Wrigley Field

[BeerHere]

ouch

 

Again, let the record state that I'm a season ticket holder, have been since '97. I'm a fan of the franchise, not the park.

[fromthestretch]

i've been to safeco and coors more times than i've been to wrigley. safeco is a really awesome place to see a game at a great location in SoDo.

 

Coors is state of the art, all amenities and no sewer-smell near bathrooms. it, also is in an awesome location in LoDo Denver, near many many bars. i once saw chip caray walk straight out of coors and right into The Falling Rock Tap House--my favorite bar in the world.

 

Safeco really is a great ballpark.

[UK1679666180]

So is Camden, Comerica, as well as PNC, I'm looking forward to Petco this year.

 

There's just something diff. about going to Fenway, Tiger Stadium, Old Comiskey and Wrigley.

 

I'd rather have Wrigley stay, but if it becomes too diff. to maintain, I would not complain if they have to build a new park in a diff. spot.

[Banedon]

I'm actually all for a new park. Even a "New Wrigley". Keep the old park there as a landmark. Build a new one (don't ask me where..) with a lot of similar features as Wrigley, but with modern updates.

 

I'm a fan of the team. The park is great, but not the end all and be all of my fandom.

[fromthestretch]

So is Camden, Comerica, as well as PNC, I'm looking forward to Petco this year.

 

There's just something diff. about going to Fenway, Tiger Stadium, Old Comiskey and Wrigley.

 

I'd rather have Wrigley stay, but if it becomes too diff. to maintain, I would not complain if they have to build a new park in a diff. spot.

 

I usually go to a few games at Camden each year. It's a great place to watch a game. I'm hoping to drive up to PNC for a game sometime this summer.

 

Living close to DC, it's nice having an NL team close by, but I'll be much happier when the new stadium is built and I don't have to see games at RFK anymore. That place is awful.

 

Wrigley will always be the best in my eyes, but obviously I'm biased. However, one of the old stadiums that I'll always remember fondly was County Stadium in Milwaukee. That place had character. You have to like a place that has a giant keg and a mascot that slides into a huge mug of beer. I'm very disappointed they got rid of that tradition with Miller Park, which is odd since the stadium is named after a beer.

Edited April 6, 2007 by grassbass

[Chris]

Turner is nowhere close to Wrigley. I didn't feel in any way threatened in Chicago like I did in Atlanta.

I've never felt threatened in any ballpark. What happened to you?

 

Not the park, just the getting to and away.

 

Stayed with a friend at his uncle's house in Atlanta in 2000 for the all-star festivities. I wanted to drive but the uncle swore by the transit system and said that driving your own car is a dumb idea. We listened to him and had to take a series of railways to get to the park then take another bus series to the park. Would've been better had it not been well after midnight.

[Banedon]

Wrigley will always be the best in my eyes, but obviously I'm biased. However, one of the old stadiums that I'll always remember fondly was County Stadium in Milwaukee. That place had character. You have to like a place that has a giant keg and a mascot that slides into a huge mug of beer. I've very disappointed they got rid of that tradition with Miller Park, which is odd since the stadium is named after a beer.

 

Yeah I miss County Stadium as well. Another co-worker that used to live in the Milwaukee area agrees as well. That place was a much more enjoyable place to take in a ballgame.

[Magnetic Curses]

Wrigley will always be the best in my eyes, but obviously I'm biased. However, one of the old stadiums that I'll always remember fondly was County Stadium in Milwaukee. That place had character. You have to like a place that has a giant keg and a mascot that slides into a huge mug of beer. I've very disappointed they got rid of that tradition with Miller Park, which is odd since the stadium is named after a beer.

 

Yeah I miss County Stadium as well. Another co-worker that used to live in the Milwaukee area agrees as well. That place was a much more enjoyable place to take in a ballgame.

 

ugh, county staium was little more than a slab of concrete and asphalt. i hated that place.

 

i haven't seen a game at miller, yet. i have tickets to the june 4th game, i'll reserve judgement until then.

 

and i think bernie brewer still slides into a mug of beer, although i may be wrong.

 

yep, i'm right.

