Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice responds to Sheriff Dart
Posted in:
* Crain’s…
New renderings of a White Sox stadium at Related Midwest’s The 78 megadevelopment in the South Loop have surfaced, showing the ballpark as part of a vision for a new Chicago neighborhood.
The development would include thousands of units of housing, a hotel, entertainment options and a 4,000-car parking garage, sources familiar with the proposal recently told Crain’s. […]
In addition, the renderings floated tonight contemplate the future of the area around the team’s existing home, Guaranteed Rate Field.
“While we do not own the land at 35th & Shields . . . we knew there would be questions about 35th Street use,” a Related spokeswoman tells Crain’s. “So we put together conceptual ideas, understanding there would a robust community process to determine the best use for this land.
* Here’s the renderings…
* Tribune…
The development would generate a $9 billion investment, $4 billion in annual stabilized economic impact, and $200 million in annual tax revenue, according to the developer’s projections, which were not publicly substantiated. Those projections include buildout of Discovery Partners Institute, a state proposal for a technology and research center.
The plans also include a housing complex and a soccer stadium in and around the site of the Sox’s current stadium, Guaranteed Rate Field.
The proposal so far is speculative, with no way identified to pay for the new park. Public financing would require action by lawmakers. Gov. J.B. Pritzker has expressed his general opposition to taxpayers funding private development, beyond typical infrastructure costs. […]
The new plans call for 5 million annual visitors — about triple what the Sox drew in attendance last year — plus 1,000 affordable residential units, and 1,300 new housing units at the current Sox home near Bridgeport, redeveloped in the drawings to a smaller size with a soccer field.
* Fair point…
* On to the Bears. Sun-Times…
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell avoided picking sides as the Bears weigh the options of building a new stadium in Arlington Heights or Chicago, but said Monday either option would present a “great opportunity” for the Chicago area to host other major events.
Based on the league’s history of awarding Super Bowls to markets that build a new stadium, it’s likely the Chicago area would be in consideration if it had a sparkling new indoor facility. Goodell did not directly address the question of whether that would be likely.
“It’s important to the Chicago Bears and their fans, [and] it’s also important to that community,” Goodell said. “As we’ve seen [in Las Vegas], a great stadium can host additional events. That’s true in Chicago.” […]
The Bears don’t appear to be ready move on that project anytime soon as they explore a site just south of Soldier Field and the 326-acre lot that used to hold Arlington International Racecourse.
A Northwest Indiana lawmaker isn’t giving up his dream of luring a professional sports team across the state line from Illinois, even though his enabling legislation failed to advance prior to a key deadline this year at the Indiana Statehouse.
House Bill 1174, sponsored by state Rep. Earl Harris Jr., D-East Chicago, did not move out of the House Ways and Means Committee during the first half of the Indiana legislative session. […]
“House Bill 1174 not moving forward yet is not an end to our push to get the Chicago Bears and other sports teams to move to Northwest Indiana. This sports development commission is a long-term goal — one started by my father while he was in the state legislature — and I look forward to continuing the work in coming sessions,” Harris said.
Harris’ legislation would have established a 19-member Northwest Indiana Professional Sports Development Commission tasked with studying the possibility of attracting a professional sports team to the Region, along with developing a master plan for doing so.
* More…
* WGN | First time renderings revealed of White Sox proposal for a new ballpark in the 78: Shortly after the Sun-Times report was released, White Sox owner Jerry Reinsdorf and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson issued a joint statement that bore no mention of The 78 being a possible destination for a new Sox stadium.
* Sun-Times | White Sox spring broadcast schedule includes six televised games, 10 on radio: All six games will be called by new play-by-play announcer John Schriffen, alongside analyst Steve Stone. NBC Sports Chicago — the Sox’ exclusive television home — and ESPN Chicago (1000-AM) announced the team’s schedule Wednesday. Pitchers and catchers report to spring training next Wednesday.
