CHICAGO | The 78 Site

[ardecila]

Originally Posted by k1052

I think a lot of people, including team owners who are envious, miss that the Ricketts Wrigleyville plays and the adjacent developments work because the park itself is smack in the middle of one of the densest neighborhoods in the entire city filled with people that have a decent amount of disposable income. This is who keeps a lot of businesses going in the off season.

Bingo. And they succeeded in making Gallagher Way into the crossroads of the North Side, with good restaurants and all-ages/family-friendly events to balance out all the bars. Even in the off-season, that's where the action is.

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by ardecila

They don't need to build Armour Field really. Sox Park could use a facelift, but it's a perfectly fine modern ballpark. It could easily be like Nats Park with a facelift/expansion. It has an on-site CTA and Metra station. All those parking lots could easily become a "Comiskeyville" of mixed use development.

Frankly it seems much easier for the Sox to stay in place and build their entertainment district at 35th/Shields where there is ample land to build on AND move some or all of their parking into garages AND maintain easy transit access. At the end of the day I think it will be easier to convince ISFA (i.e. Gov Pritzker) to sell off the parking lots then it will be to convince Related to sell off the south half of The 78. Of course, in order to make year-round dining/entertainment feasible at 35th/Shields you need lots of people living on site.

Am not sure what to make of the likely new owner. But looking at some of the signs: demolishing three lakefront homes to construct a mansion... whatever seemingly secret deal is happening with Amtrak land .... telling the pope a new ballpark would be constructed...It feels like the general mindset may be more about opportunistically acquiring land and constructing something new rather than reuse.
Would be curious if any developers have looked at how well a large-scale development adjacent to the current ballpark would pencil out

[BVictor1]

04.09.26

[BVictor1]

04.12.26
Performing a load test.

[r18tdi]

Wall Street Journal:
McDonald’s, Recommitting to Chicago, Strikes Soccer-Stadium Naming Deal

New Chicago Fire stadium will be called McDonald’s Park as chain underscores commitment to longtime hometown

[Randomguy34]

[left of center]

Thats ... lame.


Free Big Macs for first 5,000 fans?

[lakeshoredrive]

The name is not a big deal to me

[sentinel]

McDonald's is a global brand with massive appeal, and it's headquarters are here. I'm not a fan, but I'm fine with sponsorship like this, since it's brand exposure for both them and the Chicago Fire.

[nomarandlee]

Originally Posted by sentinel

McDonald's is a global brand with massive appeal, and it's headquarters are here. I'm not a fan, but I'm fine with sponsorship like this, since it's brand exposure for both them and the Chicago Fire.

Exactly. I would like to see them do a slightly subtler version of the McDonald's signage (maybe all white/grey), with no golden arches, but that is unlikely.

McDonald's is one of the most recognized and iconic brands in the world. Much of the world, even within the U.S., fails to realize that Chicago is the company's longtime home. Any iconic brands that can be highlighted and associated with the city are a plus.

The brand should be interlinked as Atlanta is with Coke, Seattle is with Microsoft, or Nike is with Portland.

[BuildThemTaller]

Ugh, I hate it when a corporation slaps their name on a stadium. Why can't more stadiums use regular old names, like Wrigley Field?

[r18tdi]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Why can't more stadiums use regular old names, like Wrigley Field?

Well played

[twister244]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

exactly. I would like to see them do a slightly subtler version of the mcdonald's signage (maybe all white/grey), with no golden arches, but that is unlikely.

Mcdonald's is one of the most recognized and iconic brands in the world. Much of the world, even within the u.s., fails to realize that chicago is the company's longtime home. Any iconic brands that can be highlighted and associated with the city are a plus.

The brand should be interlinked as atlanta is with coke, seattle is with microsoft, or nike is with portland.

+1

[VKChaz]

Originally Posted by nomarandlee

Exactly. I would like to see them do a slightly subtler version of the McDonald's signage (maybe all white/grey), with no golden arches, but that is unlikely.

McDonald's is one of the most recognized and iconic brands in the world. Much of the world, even within the U.S., fails to realize that Chicago is the company's longtime home. Any iconic brands that can be highlighted and associated with the city are a plus.

The brand should be interlinked as Atlanta is with Coke, Seattle is with Microsoft, or Nike is with Portland.

Better that than a mostly defunct department store

[left of center]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Ugh, I hate it when a corporation slaps their name on a stadium. Why can't more stadiums use regular old names, like Wrigley Field?

I am sure this is sarcasm, but I wanted to clarify that Wrigley Field isn't named after a corporation. Rather, it's named after a previous Cubs owner, William Wrigley Jr.

Wrigley chewing gum does not pay the Cubs for the stadium name. Its one of the very few major league stadiums that has not sold its naming rights.

[Randomguy34]

Originally Posted by BuildThemTaller

Why can't more stadiums use regular old names, like Wrigley Field?

or United Center

My problem is more so with the specific brand itself. Yes I know that McDonald's is a Chicago company, they have the largest fast food market share on the planet, were a major catalyst in accelerating companies moving to Fulton Market, and it's no surprise they want a stadium sponsorship like other Fortune 500 companies. That said, in the US specifically public perception of McDonald's is associated with low quality food (other countries have a more positive view of the food and company). Coke, despite also being a major food and beverage company, doesn't suffer from the same negative view here in the US

[BuildThemTaller]

Originally Posted by Randomguy34

or United Center

My problem is more so with the specific brand itself. Yes I know that McDonald's is a Chicago company, they have the largest fast food market share on the planet, were a major catalyst in accelerating companies moving to Fulton Market, and it's no surprise they want a stadium sponsorship like other Fortune 500 companies. That said, in the US specifically public perception of McDonald's is associated with low quality food (other countries have a more positive view of the food and company). Coke, despite also being a major food and beverage company, doesn't suffer from the same negative view here in the US

So Chicago should aspire that companies like SoFi and Crypto.com land those naming rights? I think you're overthinking this.

[Randomguy34]

I never said that

[cloudbod]

I love mcnasty's and I'm dangerously addicted to mcnuggets, and I like that it's a Chicago thing, but I'm also annoyed with this naming deal-- it's a cheap sounding, tacky looking, negatively-connoting brand.
I felt the exact same way when the Wings' new stadium was named Little Caesars Arena. It's just hard to be proud of.

[Via Chicago]

naming rights are a fact of life with modern stadiums. i dont think theres any one thats better than the other and theyre all obviously interchangeable and disposable. welcome to sports capitalism. just is what it is.