 

http://siggy99.mlblogs.com/photos/ballparkstour/millerbernies.jpg

[The Voice of Reason]

So is Camden, Comerica, as well as PNC, I'm looking forward to Petco this year.

 

There's just something diff. about going to Fenway, Tiger Stadium, Old Comiskey and Wrigley.

 

I'd rather have Wrigley stay, but if it becomes too diff. to maintain, I would not complain if they have to build a new park in a diff. spot.

 

You'll love Petco. Downtown park with all the modern amenities and in the Gaslamp District close to everything. Great Little League park right outside of the left field wall. If during any part of your stay, the Padres are out of town, take the $9 tour that is given on off days.

[fromthestretch]

Wrigley will always be the best in my eyes, but obviously I'm biased. However, one of the old stadiums that I'll always remember fondly was County Stadium in Milwaukee. That place had character. You have to like a place that has a giant keg and a mascot that slides into a huge mug of beer. I've very disappointed they got rid of that tradition with Miller Park, which is odd since the stadium is named after a beer.

 

Yeah I miss County Stadium as well. Another co-worker that used to live in the Milwaukee area agrees as well. That place was a much more enjoyable place to take in a ballgame.

 

ugh, county staium was little more than a slab of concrete and asphalt. i hated that place.

 

i haven't seen a game at miller, yet. i have tickets to the june 4th game, i'll reserve judgement until then.

 

and i think bernie brewer still slides into a mug of beer, although i may be wrong.

 

yep, i'm right.

 

http://siggy99.mlblogs.com/photos/ballparkstour/millerbernies.jpg

 

He goes down a slide, but I don't see the mug of beer. It's just a slide.

[J.R.]

TURNER FIELD???

 

He just funkified the whole thread.

[Banedon]

He goes down a slide, but I don't see the mug of beer. It's just a slide.

 

Yeah, it's not the same.

 

And maybe it's just the idea of an indoor park bothers me. The only indoor baseball game I've ever been to was at Miller.

[Exile on Waveland]

I'm surprised by the positive reviews of Turner Field. I've been to quite a few stadiums (upwards of 30) and it's probably one of my least favorite, excepting the crappy multi-purpose stadiums. The parking experience was the worst I've ever had -- by far -- and this from a place with well more than ample parking area.

[SouthSideRyan]

Miller Park is brutal.

[NCCubFan]

You have to admit, "The Chicago Cubs of Cary" has a nice ring to it.[

Only if it's Cary, North Carolina. Then they'd be less than an hour from me. :D

[NCCubFan]

I set up a poll in the Polls forum to vote on this.

[hawkcub]

My point of view on the following.

 

Wrigley is a dump:

 

No it's not. They are addressing the concrete and when did old mean dump.

 

Wrigley not kid friendly:

 

Well don't take your kid to the bleachers. Going to a baseball game is about the ball game not the other things. Minor League stadiums have long been considered kid friendly but outside of a few games between innings it's about the game. (Those games usually involve just a few kids).

 

Moving to the Burbs:

 

I've stated Chicago is a baseball town and the Cubs should be in the city simple as that. Anyway, Chicago is a central point of all the suburbs no matter what burb you go to it will be further away for some then Chicago is.

 

Getting in and out of Wrigleyville:

 

Aren't there some places to park that are not right next to the ball park. Any sports event you are going to have problems with traffic. One knows if you park next to any stadium,park,rink it's hard to get out. Try parking in the places not next to Wrigley.

[E.J.]

Cubs' players chime in on future of Wrigley Field

 

"Ideally, especially for this time of year, you'd like to see a dome put on the outside of it," Barrett said. "Don't change anything about Wrigley Field. Just reinforce it and have a dome covering it.

 

"It's been nice to play these games here [in Milwaukee]. I'd hate to lose that tradition of going to Wrigley, the ivy on the wall and all that. I'd hate for something to happen to Wrigley Field."

 

"Not in 50 years, no," he said. "Wrigley Field is a special place. But as much as you'd love to keep it, without major renovations a couple years from now, I don't think it could be standing.

 

"I don't know much about architecture, but a stadium can't last forever. They can still keep the look of it, but …"

 

"Where are you going to put it?" reliever Bob Howry said. "It's all about location. I think they definitely have to make some upgrades. Compared with most of the other ballparks now—the [cramped] clubhouse, having the [batting] cages out in right field—I don't think they can keep that going forever.

