* Background is here if you need it. Tribune…

Will the South Siders be playing baseball in the South Loop?

According to the Chicago Sun-Times, “serious” negotiations have taken place between the Chicago White Sox and developer Related Midwest in regard to possibly building a baseball-only stadium at Roosevelt Road and Clark Street — an area known as “the 78.”

Related Midwest owns the site. The Illinois Sports Facilities Authority — which owns Guaranteed Rate Field — has not been involved in the talks, the organization’s CEO, Frank Bilecki, told the Tribune.

“I’m not part of the discussion, at least as of yet,” Bilecki said. “I truly know nothing. I’m a landlord and they’re a tenant, and they’re looking at options as tenants do everywhere.”

* A park that close to downtown would be a great after-work draw. A cool stadium would also bring in tourists. And the view could be just tremendous…

Ownership being what it is means I ain’t holding my breath on any of it.

* Gov. Pritzker has opposed public funding for a new suburban Bears stadium, but the White Sox play in a park owned by a state agency, so he was asked today whether he would support state funding for this…

Nobody’s made the ask yet. So having said that, I think you know my views about privately owned teams and whether the public should be paying for private facilities that will be used by private businesses. Having said that, I mean, there are things that government does to support business all across the state, investing in infrastructure, making sure that we’re supporting the success of business in Illinois. So, as with all of the other, whether it’s sports teams, or other private businesses, we’ll be looking at whatever they may be suggesting or asking for.

* The Question: Your own thoughts on this topic?

…Adding… In response to some comments, here’s NBC 5…

State taxpayers still owe roughly $50 million on bonds used to construct the stadium. The White Sox lease expires after the conclusion of the 2028 season.

       

