with the South Side in general and (to a lesser extent) Bridgeport specifically. Where would you suggest a new stadium be placed to be even closer to downtown but still presumably on the South Side?
Mercifully the Braves, I believe, are the only team from city to suburb or more accurately....from downtown to the suburbs. The Braves alone seemed to have declared the Camden Yards/retro park dynamic over. And Atlanta is no legacy city and it is not a city that centers on the buzz of its downtown.
Chicago is both: legacy and core focussed. No established legacy city would want a ballpark shifted to the suburbs.
Bring back Bill Veeck, place the new park on the Michael Reese site with it having the corporate naming right of "Itchless Argyle Socks Park". Lace the outfield wall with drop down poison ivy when the opponents are fielding, pulled upward when the Sox are out there . With each home run and each ca-ching producing an exploding casino in the outfield.
And if those fireworks really work for you, why not bring a tribute to the South Side's beloved Stock Yards in the outfield, as well, by installing a great big exploding Holy Cow. We can even feed it: Hay! Hay!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
