Quote:
Originally Posted by BrinChi
^ Nor should they. There is nothing wrong with Rate field itself. Attendance isn't struggling because of the stadium; that's pretty obvious. They should re-sign for 10-15 years and evaluate again in 10 years. Save and invest profits in the meantime so they can buy their own next stadium.
Same story applies to the Bears as well. Stay at Soldier Field another 10 years at least.
|
I don't know if there are obvious more politics considering the neighborhood/area they're in - but I'm surprised the ownership isn't (as we know of) considering proposing a similar project to the UC 1901 Project around the Sox Stadium?
When they proposed The 78 pitch, they gave half-a**ed renderings of a soccer stadium with surrounding development. So it's not like they don't know the potential for the surrounding area.
I don't get why they aren't trying to "Wrigleyville-fy" the area like they're trying to do at UC? Obviously I think it could be really hard to simultaneously do a project like that alongside the 1901 project (money-wise), but it's just interesting the ownership sees the potential of UC and want to replicate what Wrigleyville has going for it, but then reject the idea around the Sox Stadium and just want to ditch it.
Threaded Mode