* ABC Chicago | Chicago Bears news: Season ticket prices to increase by average of 8% in 2024: “With careful thought and analysis, our 2024 season ticket package price will increase on average by 8.0%, with increases ranging from 6.2% to 11.3%,” the letter said. [President and CEO Kevin Warren] also announced discounts for season ticket holders at concessions will increase to 20% for non-club and 30% Club accounts.
* NBC Chicago | Kevin Warren confirms details about the Bears stadium project: It’s also important that Warren said “fixed roof,” meaning the Bears will not have a retractable roof for their stadium that can accommodate inside and outside events. Without knowing the reason for a fixed roof, retractable ones are much more expensive.
* Crain’s | A prominent architect hopes his blue-sky stadium idea will keep the Bears in Chicago: “Keep them in Chicago,” says Booth, the eminent architect who’s been practicing in the city since the 1960s, designing dozens of new buildings and renovations of old ones, as well as more in the suburbs and farther afield. As such, Booth is uniquely qualified to spitball a blue-sky vision of what an ambitious, state-of-the-art stadium could look like within city limits — though he hasn’t been in any formal talks with the Bears organization about making his vision a reality.
posted by Isabel Miller
Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:46 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: It’s just a bill
Next Post: Illinois Network for Pretrial Justice responds to Sheriff Dart
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“Actual development may vary, based on whether Jerry is asked to spend any of his own money for it.”
Comment by Roadrager Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:49 am
By all means let the Sox and Related build it at the 78. Let’s just get to their ask of taxpayers so it can be laughed at and move this on to the Plan Commission stage.
Then let ISFA sell the Sox parking lots off once the White Sox are gone. Nice little windfall for the State and property tax generating development for the City. Bulls (cough cough) and Blackhawks and Cubs own their own stadiums already. Great time for the White Sox to join that club too.
Comment by ChicagoBars Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 10:58 am
Is it easier to promote a new stadium rather than putting a winning team on the field?
In 2005 the White Sox won it all and did good business at the gate and enjoyed good home attendance for several years afterwards.
It’s a mediocre team not the current park impacting attendance recently.
Comment by Gravitas Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:01 am
Attendance of 5,000,000 can’t just be for 81 baseball games, that’s more than 60,000 a game. Maybe it includes concerts or even the soccer site too
Comment by SteveM Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:06 am
Discovery Partners anchoring the commercial part and the Sox anchoring the entertainment district. This just makes more sense as more comes out. Folks have to remember as was pointed out, what happens to Guaranteed Rate is not their responsibility. They rent. Now let the pre-indignancy about “no public money” begin. Or, just chill and wait.
Comment by levivotedforjudy Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:06 am
Absolutely outstanding and with all that revenue Sox will not need a dime of state money. Also outstanding that Sox will probably be up and running before Bears even settle on a site
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:09 am
Build it yourself, Jerry. Heck, throw him a bone and the city/state can pay for infrastructure improvements/expansions in the immediate area. But you want it, you pay for it.
Comment by TJ Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:18 am
Rep. Earl Harris Jr. (East Chicago) bill to bring a sports team to NW Indiana is not going anywhere. The region lacks infrastructure to support a professional sports team.
There is no public transportation in the area. High levels of pollution over decades damaged the environment. There is a statewide shortage of teachers due to inadequate funding and support. Several schools in the region closed and more closures are planned.
Why would legislators sit on a committee when the state has other pressing concerns?
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:28 am
We still have yet to see how they would handle the traffic from those who drive to Sox games.
They keep talking about public transit and while that is good, they need to remember those for whom it is impractical and choose to drive in. Suburban fans are a big part of the team’s fan base.
Comment by low level Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:35 am
The White Sox have already received billions in Socialist Welfare Entitlements. In the interest of Tax Fairness quit mooching off of taxpayers.
Pass this message along to the new Bears president, along with Ginnie and George, as well.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:42 am
5,000,000 visitors per year? That is a truly absurd number. They might as well have said “thirteen brazillion visitors per year.”
Comment by The Truth Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:46 am
Furthermore, the attendance predictions fail to take into account past behavior of White Sox fans. If the team is winning, they will go to games. If they arent winning, they avoid the team.
