Can Chicagoland support 2 MLB teams? (Kansas, Royal: home, costs, stadium)
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.
Chicago is both: legacy and core focussed. No established legacy city would want a ballpark shifted to the suburbs.
I agree completely. I think you may have misread our conversation-- we were discussing whether or not there is a way to put a stadium even closer to downtown than it already is, not moving it out to the suburbs.
This is all hypothetical, of course. I don't see the Sox moving their location, though I do see them eventually having more development near the stadium among the seemingly endless parking lots.
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
And to think, once Chicago was well known (well...in Chicago at least) of having a South Side ball park with Comiskey Park (Sox Park) at 35th and Shields...IN BRIDGEPORT and a North Side ball park (Cubs Park) at Wrigley Field (Cubs Park) at Clark and Addison located IN JUST*PLAIN*LAKEVIEW
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
I would agree this rendering is horrendous was actually from a pretty cool idea from a 1987 plan to build a new ballpark for the Sox immediately north of Comiskey Park https://www.google.com/search?q=armo...Cyk1LamkkchGM:
Interesting shape and concept. And it would have delivered that great shot of the Loop. The layout (for anyone familiar) is quite similar to the Polo Grounds......so maybe San Francisco should tear down Oracle Park and built this one as a replacement. Think of the great views it would have of the Bay Bridge and Yankee Stadium across the Harlem River.
Interesting shape and concept. And it would have delivered that great shot of the Loop.
I never thought about it before this thread, but it is odd that they built the park facing away from the skyline. I'm sure there is a reason they faced it SE, but I don't know what it could be. That view of the skyline while driving north on the Dan Ryan is iconic-- better than the view from the North Side, IMO.
I never thought about it before this thread, but it is odd that they built the park facing away from the skyline. I'm sure there is a reason they faced it SE, but I don't know what it could be. That view of the skyline while driving north on the Dan Ryan is iconic-- better than the view from the North Side, IMO.
Major League Baseball Rule 1.04 states: "It is desirable that the line from home base through the pitchers plate to second base shall run East Northeast."
So there's really no "must." But it's suggested that way for sun purposes.
Also, that's where the term "southpaw" for a lefthanded pitcher came from. If the stadium is set up the way MLB suggests, the arm of a lefthanded pitcher is facing the south.
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.
Funny, isn’t it, Wrigley and Veeck were way ahead were way ahead of their time. They saw the ballpark as a huge part of the baseball experience. Prior to the 1950s when teams started moving from places that had been their homes for at least a half century to new cities and new ballparks, then into the sixties with expansion and more new ballparks
And seeing gems like Dodger Stadium going up and with the decline in the 1960s of cities across the northeast and midwest, cities began building new public ballparks in their downtowns
It was the late fifties, early sixties when the NFL finally first got on parr with NL/AL then pass them up. So it seemed to the smart thing for cities with teams in both sports in multipurpose “stadiums” (bye bye ballparks) with dimensions neither fit for baseball or football.
So you stick both the Pirates and Steelers in the same new stadium and you get Three Rivers Stadium in Pittsburgh. Actually everywhere as the exact same “cookiecuters” went up from St. Louis to Cinnati to Philadelphia and everywhere.
These soulless places made it impossible to know which city you were in with two decks encircling the whole stadium
So virtually all old ballparks bit the dust as teams moved into generic stadiums. Only four of the old ballparks remained: the Chicago pair along with Tiger Stadium and Fenway Park. Yankee Stadium doesn’t count, it being a part of another era, the 1920s
Two survived: the park that Wrigley and Veeck lovingly kept in place. Wrigley was always one of the most beautiful, the perfect environment for a baseball game. Fenway was different. Not beautiful but quirky. Delightfully quirks with the quirks all real and not contrieved based on the odd shape of the blocks in city neighborhoods Boston is a gem because it was so distinct
Tiger Stadium was loved, a great ballpark, but located in a part of the city that had gone downhill. Of course Comiskey had some of the same ills, plus it was falling apart
I would venture that if you looked at those old ballparks in the 1950s and ask which two were the ones that were most deserving to survive, it would be Wrigley and Comiskey.
