Zell will consider selling naming rights to Wrigley Field

[Soul]

Things that I would love to see retained if Wrigley is renovated or a new stadium is constructed: bricks and ivy, outfield scoreboard, marquee.

 

 

 

That's really it. As long as those things are intact (I would include the bleachers, but since they were just renovated, I don't see it being an issue), and any renovation is congruous, the rest doesn't matter.

 

The grandstands/bathrooms/concourse are not charming, they suck.

 

Seeing that the bleachers were just renovated and the field replaced, we aren't going to see a new stadium in the near future. So significant improvements are going to have to be made.

 

Yeah, the great Wrigley grandstand project is approaching. Only question is what to do with the Cubs when it's happening.

[hawkcub]

Things that I would love to see retained if Wrigley is renovated or a new stadium is constructed: bricks and ivy, outfield scoreboard, marquee.

 

 

 

That's really it. As long as those things are intact (I would include the bleachers, but since they were just renovated, I don't see it being an issue), and any renovation is congruous, the rest doesn't matter.

 

The grandstands/bathrooms/concourse are not charming, they suck.

 

Seeing that the bleachers were just renovated and the field replaced, we aren't going to see a new stadium in the near future. So significant improvements are going to have to be made.

 

Yeah, the great Wrigley grandstand project is approaching. Only question is what to do with the Cubs when it's happening.

 

Why do they have to do the whole thing at once? They did the bleachers in one off season. Just do part of the grand stands for 3 or 4 years.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Things that I would love to see retained if Wrigley is renovated or a new stadium is constructed: bricks and ivy, outfield scoreboard, marquee.

 

 

 

That's really it. As long as those things are intact (I would include the bleachers, but since they were just renovated, I don't see it being an issue), and any renovation is congruous, the rest doesn't matter.

 

The grandstands/bathrooms/concourse are not charming, they suck.

 

Seeing that the bleachers were just renovated and the field replaced, we aren't going to see a new stadium in the near future. So significant improvements are going to have to be made.

 

Yeah, the great Wrigley grandstand project is approaching. Only question is what to do with the Cubs when it's happening.

 

Why do they have to do the whole thing at once? They did the bleachers in one off season. Just do part of the grand stands for 3 or 4 years.

 

I think to do it right, it needs to be done at once.

 

First, they need to redo the seating bowl to get rid of the many poles. Secondly, the concourse areas could use a serious face-lift. Finally, they are going to want to create more space for suites. I think it's a massive undertaking that is going to require at least a season, maybe more in another location.

[sherwood921]

I don't see this as a big deal. Let's say "Big Corporation A" buys the rights and changes it from Wrigley Field to "Big Corporation A Field." In doing so they are going to piss more people off than anything. That will either prevent it from happening, or destroying "Big Company A" if it does.

[Garage Party]

The Red Sox have figured out a way to renovate Fenway Park piecemeal so that it's not falling apart and they can remain committed to the location indefinitely. If they could pull it off, why can't we? Probably because Jerry Reinsdorf's henchmen insist on the state buying the park, evicting the Cubs, making them pay rent to Jerry Reinsdorf, and then pay rent to the state. The only thing preventing a sensible incremental Wrigley renovation for the Chicago Cubs is Chicago.

[kycubsfan]

meh, I don't want to see the park as a war zone for parts of multiple seasons. just close up and get it done

 

fyi, the Red Sox haven't done anything to Fenway on the scale of what we're talking about

[CubinNY]

The Red Sox have figured out a way to renovate Fenway Park piecemeal so that it's not falling apart and they can remain committed to the location indefinitely. If they could pull it off, why can't we? Probably because Jerry Reinsdorf's henchmen insist on the state buying the park, evicting the Cubs, making them pay rent to Jerry Reinsdorf, and then pay rent to the state. The only thing preventing a sensible incremental Wrigley renovation for the Chicago Cubs is Chicago.

I don't know about your conspiracy theory, but I basically agree with your sentiment. I think they (Zell) are banking on somebody wanting to own the Cubs very badly and at most any cost. I think they will find few takers for the Cubs if they sell Wrigley separately. Once the new owner is in place you can bet on some cost cutting measures. Maybe in the long run it will make the Cubs leaner and smarter in terms of baseball operations, but in the short term there will be a lot of disgruntled Cub fans.

