Rosemont Cubs?

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by doublem23

The Angels and Rangers both were in the lower half of the AL in attendance before they had their respective runs of success. I have no doubt if the Sox were coming off a decade like the Angels had or the recent run Texas had, we'd be racking 30,000+ per night, too.

The Dallas-FW Metroplex and Orange County and the LA area as a whole are also newer and much more car-dependent cities than Chicago.

[Noneck]

Originally Posted by getonbckthr

I'll be honest I would have loved for an Addison stadium. I live up by O'Hare and I hate going to The Cell. The drive through the city sucks as does the public transportation options.

Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by Noneck

Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

Very true, I'm going back a long time but my wife was from Northbrook, when I started dating her in 1969, her and her family had no idea where Comiskey Park was. Our 4th date was to Comiskey, the day that men walked on the moon for the first time. She promised to be a Sox fan from that day on so I married her in October.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Noneck

Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

If suburbia is such a great untapped market of economic possibility, why has no new ballpark (save two; Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, TX; and the Rays park, in St. Pete, which was not built for them) in the last 25 years been built there?

[Noneck]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

If suburbia is such a great untapped market of economic possibility, why has no new ballpark (save two; Rangers Ballpark in Arlington, TX; and the Rays park, in St. Pete, which was not built for them) in the last 25 years been built there?

I dont know anything about suburbanites in other metro areas, just chicago. But I do know that the inner city ballparks you speak of are not competing with another city ballpark like here in chicago.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by Noneck

Im with you. Some here think that public transportation is the key to drawing here in Chicago. That obviously works for the cubs probably because of the party atmosphere and area that their park is in. The Sox do have accessible public transportation but I really think that market is covered already by the cubs. The untapped market which I have mentioned before is the suburbanites that dont want to come into the city. There are a lot of people out in the burbs that wont come into the city. A centrally located suburban location I have always thought would attract this untapped fan base. The next shot for this will be 2026 unless the cubs are not bluffing, which I think they are.

I sincerely doubt there is that large of a market for people that it would make sense to move the team away from the center of the region's transportation network. Barring some crazy shift in the next 15 years, the region's population and wealth will still be centered deep in the city. This idea that the suburbs are this untapped market of endless prosperity is dead, 1970's era thinking (which is precisely what got us the Cell in the first place as opposed to the more popular retro ballparks). The Sox have already been burned once badly by thinking in the past. Moving to Addison would only cement their legacy.

Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Noneck

I dont know anything about suburbanites in other metro areas, just chicago. But I do know that the inner city ballparks you speak of are not competing with another city ballpark like here in chicago.

To a certain extent, it's an unknowable and just a thought experiment: whether the Sox would have drawn better in Addison. But I think it says a lot that pretty much every new ballpark has been built in a city center (or at least somewhat close to it) and not out in suburbia. I don't think there is anything inherently unique to the Chicago area that makes the White Sox special in that regard, and the Chicago area is not even the smallest market with two teams; that would go to the Bay Area; that A's troubles over the years says more to me of a having a suburban-style dump of an old, cookie-cutter multipurpose stadium than anything else. There is no reason to think that, if the White Sox compete with the Cubs, that the Mets don't compete with the Yankees, or the A's with the Giants, or the Angels with the Dodgers. And in each case, I suppose you could argue that the "second" team in each market is located more in a suburban location than the "first" team; downtown LA for the Dodgers vs. Orange County for the Angels; Flushing, Queens for the Mets vs the Bronx for the Yankees; an oddly located large parking lot in Oakland vs a waterfront, near downtown location for the Giants. The Angels draw well, but only since both remodeling their old park and having a contending team year after year. The A's struggle, while the Mets built a hugely expensive ballpark and have been a bit of a mess, but for unrelated reasons (the owners were victims of a financial scam).

And while the city and suburban fan is concerned with access to the ballpark; the city fan taking public transportation, the suburban fan with distance and ease of access in driving to the park; the team is more concerned with corporate suite revenue. And having a suburban park I would venture a guess would hurt suite revenue the further they are from businesses and corporate offices.

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by doublem23

I sincerely doubt there is that large of a market for people that it would make sense to move the team away from the center of the region's transportation network. Barring some crazy shift in the next 15 years, the region's population and wealth will still be centered deep in the city. This idea that the suburbs are this untapped market of endless prosperity is dead, 1970's era thinking (which is precisely what got us the Cell in the first place as opposed to the more popular retro ballparks). The Sox have already been burned once badly by thinking in the past. Moving to Addison would only cement their legacy.

Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.

For the most part the team has sucked but even in 2006 on the heels of the greatest Sox season ever they could not even hit the 3,000,000 mark. That ballpark should have been sold out every night. The Flubs outdrew us by 200,000 in 06, ***. Even in its first year it failed to hit the 3 million mark. We will never know if Addison was the answer but 35th and Shields is not.

[Noneck]

Originally Posted by DSpivack

To a certain extent, it's an unknowable and just a thought experiment: whether the Sox would have drawn better in Addison. But I think it says a lot that pretty much every new ballpark has been built in a city center (or at least somewhat close to it) and not out in suburbia. I don't think there is anything inherently unique to the Chicago area that makes the White Sox special in that regard, and the Chicago area is not even the smallest market with two teams; that would go to the Bay Area; that A's troubles over the years says more to me of a having a suburban-style dump of an old, cookie-cutter multipurpose stadium than anything else. There is no reason to think that, if the White Sox compete with the Cubs, that the Mets don't compete with the Yankees, or the A's with the Giants, or the Angels with the Dodgers. And in each case, I suppose you could argue that the "second" team in each market is located more in a suburban location than the "first" team; downtown LA for the Dodgers vs. Orange County for the Angels; Flushing, Queens for the Mets vs the Bronx for the Yankees; an oddly located large parking lot in Oakland vs a waterfront, near downtown location for the Giants. The Angels draw well, but only since both remodeling their old park and having a contending team year after year. The A's struggle, while the Mets built a hugely expensive ballpark and have been a bit of a mess, but for unrelated reasons (the owners were victims of a financial scam).