45 Comments - NIU Grad - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:07 pm: Knowing the current ownership, the view will probably end up facing the highway… - Andersonville Right Winger - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:07 pm: 1) New Location ok by me, will miss Bridgeport. 2) No public funding for this new stadium. 3) Sell the team, Jerry. - TJ - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:12 pm: I’m sure that the folks that live immediately east of there aren’t thrilled at the idea of having a boatload more traffic 81 times a year, but that being said even as a Cubs fan I recognize that it is a prime location for a ballpark if done right. Now, that being said, Reinsdorf has already gotten public monies for his vanity projects twice and during that time his coffers have grown exponentially. Let’s limit any public funds to infrastructure around the area, like roadwork and any red line work needed to provide easier access for fans coming and going. Heck, maybe even toss in a tax break or a tax freeze, but the city, county, and state better not give him a load of dough yet again. - Hans - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:13 pm: A really interesting part of this is the post-Covid collapse of the downtown real estate market. Related Midwest can’t get the financing to build office or apartment buildings as they originally proposed for “The 78,” so they’re moving to an alternative development plan. Ironically, there was talk of building New Comiskey Park at the exact same site in the late 80’s, but Reinsdorf didn’t want to dip into his own pocket to buy a portion of the property — a horribly shortsighted decision that has probably cost his team untold millions. - Regular democrat - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:14 pm: If Reinsdorf and his deep pocketed investors want to build a stadium with no public money then build away. Past history strongly suggests the opposite will be requested. These are extremely wealthy people in the twilight of their lives so spend your own money and build something nice for a legacy to the fans and the city. - Jocko - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:14 pm: I think this is a stunt to get Nashville interested in ponying up support. Jerry should be forever grateful for the sweetheart deal Jim Thompson and the IFSA gave him. - The Truth - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:16 pm: This story is very light on detail and named sources. Feels like Jerry was bored on a January day and felt like floating something to see what would happen. - New Day - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:18 pm: Teams should make sure their previous boondoggles are paid off before asking for new boondoggles. Also, what exactly would happen with the current stadium? Ain’t just gonna go poof. Seems like it would create a vast, gaping hole on the south side. - Keyrock - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:20 pm: When the new park opened, one of my main ambitions in life was to outlive it. My view about the stadium itself changed a bit as improvements were made over the years. But I’ve always remained outraged at the sweetheart financial deal the Sox got. While a new stadium at Roosevelt and Clark would be great, the current park doesn’t need to be replaced. Before spending another public penny, I’d like to know how much the public will have lost on the current park if the Sox move out. (And Reinsdorf should sell the team to another local owner.) - btowntruth from forgottonia - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:22 pm: Not a dime. They don’t need it. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:23 pm: Not a sox fan but it would be a great location for them. That said, I’m not really sold The 78 is going to come to complete fruition and Reinsdorf doesn’t have the gravitas to pull it off either. Too bad for y’all - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:24 pm: No pubic financing for *any* stadium, I don’t care who it’s for. If the 78 happens, it’ll need a ton of infrastructure. I think investment in that might make sense - Jerry - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:25 pm: Didn’t this team get a boatload of welfare for a stadium? What ever happened to “Tax Fairness?” For-profit, privately owned businesses are free to build whatever they want. They can pay for them with their own money. The taxpayers are tapped out. - That Guy - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:27 pm: I’ve said it for the Bears and anytime this is mentioned for other sports teams. No public dollars for private entertainment. Especially in cases where the owners/operators are so obscenely rich. Unless, of course, they want to give up a share to the state/taxpayers (which will never happen, but could be an interesting topic) - Cool Papa Bell - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:37 pm: No public dollars for the stadium. To the site - WOW. That would be a game changer for the Sox and ticket sales. Great location for mass transit traffic and driving there wouldn’t be awful either. I think that Sun Times article included that the current park could be turned over to the Fire. With some rehab that could make good sense too. I am still trying to figure out just what the Bears are up to. Now floating ideas about parking lots by McCormick. I just can’t believe that a few million in taxes each year at the Arlington Heights site is enough to scare them away from building out there. Bears ownership is relatively “cash poor” so maybe they just figured the public money truck would be backed up for them. Oh well. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:41 pm: It’s a great location. But can’t we figure out a way to get the Bears and Sox in the same park? - Save Ferris - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:46 pm: Far, far better location than the impossible-to-get-to-from-the-north-or-northwest stadium that currently exists. Reinsdorf already built one stadium without public financing (the UC). Go build another. And gift the Bears the Comiskey site. - Chicago Voter - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:46 pm: As a life-long Southsider and Sox fan, I would like to see them stay in Bridgeport. I wish when the current park was built, they would have found room for McCuddy’s to open back up. The area needs more than the current but limited places to go before and after a game. Absolutely no state financial support for a new stadium. - Louis G Atsaves - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:50 pm: No public funding. White Sox purchase the site from the State at a legitimate price so that they pay property taxes. No public funding of special off ramps, driveway ramps, water, sewer, electrical, gas, etc. What was basically good for the Cubs and now the Bears should apply to the White Sox. No public funding or special public deals, period. - Jibba - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:52 pm: Geez, these owners are like my kids. Didn’t I just buy you a new cell phone last year? No public money anymore for any stadium (aside from infrastructure improvements). And official opposition until the disposition of the old stadium is determined. I’d sell it for cheap to the Bears. Maybe they can put a dome on it. - JS Mill - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:54 pm: =No public dollars for the stadium.= Ditto. =No public funding of special off ramps, driveway ramps, water, sewer, electrical, gas, etc.= Infrastructure is part of what government does. Different than purchasing the property or paying for the building. I was ok with that for the Bears and the Cubs too. But boy, you sure know how to hold a grudge Louis. