Wrigley Field

[papabear58]

One of the things that I don't see people talking about on here is the possible ramifications to Wrigley Field. I wonder what a new owner is going to do with a staduim that had a block of concrete fall, and that is undergoing a number of different projects from parking to seat expansion.

 

One of the things that I'm worried about is that a new owner is going to say that the Cubs need a new staduim (or a rebuild on the old one) in order to drive new revenue, and it just might come packaged in "We want all fans attending to be safe". I think Wrigley needs some loving care, but I don't want to see it rebuilt or a new stadium personally.

[papabear58]

i.e Soldier Field

[fibro]

According to this article in the Sun Times Wrigley may not be part of the deal.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/325822,CST-SPT-sale04.article

[papabear58]

According to this article in the Sun Times Wrigley may not be part of the deal.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/325822,CST-SPT-sale04.article

 

The only issue with that is that it complicates the deal at best. And, should that happen, I could easily see the purchaser saying that they want a new stadium as they are not interested in renting the stadium from someone else. Other articles have said that the Wrigley Field land area would fetch a LOT more money if it were torn down and turned into businesses, or if the stadium stands and the team moves, it could be used for venues permenantly.

[Derwood]

I hear they're gonna tear it down and build the world's biggest Ikea

[papabear58]

I hear they're gonna tear it down and build the world's biggest Ikea

 

LoL, great, just what I always wanted!

[Derwood]

I hear they're gonna tear it down and build the world's biggest Ikea

 

LoL, great, just what I always wanted!

 

but seriously, the company has invested too much money (and gone through too much grief with the neighborhood) to do anything with the stadium now. Its there to stay for awhile I think

[papabear58]

I hear they're gonna tear it down and build the world's biggest Ikea

 

LoL, great, just what I always wanted!

 

but seriously, the company has invested too much money (and gone through too much grief with the neighborhood) to do anything with the stadium now. Its there to stay for awhile I think

 

Ok, I can buy that, but that still doesn't mean that a new owner will play there under conditions of revenue sharing, or rental for space. If a new owner wanted a new, state of the art, stadium with almost twice the seating and all the luxury ammenities that make the cost higher, the non inclusion of Wrigley in the deal could make that more possible.

[3Dog]

I've always wondered if Wrigley Field couldn't be downsized into a minor league park, if/when the Cubs moved to a shiny new 45,000 seat retro stadium. Then you could move the Kane County Cougars or the Wisco Timber Rattlers to Wrigleyville.

[J.R.]

The continuation of Cubs baseball at Wrigley Field is my primary concern in all of this, and I think she's as good as gone.

 

Unless we get a new ownership that loves Wrigley like the new Red Sox people loved Fenway, these complications — being sold seperately, the neighborhood stuff/landmark status and the raw land value — will be too much to overcome.

 

Fenway was all but leveled at one point, but was saved from the Yawkey Trust's ignorance. I suppose it could happen again, but I'm not counting on it.

[jyoung55]

But isn't all this talk of the value of the land that Wrigley is on and the thoughts of not using it as the Cubs home kind of forgetting that the reason that land is value and the reason all of the surrounding establishments are there in WRIGLEYville because of Wrigley and that the Cubs play there? Sure, its a great neighborhood in that area but could the area really support all of those businesses if the Cubs weren't playing there? If the answer is no, the value of the land that Wrigley is on is not as high as they are talking about and anyone would be foolish to use the land for anything other than a baseball field.

[papabear58]

But isn't all this talk of the value of the land that Wrigley is on and the thoughts of not using it as the Cubs home kind of forgetting that the reason that land is value and the reason all of the surrounding establishments are there in WRIGLEYville because of Wrigley and that the Cubs play there? Sure, its a great neighborhood in that area but could the area really support all of those businesses if the Cubs weren't playing there? If the answer is no, the value of the land that Wrigley is on is not as high as they are talking about and anyone would be foolish to use the land for anything other than a baseball field.

 

But using Wrigley as a venue for stage shows and concerts would still add value without having the Cubs play there.

[RynoRules]

If Cuban buys the team Wrigley will stay, IMO. He gets it.

[mjohnson71]

I wonder if the sentiment to replace Wrigley will increase after the new Yankee Stadium opens in 2009?

[papabear58]

I wonder if the sentiment to replace Wrigley will increase after the new Yankee Stadium opens in 2009?

 

It could, but it could also have the exact opposite effect.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the scoreboard has landmark status. So if the stadium were to be torn down, the scoreboard has to stay right where it is. So if they want to build shops or anything like that, they'd hvae to build around the scoreboard.

 

Wrigley is being fixed little by little every year. They just expanded and reinforced the bleachers. They're technically replacing the dangerous parts of Wrigley section by section. I'd bet that in five years, all of the dangerous concrete will be replaced, and the stadium will look the same.

 

And yes, this area would suffer dramatically with the loss of the Cubs to a new stadium somewhere else. Property values already peaked around here, so taking away the one real draw in the neighborhood would probably send this area into a huge downward spiral.

[sweetpeteman]

I thought that Wrigley was declared a historical landmark a few year ago, meaning they can't just tear it down.

[papabear58]

I thought that Wrigley was declared a historical landmark a few year ago, meaning they can't just tear it down.

