Wrigley Field

[Derwood]

FWIW, there is no way Reinsdorf would let the Cubs play in US Cellular for a year (without charging them some exorbitant rent). I could see them spending a summer at Soldier Field though.

[seanimal]

I highly doubt the next owner won't A) buy Wrigley Field and B) Gut the grandstands and rebuild with more seats and, perhaps establish a further distance from home plate to the outfield walls. I could see a shrewdly intelligent owner adding a 3rd deck. The more posteriors you can cram into Wrigley the more money the you make.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I strongly believe Wrigley Field will be included in the purchase price. If it isn't the team will sell for closer to 500 million than the 800 million as is being speculated.

[The Voice of Reason]

FWIW, there is no way Reinsdorf would let the Cubs play in US Cellular for a year (without charging them some exorbitant rent). I could see them spending a summer at Soldier Field though.

 

Whatever Reinsdorf charged would be easily and quicky recouped from the revenues from a new and improved Wrigley Field.

 

I really don't think Soldier Field could be configured for baseball.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Especially not when baseball and football seasons overlap.

[J.R.]

FWIW, there is no way Reinsdorf would let the Cubs play in US Cellular for a year (without charging them some exorbitant rent). I could see them spending a summer at Soldier Field though.

 

Whatever Reinsdorf charged would be easily and quicky recouped from the revenues from a new and improved Wrigley Field.

 

The Cubs would be dealing with Daley when trying to rent the Cell, which is probably worse than dealing with Jerry.

[papabear58]

Pardon, but not being from Chicago, would someone please explain this Daley thing?

[C.C.]

Con't tearing down Cabrini Green and put it there. Have the local bars and condos surround it.

 

I wouldn't mind that at all. I live relatively close to the site and the neighborhood down here is awesome. Lots of classic style homes and businesses.

 

Actually that's not a bad idea. I also live pretty close to the site and the change there has been amazing the past three years...

[daske17]

FWIW, there is no way Reinsdorf would let the Cubs play in US Cellular for a year (without charging them some exorbitant rent). I could see them spending a summer at Soldier Field though.

 

Whatever Reinsdorf charged would be easily and quicky recouped from the revenues from a new and improved Wrigley Field.

 

I really don't think Soldier Field could be configured for baseball.

 

And since Soldier Field is owned by the Chicago park district, I don't see it as a viable alternative.

 

There was a big enough fight between the Bears and the city for the playoffs over who pays for the extra sod. I can't imagine tearing up a portion of it for a baseball diamond.

[David]

Pardon, but not being from Chicago, would someone please explain this Daley thing?

 

There's a perception that Daley, a notorious Sox fan, gives the Cubs a hard time when it comes to getting things that need his approval and such done through the city.

[papabear58]

Pardon, but not being from Chicago, would someone please explain this Daley thing?

 

There's a perception that Daley, a notorious Sox fan, gives the Cubs a hard time when it comes to getting things that need his approval and such done through the city.

 

hmmmmm, that's stupid. That kind of thing could easily backfire.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Pardon, but not being from Chicago, would someone please explain this Daley thing?

 

There's a perception that Daley, a notorious Sox fan, gives the Cubs a hard time when it comes to getting things that need his approval and such done through the city.

 

hmmmmm, that's stupid. That kind of thing could easily backfire.

Been that way for years. At least the governor is on our side.

[The Voice of Reason]

The Viper has got it right.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070403morrissey,1,6122762.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed

 

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.

 

The charm of Wrigley is in the view from along the lines and behind the plate. Nobody turns around and says, "Wow, what a great park!" People say that when they look straight ahead at the field.

 

Look me in the face and tell me the people who stayed away from Wrigley Field in droves until the 1980s were peasants who didn't recognize a good thing when it was standing right in front of them.

 

It was the same park.

 

It was the same sun.

 

It was the same beer.

 

Many of those pre-'80s teams were awful, just like last year's team was awful. In 1969, when the very talented Cubs had their very dramatic collapse, they drew 1,674,993 fans, their most to that point. Last year, when the Cubs lost 96 games, attendance was 3,123,215. In fact, in the five seasons since 1997 in which they had at least 90 losses, their average attendance was 2.7 million.

 

So what changed in the past 30 years or so? Mostly perception.

 

In the 1980s, people all over the country started watching the Cubs on superstation WGN and felt a "Field of Dreams" impulse to see the ballpark. And Wrigleyville grew into a place to eat, drink and see Harry Caray.

 

Nothing changed about Wrigley. People didn't suddenly realize the ballpark was beautiful. They fell in love with the idea of it, the idea of having a good time while taking in a day game, the idea of being at the place to be.

 

Wrigley Field, built in 1914, has been slowly deteriorating for quite a while. Whoever owns the ballpark is going to have to ponder its age and make some hard decisions down the line.

 

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.

[Brian]

I wouldn't mind that plan actually, but I really doubt that would be even possible with it being a historical landmark.

[Soul]

I love Wrigley. Sometimes I get a bad rap because I'm open to the idea of a new stadium.

 

Doesn't anyone else think it would be awesome to have the Cubs in a brand new, Wrigley-esque ballpark but with all the amenities? One thing we could do that nobody else couldn't, is we could actually HAVE the old scoreboard, HAVE the old Wrigley sign --- we could have any nostalgic piece of old Wrigley we wanted, and just incorporate it into the new ballpark.

 

Isn't that basically what they're doing by rebuilding Wrigley piece-by-piece anyway? The difference being, with old Wrigley there's not enough lot space to really build a modern, top-notch superstructure.

 

Again, I *do* love Wrigley. But new ballpark, with the Cubs, with some of the best parts of old Wrigley........wow, I could see that too.

[David]

I love Wrigley. Sometimes I get a bad rap because I'm open to the idea of a new stadium.