 

"If you take Wrigley down, what do you do? There's no other place to build it, unless you take it out of the city. So chances are it'll still be there in 50 years. It'll just have a lot of upgrades."

[seanimal]

"Ideally, especially for this time of year, you'd like to see a dome put on the outside of it," Barrett said. "Don't change anything about Wrigley Field. Just reinforce it and have a dome covering it.

 

A dome. On Wrigley Field. :lol:

 

There are two options I would consider acceptable concerning Wrigley Field in the future.

 

1) Gut the grandstands and rebuild, perhaps dropping the field down 15 feet or so to make the homerun a little harder to obtain. This includes removing those eyesore gawd-aweful chain-link 'baskets', or as Joe Morgan calls them, 'Banks Baskets' :roll: Lowering the field also, perhaps more importantly to a new owner, provides vertical space for more seating. Keeping the ideal of Wrigley's upper deck setup is important to this as well. These are some of the best seats in baseball. A third deck wouldn't be too bad either, considering how it's done. A dome is absolutely not possible as far as I can tell with this option.

 

2) Build a new stadium in the exact same spot. This would probably offer more bang for the buck than the first. I guess my idea here is that the new owner will have far more flexibility in the design and layout of the park and how much seating it will hold. This option allows for re-orienting the outfield, the purpose of this being to face the batter towards one of the most beautiful skylines on the planet. This is probably not likely however, as the rooftop owners will not be too happy, nor will the drivers on Addison. But then again, if the new owner wants a dome, this would be the way to do it.

 

Moving the Cubs to the suburbs is a terrible idea. Absolutely terrible. Not only is it blasphemy, it makes no sense. It would make getting to a ballgame HARDER, not easier, for all the reason others and I have stated earlier in this thread. Plus, I shudder to think of what White Sox fans would say. The Cubs in the suburbs would give them legitimate ammunition in their "The Sox are the real Chicago team" diatribes.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2) Build a new stadium in the exact same spot. This would probably offer more bang for the buck than the first. I guess my idea here is that the new owner will have far more flexibility in the design and layout of the park and how much seating it will hold. This option allows for re-orienting the outfield, the purpose of this being to face the batter towards one of the most beautiful skylines on the planet. This is probably not likely however, as the rooftop owners will not be too happy, nor will the drivers on Addison. But then again, if the new owner wants a dome, this would be the way to do it.

 

The biggest obstacle to this is where does the team play in the interim? Do they force the schedulers to get super creative and play 162 games at the Cell for the duration(which would be at least one season, probably more)?

[seanimal]

2) Build a new stadium in the exact same spot. This would probably offer more bang for the buck than the first. I guess my idea here is that the new owner will have far more flexibility in the design and layout of the park and how much seating it will hold. This option allows for re-orienting the outfield, the purpose of this being to face the batter towards one of the most beautiful skylines on the planet. This is probably not likely however, as the rooftop owners will not be too happy, nor will the drivers on Addison. But then again, if the new owner wants a dome, this would be the way to do it.

 

The biggest obstacle to this is where does the team play in the interim? Do they force the schedulers to get super creative and play 162 games at the Cell for the duration(which would be at least one season, probably more)?

 

I'd say the same obstacle exists if Wrigley is going to be rehabbed in any meaningful sense. I, unlike some others in this discussion, don't really see playing at Comiskular that big of an obstacle for the schedulers. They seem capable enough for the most part. If there are any serious issues, the Cubs could split time between Miller and Cell-out. Some may argue that the team won't be able to establish a home field advantage if they are bouncing between two ballparks, but to me, home field advantage has a lot to do with the fans, and I certainly don't see the Cubs being at a disadvantage in this area. My only concern would be knowledge of the quirks of each stadium, how balls roll in the infield, how they bounce off certain facets of the outfield wall, etc.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

2) Build a new stadium in the exact same spot. This would probably offer more bang for the buck than the first. I guess my idea here is that the new owner will have far more flexibility in the design and layout of the park and how much seating it will hold. This option allows for re-orienting the outfield, the purpose of this being to face the batter towards one of the most beautiful skylines on the planet. This is probably not likely however, as the rooftop owners will not be too happy, nor will the drivers on Addison. But then again, if the new owner wants a dome, this would be the way to do it.