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:59 pm: I’ve been saying since last night that I think this is some ownership ploy to bargain with another city/state. but if they want to do it here with no public money, fine. I cried spend once when they threatened to go to Tampa. not again. though I would miss them. this design looks great and would be a fantastic addition to the (near) South Side. - Anon404 - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 1:59 pm: One approach for private-public financing that should be explored is to have the Sox/Related Midwest put up all the cash for construction, but have the Sports Facilities Authority float the bonds and actually own the stadium. That would allow the Sox/Related Midwest to lower building expenses with tax free bonds and, most significantly, not have to pay property taxes on the stadium moving forward because it would be publicly owned. The Bears’ Arlington Heights proposal is a pretty good indications of how avoiding property taxes is important to stadium developers. - ChrisB - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 2:09 pm: ==This story is very light on detail and named sources. Feels like Jerry was bored on a January day and felt like floating something to see what would happen.== I’m cynical enough to think that this is a distraction to get the media to stop talking about Booing Mrs. Krause at the Bulls event last weekend. It’s a classic Reinsdorf move. Something bad regarding his team happens, have his media team leak a fluffy press release to distract the local radio shows. Everybody forgets the next day. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 2:17 pm: ===a distraction to get the media to stop talking about=== I am inclined to believe this whole things isn’t real, but not everything is a dark conspiracy. - levivotedforjudy - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 2:29 pm: When I first heard about this and digested it I realized that this is a really good/potentially great idea. This is supposed to be the newest Chicago neighborhood (78th). It already has one anchor in the Discovery Partner institute extension (life sciences innovation) and there is supposed to be an entertainment district (viola - White Sox are the anchor). The slightly snarky part of me thinks, people showed up when the Cubs were bad but in a fun neighborhood. Why not replicate it in the SOuth Loop. - Steve - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 2:33 pm: I think the South Loop is a great location. A lot more people will go to Sox games at that location. It’s a location so good: taxpayers don’t need to be involved. - CoachK - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 2:57 pm: Not tax freeze, no funds whatsoever from the city or the state. They have been a publicly funded ballclub since 1991. They are currently renting their stadium for 1.5 million per year and only pay more if they sell over a certain amount of tickets, which they do not. He bought the team for 19 million in 1981, they are valued over 2 billion, he can pay for everything himself or maybe the state can sell him the stadium in Bridgeport at Market Value. - The Truth - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 3:04 pm: Wow. Seeing many comments talk about this new location as being mass transit- and car-friendly… …while the current ballpark literally has a Red Line stop and is next to the Dan Ryan. - TJ - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 3:11 pm: ===It’s a great location. But can’t we figure out a way to get the Bears and Sox in the same park?=== If the 70s-80s have taught us anything, it’s that making a dual-use baseball/football venue only results in a substandard football stadium and an atrocious ballpark. - Original Rambler - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 3:25 pm: Every time I hear about Reinsdorf/White Sox floating an idea like this that likely requires public participation, it brings up the continuing disgust I have with the ISFA debacle that our “beloved” leader Thompson agreed to which has been an ongoing financial windfall for the Reinsdorf family. (Kinda like last night’s burrito.) The cynical me believes that Jerry is just using this for leverage and is ready to flee to Nashville. I’m sure he will finagle a similar deal that fleeces those citizens to his family’s benefit. I do like this idea but it’s time for the Reinsdorf family to build their own stadium. Infrastructure on the government’s dime is okay. I may be wrong but if (when) Reinsdorf walks away from the GRate in 6 years it is the public on the hook for the remaining debt, not the White Sox in any way. SMH - Grandson of Man - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 3:26 pm: Would be a great location and stunning visually, instead of drab Bridgeport. But not with public financing, because for one reason ownership does not produce winners. Why pay for an empty stadium? - Roman - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 3:30 pm: == I am inclined to believe this whole things isn’t real == That’s my gut feeling, too. Reinsdorf sees what the Bears are up to and doesn’t want to be left out. This and his Nashville bluff get him in the game. However, the one thing that has me wondering if it is “real” is Related Midwest’s involvement. Their development of The 78 has hit a brick wall. They might see a stadium as viable option for injecting some life into the project. If they’re willing to put some skin in the game, this could be “real.” Then again, they could just be riding Reinsdorf coattails looking for a hand out. - Give Us Barabbas - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 3:45 pm: I would ok state money for road and utility infrastructure, conditional on Steve Dahl being part of the opening ceremonies. Might take Dave Dahl as a pinch hitter if he wears a Hawaiian shirt. - DougChicago - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 3:56 pm: It probably won’t happen but boy that would be great if it does! They stay in Chicago, on the South Side, with (I would hope) a magnificent stadium. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 4:00 pm: ===a magnificent stadium. === I have occasionally daydreamed about moving the Sox to the south loop and hiring Frank Gehry to design the new park. - bogey golfer - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 4:18 pm: I think this is a ploy to get the Sox some much-needed publicity, since they haven’t signed any free agents of note. I know of several long-time season ticket holders who are passing based on last year’s (lack of) performance. - Amalia - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 4:24 pm: @bogeygolfer, yes. though it is odd the lack of signings out there. still quite a list available. at this point it barely feels like they can field a team. and yet I’m planning tix based on the give aways. some really good ones. - Joe Bidenopolous - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 4:26 pm: =The cynical me believes that Jerry is just using this for leverage and is ready to flee to Nashville.= =This and his Nashville bluff = I’m not sure it’s cynical and I’m not sure Nashville is a bluff - or at least, I’m not sure Reinsdorf sees it that way. Tennessee pays. The Titans are getting a cool $1B for their new stadium from Tennesseans - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 4:38 pm: ===I think this is a ploy to get the Sox some=== Everyone’s got their conspiracy theories. lol - Rabid - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 5:51 pm: third to home plate penthouse box view is for sale - Gravitas - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 6:42 pm: Thirty-three years after its construction and the stadium is obsolete? Start winning some games and Guaranteed Rate Field will have better attendance. The lousy ticket sales are more about 101 losses than the stadium location and amenities. - Roman - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 7:57 pm: == I’m not sure Nashville is a bluff == Commissioner Rob Manfred has said MLB plans to expand to 32 teams in the coming years. Nashville is considered the front runner for a new franchise. It’s estimated that the expansion fee to own a new franchise will be between 3 and 5 billion dollars, split evenly among each existing franchise. Reindsorf’s 29 fellow MLB owners are not going to allow him to move to Nashville for free if a new ownership group is willing to pay them up to $5 billion for the rights to Nashville. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 8:20 pm: ===Thirty-three years after its construction and the stadium is obsolete? === It was obsolete the day it opened. - Rabid - Thursday, Jan 18, 24 @ 8:58 pm: The Sox sign in center field says” please sell the Soxs “ Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.