 

No but in a worst case scenario, they move the ballclub to another stadium, then they have no income for Wrigley and it is an unused property the through decay and non use becomes a danger or something that is far too expensive to continue to keep and it eventually gets torn down.

 

I think it's far more likely that the Cubs move to a new stadium and Wrigley field is used for concerts, and other such things, or gets taken over by an AAA team for use. Lots of different options, and most of them are bad if the stadium is not sold with the team.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

I thought that Wrigley was declared a historical landmark a few year ago, meaning they can't just tear it down.

Now that I look, it has local landmark status, but doesn't say how the building should be used.

 

Only a partial article since you have to register or pay for the rest:

 

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmpre/is_200402/ai_kepm442780

 

If the curse of the Chicago Cubs, who haven't won a World Series for 96 years, is somehow tied to their famous 1914 home, their fans are in serious trouble because the team has no desire to abandon it. But lovers of Wrigley Field slept a little easier last night after the city council voted unanimously to grant the stadium local landmark status, guarding its distinctive elements from alteration.

 

"The Landmarks Committee worked diligently with the Cubs to make sure that their need to operate a viable, income-producing ballpark were not hampered by the city's need to preserve it as a landmark," says Jonathan Fine of Preservation Chicago.

 

A first-ever measure for a major professional sports venue in America, the designation protects Wrigley's exterior and unique features—its ivy-covered brick walls, marquee, grandstands, and manually operated scoreboard—but does not specify how the building must be used. ...

[daske17]

But isn't all this talk of the value of the land that Wrigley is on and the thoughts of not using it as the Cubs home kind of forgetting that the reason that land is value and the reason all of the surrounding establishments are there in WRIGLEYville because of Wrigley and that the Cubs play there? Sure, its a great neighborhood in that area but could the area really support all of those businesses if the Cubs weren't playing there? If the answer is no, the value of the land that Wrigley is on is not as high as they are talking about and anyone would be foolish to use the land for anything other than a baseball field.

 

I disagree 100 percent. Living in the area, I can tell you for a fact that if they tore down Wrigley and put up condos (which would be the most likely scenario) property values would sizably increase. Single family homes in and around the area already sell for no less than $500,000; and that's with the traffic and noise that Wrigley brings in. The condos that would be built could easily be sold for anywhere from $400,000 to $600,000.

 

The bars and other businesses that Wrigleyville are known for would take a hit during the summer, but they still do quite well for themselves in the off-season. Losing Wrigley wouldn't force many of them to close.

[J.R.]

Single family homes in and around the area already sell for no less than $500,000; and that's with the traffic and noise that Wrigley brings in. The condos that would be built could easily be sold for anywhere from $400,000 to $600,000.

 

And the park is now in the hands of a real estate magnate who makes money in his sleep and hates the Cubs. It ain't good.

[Soul]

But isn't all this talk of the value of the land that Wrigley is on and the thoughts of not using it as the Cubs home kind of forgetting that the reason that land is value and the reason all of the surrounding establishments are there in WRIGLEYville because of Wrigley and that the Cubs play there? Sure, its a great neighborhood in that area but could the area really support all of those businesses if the Cubs weren't playing there? If the answer is no, the value of the land that Wrigley is on is not as high as they are talking about and anyone would be foolish to use the land for anything other than a baseball field.

 

I disagree 100 percent. Living in the area, I can tell you for a fact that if they tore down Wrigley and put up condos (which would be the most likely scenario) property values would sizably increase. Single family homes in and around the area already sell for no less than $500,000; and that's with the traffic and noise that Wrigley brings in. The condos that would be built could easily be sold for anywhere from $400,000 to $600,000.

 

The bars and other businesses that Wrigleyville are known for would take a hit during the summer, but they still do quite well for themselves in the off-season. Losing Wrigley wouldn't force many of them to close.

 

Maybe that's true. This whole Wrigley "landmark" status is only because there's actual baseball still being played there. If the Cubs ever did leave for another stadium, after 2 years you'd have a horrible eyesore with no purpose sitting right in the middle of that neighborhood. They'd rescind that landmark status real quick so something could be done.

 

Think of the rats alone. Yuk.

[papabear58]

I just think that it's crucial to Wrigley Field that it be sold along with the Cubs. Or heck, maybe we could start a Stadium for the Fans thing going and just charge the new owners the maintenance and upgrade fees :wink:

[bjsands]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070403morrissey,1,2470040.column?coll=cs-home-utility

 

It's no mirage, Rick...

[J.R.]

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070403morrissey,1,2470040.column?coll=cs-home-utility

 

It's no mirage, Rick...

 

If I were king for a day—Thursdays work for me—I would keep the beautiful scoreboard, the outfield bleachers (including the ivy walls) and the field intact. I would salvage the red Wrigley Field sign on Addison Street. I would tear down the rest of it and rebuild, even if that meant fewer seats.

 

People will come to a new Wrigley Field as long as it's built where the old one sat. When does Wrigley stop being Wrigley? When the sun stops shining on Wrigleyville. I know there are people out there who are sure Harry Caray never would let that happen.

 

There's alot of silliness in that article (he completely ignores the benefits of Wrigley's intimacy and upper deck design) but he's right IMHO on the above counts.