Anybody know where I can find Bleacher construction photos?

[Sec 511 Die-hard]

I'm looking for updated images of the bleacher expansion at Wrigley. Anybody have any links?

[MikeG]

http://www.bleedcubbieblue.com/

 

They update pretty often.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Check Here

[Omar]

http://images.bleedcubbieblue.com/images/admin/wrigley1211b.jpg

 

First person who tells me what that miller sign says hidden behind the construction is the winner, and apparently a Chicago drunkie.. but same thing, right?

 

A winner is YOU. etc.

[B]

http://images.bleedcubbieblue.com/images/admin/wrigley1211b.jpg

 

First person who tells me what that miller sign says hidden behind the construction is the winner, and apparently a Chicago drunkie.. but same thing, right?

 

A winner is YOU. etc.

 

My guess is "Winter is Beer"

[Sec 511 Die-hard]

thanks for the help. great pics.

[Soul]

Best quote on that Cubbie blog:

 

They basically ripped out the back of the bleachers. It's a gut job. It's rebuilding the bleachers, not expanding them. Once you change the sightlines, you're really changing the entire bleachers. I feel as though the Cubs misled their fans. When you say you are expanding, it's like you're putting a room addition onto a house. You don't rip down the whole house.

 

Tried to say they're basically tearing down the outer-half of Wrigley, but nobody wanted to listen. And they've already re-done the infield seats, so that's nothing like it used to be either.

 

The point? It isn't Wrigley anymore, folks. Why not build an actual new ballpark then? Wrigley field, as we all grew up with, is now gone. So why the charade?

[WrigleyField 22]

Best quote on that Cubbie blog:

 

They basically ripped out the back of the bleachers. It's a gut job. It's rebuilding the bleachers, not expanding them. Once you change the sightlines, you're really changing the entire bleachers. I feel as though the Cubs misled their fans. When you say you are expanding, it's like you're putting a room addition onto a house. You don't rip down the whole house.

 

Tried to say they're basically tearing down the outer-half of Wrigley, but nobody wanted to listen. And they've already re-done the infield seats, so that's nothing like it used to be either.

 

The point? It isn't Wrigley anymore, folks. Why not build an actual new ballpark then? Wrigley field, as we all grew up with, is now gone. So why the charade?

 

Come on. Its not like they are putting a UFO looking structure on top of Wrigley Field. Wrigley will still be Wrigley. Its not like the Wrigley we have is exactly like the Wrigley that was originally built. Besides looking at pictures it seems as though it will ook pretty similar.

[J.R.]

Wrigley field, as we all grew up with, is now gone. So why the charade?

 

Save for the 1972-1981 period, the ballpark has been in a state of near-constant flux. The real charade is the insistence by some that the park has never changed.

[Laura]

I'd be more than happy if they upgraded the bathrooms and food situation (will that restaurant be ready to go this spring?) in the bleachers. That's only needed to be done for about 20 years.

 

If they expand the bleachers without fixing the bathroom situation, sitting out there will be like visiting a 5th-world country.

[Soul]

I understand, but they're basically building a new shiny shell around rusty, dirty old innards.

 

Couldn't they just refurb the whole site to look like Wrigley and wind up with pretty much the same thing, except it would be more structurally sound and probably have less-stinky bathrooms and better amenities?

 

I guess I'm just wondering at what point would it have been better to just do the whole job instead of piecemeal. Eventually they're going to have to anyway.

 

The best reason I can think of to do it the current way is to try and trick the fans into thinking it really isn't being done in the first place. Strange, I know. But I'm starting to think that's kinda the idea behind all of this.

[Laura]

I don't know that we're disagreeing. I'm concerned that the dank innards won't be addressed at all; instead the focus will be on packing more people in expanded bleachers. I really doubt I'm going to like the results -- if that makes me stone-age and luddite, so be it.

 

In terms of rebuilding it: don't underestimate the profitability of the Wrigley image. It's a tourist attraction. The team hasn't done much to justify the attendance figures. One reason people love to visit Wrigley is the closeness to the field -- especially in the bleachers. One reason I really don't like what's happening with the expansion is that it will take away from that experience. It's also one short step from there to having assigned seating ... the day that happens is the last time I'll be there.

 

For all the talk about how much more money a new ballpark -- in a new location (I know you were talking more about building a new ballpark, Soul) -- would make, my guess is that if they thought they could pack people in a 60,000 seat arena for 81 night games a year at $40 a head plus charge for parking in enormous lots surrounding a surburban stadium, that would have already happened by now.

[B]

Has anyone play ESPN baseball 2005? It has stadiums of the future on there. Wrigley has an upper deck in the outfield. It's pretty funny to see what they came up with for some of the stadiums.

[stitchface]

wouldn't baseball 2005 be in the past? The White Sox win . .. .

[ConstableRabbit]

Has anyone play ESPN baseball 2005? It has stadiums of the future on there. Wrigley has an upper deck in the outfield. It's pretty funny to see what they came up with for some of the stadiums.

 

Yeah, I have. It's pretty cool.