 

Doesn't anyone else think it would be awesome to have the Cubs in a brand new, Wrigley-esque ballpark but with all the amenities? One thing we could do that nobody else couldn't, is we could actually HAVE the old scoreboard, HAVE the old Wrigley sign --- we could have any nostalgic piece of old Wrigley we wanted, and just incorporate it into the new ballpark.

 

Isn't that basically what they're doing by rebuilding Wrigley piece-by-piece anyway? The difference being, with old Wrigley there's not enough lot space to really build a modern, top-notch superstructure.

 

Again, I *do* love Wrigley. But new ballpark, with the Cubs, with some of the best parts of old Wrigley........wow, I could see that too.

 

Yes.

 

And I'd love it even more on the lakefront...but we've been down this road before.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Can't build on the lakefront. City law. The only buildings allowed east of Lake Shore Drive are already there. They want to preserve the lakefront.

[papabear58]

I love Wrigley. Sometimes I get a bad rap because I'm open to the idea of a new stadium.

 

Doesn't anyone else think it would be awesome to have the Cubs in a brand new, Wrigley-esque ballpark but with all the amenities? One thing we could do that nobody else couldn't, is we could actually HAVE the old scoreboard, HAVE the old Wrigley sign --- we could have any nostalgic piece of old Wrigley we wanted, and just incorporate it into the new ballpark.

 

Isn't that basically what they're doing by rebuilding Wrigley piece-by-piece anyway? The difference being, with old Wrigley there's not enough lot space to really build a modern, top-notch superstructure.

 

Again, I *do* love Wrigley. But new ballpark, with the Cubs, with some of the best parts of old Wrigley........wow, I could see that too.

 

Yes.

 

And I'd love it even more on the lakefront...but we've been down this road before.

 

Just a question, but wouldn't that involve a higher degree of difficulty from the winds being that close to the lake?

[E.J.]

Can't build on the lakefront. City law. The only buildings allowed east of Lake Shore Drive are already there. They want to preserve the lakefront.

 

I think that's probably a good thing anyway. Could you imagine going to a cold game in April with the stadium being right on the lakefront? Yikes that would be cold.

[oldstyle81]

The Viper has got it right.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/cs-070403morrissey,1,6122762.column?coll=chi-sportstop-hed

 

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.

 

The charm of Wrigley is in the view from along the lines and behind the plate. Nobody turns around and says, "Wow, what a great park!" People say that when they look straight ahead at the field.

 

Look me in the face and tell me the people who stayed away from Wrigley Field in droves until the 1980s were peasants who didn't recognize a good thing when it was standing right in front of them.

 

It was the same park.

 

It was the same sun.

 

It was the same beer.

 

Many of those pre-'80s teams were awful, just like last year's team was awful. In 1969, when the very talented Cubs had their very dramatic collapse, they drew 1,674,993 fans, their most to that point. Last year, when the Cubs lost 96 games, attendance was 3,123,215. In fact, in the five seasons since 1997 in which they had at least 90 losses, their average attendance was 2.7 million.

 

So what changed in the past 30 years or so? Mostly perception.

 

In the 1980s, people all over the country started watching the Cubs on superstation WGN and felt a "Field of Dreams" impulse to see the ballpark. And Wrigleyville grew into a place to eat, drink and see Harry Caray.

 

Nothing changed about Wrigley. People didn't suddenly realize the ballpark was beautiful. They fell in love with the idea of it, the idea of having a good time while taking in a day game, the idea of being at the place to be.

 

Wrigley Field, built in 1914, has been slowly deteriorating for quite a while. Whoever owns the ballpark is going to have to ponder its age and make some hard decisions down the line.

 

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.

 

when i said the exact same thing, pretty much word for word last year on this board, i was flamed for days

 

id much rather have a park that is identical to this but with bigger concourses, better and more bathrooms, no more damn pillars

[The Voice of Reason]

I wouldn't mind that plan actually, but I really doubt that would be even possible with it being a historical landmark.

 

The modifications the Viper and I are proposing are much less extensive than the total rehab which occurred at Soldier Field which I believe also was considered a historical landmark at one time.

 

Anyway, we're talking about Chicago, where anything can occur as long as the right palms* are greased.

 

*Or for that matter, even the left palms.

[oldstyle81]

Can't build on the lakefront. City law. The only buildings allowed east of Lake Shore Drive are already there. They want to preserve the lakefront.

 

I think that's probably a good thing anyway. Could you imagine going to a cold game in April with the stadium being right on the lakefront? Yikes that would be cold.

 

its not like Wrigley is 5 miles inland, the lake is a short walk down the street, people wouldnt notice the difference

[David]

Can't build on the lakefront. City law. The only buildings allowed east of Lake Shore Drive are already there. They want to preserve the lakefront.

 

Northerly Island??

[J.R.]

Doesn't anyone else think it would be awesome to have the Cubs in a brand new, Wrigley-esque ballpark but with all the amenities? One thing we could do that nobody else couldn't, is we could actually HAVE the old scoreboard, HAVE the old Wrigley sign --- we could have any nostalgic piece of old Wrigley we wanted, and just incorporate it into the new ballpark.

 

Isn't that basically what they're doing by rebuilding Wrigley piece-by-piece anyway?

 

A hybrid of old and new Wrigley on the same site would be tremendous, but I think it's likely that they'd just completely F it up by going to the suburbs.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Can't build on the lakefront. City law. The only buildings allowed east of Lake Shore Drive are already there. They want to preserve the lakefront.

 

Northerly Island??

There were already buildings there. Hell, there was an airport there. I think the law means that no new land can be used for buildings. They can't take away part of a park or beach to build something new. They can probably tear down and rebuild where the buildings already existed though.