The White Sox and Related seem to be assuming this park would draw fans regardless of the team’s record akin to what happens at Wrigley. That seems to be a big assumption. If it doesnt pan out, how would low Sox attendance impact financing of the stadium?
Comment by low level Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:49 am
I like how the renderings show five vehicles in total. Will each of these cars hold one million occupants annually?
Comment by Jocko Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:50 am
Besides the ChicagoBars question of who pays, is the site even wide enough to fit the ballpark? I know there are renderings, but Clark Street is 100 West, Wells St 200 West. One city block seems like a tight fit. Block 78 is approximately 650′ wide, just the Guaranteed Rate ballpark is 950′.
Comment by James the Intolerant Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 11:57 am
Gorgeous backdrop with the skyscrapers. The river is there too, where the area can be developed for the pleasure of fans, residents and tourists. Much more aesthetically pleasing than Bridgeport.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:03 pm
The current field has parking for 7,000 cars. Getting in and out is a total nightmare. The new venue, which is larger and more likely to attract people outside the park, has a garage for 4,000 cars. Talk about an ingress/egress nightmare. Conceptually I love this idea, but I don’t think they’ve thought it through.
Oh, and to the comment about how the current facility and neighborhood is not their responsibility? Cmon. They may not own it but it is Sox Park and built for the Sox. Of course they have responsibility for destroying a community when they leave.
Comment by New Day Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:08 pm
This reminds us again that *all* economic impact estimates are baloney. Completely fictional.
Especially in the case where a sports team would be moving within the same city.
Comment by Friendly Bob Adams Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:17 pm
“thirteen brazillion visitors per year.”=
What do you know that I don’t (probably a lot), why would people from Brazil come to see the Sox and why 13?
Tongue firmly planted in cheek. Thanks for the chuckle.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 12:36 pm
“It’s important to the Chicago Bears and their fans”
Is it, Roger?
Personally, the thought of hosting one Super Bowl, which I’d never be able to afford to attend, doesn’t really do anything for me.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:08 pm
“ that’s more than 60,000 a game.”
Every game will be Disco Demolition Night.
Comment by Proud Papa Bear Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:10 pm
===The new venue, which is larger and more likely to attract people outside the park, has a garage for 4,000 cars. Talk about an ingress/egress nightmare.===
To be fair, that’s about 4,000 more spaces than that park to th e north.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:21 pm
Agree with Papa Bear. Thats why the good lord invented TV and I can go to the bathroom and fix food without any line to have to wait in.
Comment by Jerry Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:24 pm
Could be concerts like someone else noted.
Or maybe they’re counting the whole neighborhood as some sort of premier entertainment space
Comment by Nick Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:39 pm
I admit my bias — I am a Sox fan. It would be a beautiful setting for games. I hope somehow some sort of reasonable public-private partnership can be worked out.
Comment by DougChicago Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 1:48 pm
Does anyone who knows anything about stadium design know whether Guaranteed Rate field actually could be retrofitted for the Bears, or is that just a dorm room discussion?
Comment by Jibba Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:04 pm
Anyone else notice in the renderings they spell the name of the team “Chicacago White Sox”?
Nice attention to detail.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:06 pm
No way should one dollar of taxpayer money be spent on the Mc pier is the last boondoggle and continuing drain on the city
Comment by Hank Sauer Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:09 pm
I am not an expert, legal or on the politics, but I don’t understand yet, how the Bears can ever build in that lot. Four words: Friends of the Parks. I’ve seen glancing media references to, “Oh yeah, they said they might sue,” but this seems to understate just how serious a problem this will be. Ask George Lucas.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:26 pm
Call them the Chicago Swift Sox make Taylor Swift a partner and you will get a bazillion fans
Comment by DuPage Saint Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 2:53 pm
re: Friends of the Parks and parking lot — it isn’t that development on public land prohibited, it is that private sector development on the public land is forbidden.
I’ll also note what if we allowed other developers to build their monstrosities along the lakefront for the past century? We’d be Gary.
Comment by Just Me 2 Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 5:48 pm
At least center field is to the northeast again.
Comment by Proud Sucker Thursday, Feb 8, 24 @ 6:02 pm