 

And yes, 2005 is the past, in that it's a baseball game that came out last year. They just have optional stadiums you can play in that are supposedly "future" versions of them.

[South Side]

I don't know that we're disagreeing. I'm concerned that the dank innards won't be addressed at all; instead the focus will be on packing more people in expanded bleachers. I really doubt I'm going to like the results -- if that makes me stone-age and luddite, so be it.

 

In terms of rebuilding it: don't underestimate the profitability of the Wrigley image. It's a tourist attraction. The team hasn't done much to justify the attendance figures. One reason people love to visit Wrigley is the closeness to the field -- especially in the bleachers. One reason I really don't like what's happening with the expansion is that it will take away from that experience. It's also one short step from there to having assigned seating ... the day that happens is the last time I'll be there.

 

For all the talk about how much more money a new ballpark -- in a new location (I know you were talking more about building a new ballpark, Soul) -- would make, my guess is that if they thought they could pack people in a 60,000 seat arena for 81 night games a year at $40 a head plus charge for parking in enormous lots surrounding a surburban stadium, that would have already happened by now.

 

Based on the way the Trib Co markets the ballpark rather than the team, I don't think they have any intention of attempting to build a new stadium in the suburbs, or anywhere else. I do find it interesting that they sold this project as a "renovation" and "expansion", and then proceeded to tear down 75% of the bleachers and rebuild them. It wouldn't shock me to see them do the same thing to the existing upper deck in a couple of years (citing the crumbling concrete as a reason) and put in a completely new upper deck with more skybox capacity. And then a couple of years later, renovate the lower deck (which, in my opinion, needs the least amount of upgrading). They'd get many of the financial advantages of a new ballpark, without losing the marketing advantage of playing in a historic stadium. And most new ballparks are being built in the 40-45000 capacity range anyway, so Wrigley's wouldn't need to be increased at all.

[YearofDaCubs]

I HATE what this organization is doing to Wrigley Field. I absolutely hate it. At least give us a contender before you tear apart a "historical marker." I'm actually appalled they got permission to do this. I'm starting to really question why I am a Cubs fan after all these years and mediocrity and now the tearing up of Wrigley. Maybe I'm overreacting but this doesn't sit too well with me.

[Chocolate Milk]

I walk past Wrigley just about twice a day and the change is pretty drastic. It's going to be much tougher to hit one on to Waveland or Sheffield now.

 

I'm pretty sure the Miller Lite sign says "Wait til next beer."

[Coach.]

I HATE what this organization is doing to Wrigley Field. I absolutely hate it. At least give us a contender before you tear apart a "historical marker." I'm actually appalled they got permission to do this. I'm starting to really question why I am a Cubs fan after all these years and mediocrity and now the tearing up of Wrigley. Maybe I'm overreacting but this doesn't sit too well with me.

 

Yes, you are overreacting. That place needed an overhaul badly.

[Soul]

I don't know that we're disagreeing. I'm concerned that the dank innards won't be addressed at all; instead the focus will be on packing more people in expanded bleachers. I really doubt I'm going to like the results -- if that makes me stone-age and luddite, so be it.

 

In terms of rebuilding it: don't underestimate the profitability of the Wrigley image. It's a tourist attraction. The team hasn't done much to justify the attendance figures. One reason people love to visit Wrigley is the closeness to the field -- especially in the bleachers. One reason I really don't like what's happening with the expansion is that it will take away from that experience. It's also one short step from there to having assigned seating ... the day that happens is the last time I'll be there.

 

For all the talk about how much more money a new ballpark -- in a new location (I know you were talking more about building a new ballpark, Soul) -- would make, my guess is that if they thought they could pack people in a 60,000 seat arena for 81 night games a year at $40 a head plus charge for parking in enormous lots surrounding a surburban stadium, that would have already happened by now.

 

Based on the way the Trib Co markets the ballpark rather than the team, I don't think they have any intention of attempting to build a new stadium in the suburbs, or anywhere else. I do find it interesting that they sold this project as a "renovation" and "expansion", and then proceeded to tear down 75% of the bleachers and rebuild them. It wouldn't shock me to see them do the same thing to the existing upper deck in a couple of years (citing the crumbling concrete as a reason) and put in a completely new upper deck with more skybox capacity. And then a couple of years later, renovate the lower deck (which, in my opinion, needs the least amount of upgrading). They'd get many of the financial advantages of a new ballpark, without losing the marketing advantage of playing in a historic stadium. And most new ballparks are being built in the 40-45000 capacity range anyway, so Wrigley's wouldn't need to be increased at all.

 

I think that's right. Eventually they're going to have to go for the skyboxes to bring in the big $$$. Even if they don't need it, it's the Tribune so I wouldn't be suprised to see it.

 

Funny thing is, there are probably only a scattered few of us who are aware how extensive the bleacher "renovation" really is. Most people aren't paying attention, nor will they until and unless they actually go to a game. The vast majority of folks still think it's a minor tweak, and probably always will. I've got to hand it to the Tribune, they are good at what they do. From my perspective though, I'm seeing the fans get a ballpark that doesn't resemble their childhood memories anyway, yet still maintains all the bad things about having an old ballpark. It's more of a lose/lose for me and it gets worse each time they make a change without going "all the way."