And while the city and suburban fan is concerned with access to the ballpark; the city fan taking public transportation, the suburban fan with distance and ease of access in driving to the park; the team is more concerned with corporate suite revenue. And having a suburban park I would venture a guess would hurt suite revenue the further they are from businesses and corporate offices.

The cities mentioned with the exception of new york are not the type of competition that the Sox have. The distance is much further between parks.

There are many corporate headquarters in suburbia here and I dont see why they couldn't fill the corporate suites in a suburban location.

[doublem23]

Originally Posted by LITTLE NELL

For the most part the team has sucked but even in 2006 on the heels of the greatest Sox season ever they could not even hit the 3,000,000 mark. That ballpark should have been sold out every night. Even in its first year it failed to hit the 3 million mark. We will never know if Addison was the answer but 35th and Shields is not.

Meh, I'm not going to get too worked up over the Sox falling just shy of some neat looking round number that's ultimately kind of meaningless. They would have finished 3rd in the AL in attendance if they got the additional 526 fans per game they needed to break 3 M or not.

We've had this discussion a number of times and it always comes to the same old thing; I think the problem with the Cell is it is already too suburban; it doesn't try to fit in with it's neighborhood, it's in the middle of a bunch of parking lots, there's basically nothing to do within walking distance. The team HAS to be the draw. The park has the personality of a shopping mall. It's not like Wrigley which has a whole separate world around it that would help draw people in. So regardless of where the Cell was built; Bridgeport, South Loop, West Side, Addison, etc. they'd be struggling to draw fans with the on-field track record they've had because if the Sox aren't very good, what is there to make diehards want to come visit?

[LITTLE NELL]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Meh, I'm not going to get too worked up over the Sox falling just shy of some neat looking round number that's ultimately kind of meaningless. They would have finished 3rd in the AL in attendance if they got the additional 526 fans per game they needed to break 3 M or not.

We've had this discussion a number of times and it always comes to the same old thing; I think the problem with the Cell is it is already too suburban; it doesn't try to fit in with it's neighborhood, it's in the middle of a bunch of parking lots, there's basically nothing to do within walking distance. The team HAS to be the draw. The park has the personality of a shopping mall. It's not like Wrigley which has a whole separate world around it that would help draw people in. So regardless of where the Cell was built; Bridgeport, South Loop, West Side, Addison, etc. they'd be struggling to draw fans with the on-field track record they've had because if the Sox aren't very good, what is there to make diehards want to come visit?

I guess it all boils down to is we are the second team in town, have a lousy team with a lousy ballpark in a lousy location with not enough fans.

[Noneck]

Originally Posted by doublem23

Again, the attendance issues are because the team sucks. They've been to the playoffs 5 times in my life. They've only been mildly competitive in a bad division for most of the past decade. That's the issue. I'm sure there is a segment of suburbanites who absolutely refuse to come to the city. That's fine, but they are the extreme minority, no sense in marketing to them. I think most people who aren't putting their butts in the seats at the Cell don't want to pay out the nose to see ****ty baseball.

Winning consistently would cure attendance problems no matter where a park was but that hasnt happened in my lifetime and doubt it will happen in yours.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Noneck

Winning consistently would cure attendance problems no matter where a park was but that hasnt happened in my lifetime and doubt it will happen in yours.

Ultimately, this is true of pretty much every team, with just a couple exceptions.

[Golden Sox]

A forgotten part of White Sox history was when the City of Chicago led by Mayor Washington wanted to build a new stadium for the White Sox at Roosevelt and Clark in the mid 1980's. The White Sox and the city could not agree on the finances. The White Sox would of paid more to lease the South Loop location as opposed to what they're paying at the Cell. They also would not of received the concessions and parking money which they are receiving at the Cell. I wish the White Sox and the city could of worked out their differences. The White Sox would of drawn alot more people playing in the South Loop than at its present location. The present lease at the Cell expires in 2026. I would imagine ten years from now, (in 2013) the White Sox will be looking for another stadium in a different location in the Chicagoland location. Maybe Rosemont will make the same offer to the White Sox then.

[DSpivack]

Originally Posted by Golden Sox

A forgotten part of White Sox history was when the City of Chicago led by Mayor Washington wanted to build a new stadium for the White Sox at Roosevelt and Clark in the mid 1980's. The White Sox and the city could not agree on the finances. The White Sox would of paid more to lease the South Loop location as opposed to what they're paying at the Cell. They also would not of received the concessions and parking money which they are receiving at the Cell. I wish the White Sox and the city could of worked out their differences. The White Sox would of drawn alot more people playing in the South Loop than at its present location. The present lease at the Cell expires in 2026. I would imagine ten years from now, (in 2013) the White Sox will be looking for another stadium in a different location in the Chicagoland location. Maybe Rosemont will make the same offer to the White Sox then.

I seriously doubt that. They aren't paying for the $600 million (or whatever it would take) stadium on their own, and I doubt public money will be around to build it for them.