 

The biggest obstacle to this is where does the team play in the interim? Do they force the schedulers to get super creative and play 162 games at the Cell for the duration(which would be at least one season, probably more)?

 

I'd say the same obstacle exists if Wrigley is going to be rehabbed in any meaningful sense. I, unlike some others in this discussion, don't really see playing at Comiskular that big of an obstacle for the schedulers. They seem capable enough for the most part. If there are any serious issues, the Cubs could split time between Miller and Cell-out. Some may argue that the team won't be able to establish a home field advantage if they are bouncing between two ballparks, but to me, home field advantage has a lot to do with the fans, and I certainly don't see the Cubs being at a disadvantage in this area. My only concern would be knowledge of the quirks of each stadium, how balls roll in the infield, how they bounce off certain facets of the outfield wall, etc.

 

I agree, the only thing I'd add is that I'd distinguish between remodeling and rebuilding. While I can't be sure, my guess is that they'd be able to do necessary work in the offseason that would allow the field to be playable during the season(even if there was a lower capacity) if they weren't going to start over.

[oldstyle81]

 

Moving the Cubs to the suburbs is a terrible idea. Absolutely terrible. Not only is it blasphemy, it makes no sense. It would make getting to a ballgame HARDER, not easier, for all the reason others and I have stated earlier in this thread. Plus, I shudder to think of what White Sox fans would say. The Cubs in the suburbs would give them legitimate ammunition in their "The Sox are the real Chicago team" diatribes.

 

who cares what sox fans think, seriously as soon as the cubs start to win, those black hats they wear so proudly will turn to the blue ones the cubs wear.

 

I disagree with the harder statement, while i dont care for the idea, a burb who really wanted the cubs could probably figure out a way that is no worse than what they have now.

[seanimal]

who cares what sox fans think, seriously as soon as the cubs start to win, those black hats they wear so proudly will turn to the blue ones the cubs wear.

 

Point taken, but as a person with several Sox fans as friends, this would be almost unbearable. I like my friends (for the most part), and enjoy the silly things that fall out of their mouth when their Short-Man complex gets into full swing. But if they get real ammunition, I'd have to find some new friends.

 

I disagree with the harder statement, while i dont care for the idea, a burb who really wanted the cubs could probably figure out a way that is no worse than what they have now.

 

We may agree to disagree, but lets just say for the sake of argument than at any given game, 50% of the fannies in the seats are from the city, 50% are from the suburbs. Moving the ballpark to a suburb such as schaumburg would make the game A LOT harder to get to for half of those people, and only somewhat easier for the other half. And that's a generous ratio for suburb dwellers, as I would assume that most fans at day games on weekdays are from the city.

[oldstyle81]

who cares what sox fans think, seriously as soon as the cubs start to win, those black hats they wear so proudly will turn to the blue ones the cubs wear.

 

Point taken, but as a person with several Sox fans as friends, this would be almost unbearable. I like my friends (for the most part), and enjoy the silly things that fall out of their mouth when their Short-Man complex gets into full swing. But if they get real ammunition, I'd have to find some new friends.

 

I disagree with the harder statement, while i dont care for the idea, a burb who really wanted the cubs could probably figure out a way that is no worse than what they have now.

 

We may agree to disagree, but lets just say for the sake of argument than at any given game, 50% of the fannies in the seats are from the city, 50% are from the suburbs. Moving the ballpark to a suburb such as schaumburg would make the game A LOT harder to get to for half of those people, and only somewhat easier for the other half. And that's a generous ratio for suburb dwellers, as I would assume that most fans at day games on weekdays are from the city.

 

i was amused by how many sox fans were at the game today, i could see them being at wrigley but to make the trip all the way up to milwaukee shows just how pathetic some are.

 

Its hard to say, there would be far less day games if they moved, the only reasons they play a lot of day games now is because the city wont allow them anymore than 26 or something. It would make it harder for the city fans yes, but fans from the far out burbs would be more likely to head to a location like schaumburg for a game than to head all the way into the city durning rush hour (for night games) for a game.