 

I've been to Wrigley dozens & dozens of times, like most people here. I know every dimension in & out. If it isn't going to be the ballpark I've known for my whole life, I'd rather just build a state-of-the-art facility and enjoy the better amenities.

[minnesotacubsfan]

I understand, but they're basically building a new shiny shell around rusty, dirty old innards.

 

Couldn't they just refurb the whole site to look like Wrigley and wind up with pretty much the same thing, except it would be more structurally sound and probably have less-stinky bathrooms and better amenities?

 

I guess I'm just wondering at what point would it have been better to just do the whole job instead of piecemeal. Eventually they're going to have to anyway.

 

The best reason I can think of to do it the current way is to try and trick the fans into thinking it really isn't being done in the first place. Strange, I know. But I'm starting to think that's kinda the idea behind all of this.

 

 

I thought Wrigley was on the NROHP(National Register of Historic Places), or at least Wrigleyville? if that is so, there is no way they would let them do more then 50% remodel at once....a good portion of the building must remain as was....

 

I agree with your thoughts though, soul, sometimes saving something is more detrimental to what it once was, the value comes in the fact that current and future visitors can have connections in there on realm. IE, sometimes buildings, materials loose their meaning for the old generation, but suddenly find themselves re-connected witha new generation, and sometimes for intirely new reasons......and for me, that in of it self is enough value.....

 

btw, Wrigely is listed:

 

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/IL/Cook/state10.html

[Soul]

I understand, but they're basically building a new shiny shell around rusty, dirty old innards.

 

Couldn't they just refurb the whole site to look like Wrigley and wind up with pretty much the same thing, except it would be more structurally sound and probably have less-stinky bathrooms and better amenities?

 

I guess I'm just wondering at what point would it have been better to just do the whole job instead of piecemeal. Eventually they're going to have to anyway.

 

The best reason I can think of to do it the current way is to try and trick the fans into thinking it really isn't being done in the first place. Strange, I know. But I'm starting to think that's kinda the idea behind all of this.

 

 

I thought Wrigley was on the NROHP(National Register of Historic Places), or at least Wrigleyville? if that is so, there is no way they would let them do more then 50% remodel at once....a good portion of the building must remain as was....

 

I agree with your thoughts though, soul, sometimes saving something is more detrimental to what it once was, the value comes in the fact that current and future visitors can have connections in there on realm. IE, sometimes buildings, materials loose their meaning for the old generation, but suddenly find themselves re-connected witha new generation, and sometimes for intirely new reasons......and for me, that in of it self is enough value.....

 

btw, Wrigely is listed:

 

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/IL/Cook/state10.html

 

I love it. So basically the Government has decreed that the Cubs must suffer in a bad, mutated, re-bricked ballpark with smelly bathrooms.

 

This is great! :lol:

[minnesotacubsfan]

I understand, but they're basically building a new shiny shell around rusty, dirty old innards.

 

Couldn't they just refurb the whole site to look like Wrigley and wind up with pretty much the same thing, except it would be more structurally sound and probably have less-stinky bathrooms and better amenities?

 

I guess I'm just wondering at what point would it have been better to just do the whole job instead of piecemeal. Eventually they're going to have to anyway.

 

The best reason I can think of to do it the current way is to try and trick the fans into thinking it really isn't being done in the first place. Strange, I know. But I'm starting to think that's kinda the idea behind all of this.

 

 

I thought Wrigley was on the NROHP(National Register of Historic Places), or at least Wrigleyville? if that is so, there is no way they would let them do more then 50% remodel at once....a good portion of the building must remain as was....

 

I agree with your thoughts though, soul, sometimes saving something is more detrimental to what it once was, the value comes in the fact that current and future visitors can have connections in there on realm. IE, sometimes buildings, materials loose their meaning for the old generation, but suddenly find themselves re-connected witha new generation, and sometimes for intirely new reasons......and for me, that in of it self is enough value.....

 

btw, Wrigely is listed:

 

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricplaces.com/IL/Cook/state10.html

 

I love it. So basically the Government has decreed that the Cubs must suffer in a bad, mutated, re-bricked ballpark with smelly bathrooms.

 

This is great! :lol:

 

lol. its not the government, per se...more like your friendly neighborhood architects and historians such as I (architect)

 

Its a HUGE arguement, for or against NROHP. I find myself leaning against it alot...for the reasons you list and others...

 

but what once had value will have value again, so its nearly impossible for me to whipe it away........

[J.R.]

So basically the Government has decreed that the Cubs must suffer in a bad, mutated, re-bricked ballpark with smelly bathrooms.

 

The level of hyperbole in this thread is ridiculous.

[B]

I walk past Wrigley just about twice a day and the change is pretty drastic. It's going to be much tougher to hit one on to Waveland or Sheffield now.

 

I'm pretty sure the Miller Lite sign says "Wait til next beer."

 

You're probably right. I knew my guess was wrong when I looked at it for a second time. I don't live in Chicago though so I'm at a disadvantage.