Chicago was one of the last cities to never been a part of the cookiecutter era. Remarkably it did it twice. But Chicago was the end of the transitional era when teams like the Royals and White Sox built baseball only ballparks
So Comiskey Park was the last before a new era. And fir this, it was Chicago be damned. Because one year after Sox Park opened in 1990, Camden Yards opened in Baltimore. Everything changed. The retro era began, fully validating Wrigley and Veeck. Built like the old parks but with a new twist: downtown not neighborhood.that was a long, ling verbal trip from yesterday to today. The retro parks did their part and returned baseball to parks from stadiums, built the energy of downtown into the mix. They were, are a bit too contieved. Their endless quirks were put in place to be quirky. The only one I can think of that had a Fenway type of quirk that was real. The Giants’ Oracle Park has an exceedingly short right field, constrained by the bay waters that became known as McCovey Cove
If the Corporate-Name-of-the-Moment Field is ever to be replaced, I hope it is on the South Side, hopefully across the street from the present ballpark which if memory serves me was the site of the original Comiskey Park. And the best site for Comiskey III. Chicago baseball, north and south, like it is supposed to be
And I don’t I’d be going out on any kind if limb to say Near South gentrification can make 35th and Shields a great spot for a ballpark and has the ability to make a Lakeview-to-Wrigleyville transition in creating Bridgeport-to-Comiskeyville
Downtown? Thats where north meets south, where Cubs meet Sox. Nd to be honest, downtown Chicago would be a lousy spot for a ballpark. No downtown that had a ballpark is anything like Chicago’s...far too big, far less calable of crowding in the folks who come to see a spor with the largest number of games by far of any sport
I’d be happy to see Chicago baseball remain some 35 ir 36 blocks both north and south of downtown..with bright red line connecting the two. Three if you count downtown.
In the long run I don't think Chicago can support two MLB franchises, or at least not support them well. Hell the Sox are already poorly supported.
I think this is shortsighted. The Sox are supported fine when they're mediocre to good. They're actually one of the more profitable franchises even when they're not good.
In the long run I don't think Chicago can support two MLB franchises, or at least not support them well. Hell the Sox are already poorly supported.
Nonsense. The White Sox are heavily supported when they're good. When you have a team that hasn't been to the postseason since 2008 (that's 11 years now), naturally not as many people will show up to watch a destined to lose team.
However, this year's attendance, which is up remarkably since last year, proves that as long as at least exciting baseball is being played, the fans show up. The Sox have had 3 sold out games so far this year, and they are pretty bad this year (they are 45-53, which is not good). That's pretty good, considering they're the underdogs in town and playing pretty sub-par (but exciting) baseball.
On top of that, the Sox are the 6th most profitable MLB franchise in existence. There's much more to a team being "supported" rather than solely attendance. TV deals, merchandise, advertising... there's quite a few things that make a team supported, and the Sox are definitely supported. Despite what knucklehead Cubs fans say... you see as many Sox jerseys/caps around the Chicago area as you see Cubs (unless of course one of the teams wins the world series... then it's bandwagon all the way). I'm referring to local neighborhoods though, not downtown where you'll see tourists wearing Cubs gear, who aren't genuine fans, and who've likely never been to a game, and can only name one or two Cubs players and their accomplishments.
As others have mentioned, if the Bay Area can support two teams, Chicago can 100% support two teams; especially considering both Chicago teams have played in the same city for 120+ years, and are charter members of the AL and NL.
If we're comparing the Sox to the Cubs; the Sox are disadvantaged when it comes to attendance because they don't play in a tourist attraction. For the stadium they do have, attendance is actually really good.
Not to mention, I've been to "cross town" rivalries in two team cities (NY, LA, SF). I would easily say the Chicago crosstown rivalry is the most genuine and heated one of them all. The only other two team city that has a dynamic crosstown rivalry is NY, but even then, it didn't seem as strong as the Cubs/Sox rivalry in Chicago.
Last edited by CCrest182; 07-24-2019 at 04:22 PM..
Major League Baseball Rule 1.04 states: "It is desirable that the line from home base through the pitchers plate to second base shall run East Northeast."
That's what I was getting at-- not only does the SE-facing stadium face away from the skyline, but it also goes against the desired directional orientation for a baseball stadium (though it's far from being the only stadium that breaks this "rule"). So why did they face it that way?
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.