[Soul]

The Red Sox have figured out a way to renovate Fenway Park piecemeal so that it's not falling apart and they can remain committed to the location indefinitely. If they could pull it off, why can't we? Probably because Jerry Reinsdorf's henchmen insist on the state buying the park, evicting the Cubs, making them pay rent to Jerry Reinsdorf, and then pay rent to the state. The only thing preventing a sensible incremental Wrigley renovation for the Chicago Cubs is Chicago.

I don't know about your conspiracy theory, but I basically agree with your sentiment. I think they (Zell) are banking on somebody wanting to own the Cubs very badly and at most any cost. I think they will find few takers for the Cubs if they sell Wrigley separately. Once the new owner is in place you can bet on some cost cutting measures. Maybe in the long run it will make the Cubs leaner and smarter in terms of baseball operations, but in the short term there will be a lot of disgruntled Cub fans.

 

I can't imagine buying the Cubs without Wrigley. Wrigley is the big attraction that makes the Cubs such a valuable commodity.

 

It would be like buying a car with....I dunno....no tires, or something. Why?

 

I think you're right to fear cost-cutting measures with the new ownership. I fear this as well, but you can't fight the future and it's probably coming no matter what we want.

[Derwood]

a "facelift" isn't going to cut it. I think they need to gut it all the way down to the clubhouses and start over. as vance said, almost every seat in the lower level that's under the roof has brutal sight lines, and not just because of the poles. they are going to want modern luxury suites, etc., etc. there is no way to put a bandaid on this baby

[Soul]

I heard they're thinking about moving the Cubs somewhere else for an entire season. That sounds like major rennovation to me, not just some cladding on the outside to make it look pretty.

[CubinNY]

a "facelift" isn't going to cut it. I think they need to gut it all the way down to the clubhouses and start over. as vance said, almost every seat in the lower level that's under the roof has brutal sight lines, and not just because of the poles. they are going to want modern luxury suites, etc., etc. there is no way to put a bandaid on this baby

There is no way to do that except to tear down most of Wrigley. They may be able to rip out the seats for better sight lines but they're isn't much they can do about the obstructed seats unless they tear down the entire upper deck. I suppose they could leave the field and the outfield bleachers and the 100 level seats and tear up everything else, but that would probably cost nearly as much (and maybe more) than just building a new stadium.

[CuseCubFan69]

Sorry if this has already been posted but would they just build a new stadium/field on the current site or move it elsewhere? I love where it is now.

[Wu-Gambino]

I don't think that there is any way a new stadium would be built, except in the case of some large scale, unforseen disaster. Admitted, I have not from Chicago, but I have spent a good deal of time on the city and the Northside. I don't think that there is any possibility of moving the team to the suburbs. Almost all stadiums, including NFL stadiums, are built in central neighborhoods or downtown. I could not imagine how much controversy there would be moving the team outside of Chicago (especially to Schaumburg). Even if they would keep the team in the city, there's no way they would move the team south of Madison. Is there any land even avaliable on the Northside that is:

a). big enough to support a large ballpark

b). has viable public transportation (specifically a large capacity L stop)

 

The only option is for the Cubs to continue to do extensive renovations on Wrigley Field, which I imagine the club will do.

[Fred Hornkohl]

I don't think that there is any way a new stadium would be built, except in the case of some large scale, unforseen disaster. Admitted, I have not from Chicago, but I have spent a good deal of time on the city and the Northside. I don't think that there is any possibility of moving the team to the suburbs. Almost all stadiums, including NFL stadiums, are built in central neighborhoods or downtown. I could not imagine how much controversy there would be moving the team outside of Chicago (especially to Schaumburg). Even if they would keep the team in the city, there's no way they would move the team south of Madison. Is there any land even avaliable on the Northside that is:

a). big enough to support a large ballpark

b). has viable public transportation (specifically a large capacity L stop)

The only option is for the Cubs to continue to do extensive renovations on Wrigley Field, which I imagine the club will do.

 

You haven't been paying attention to how the courts have redefined the concept of eminent domain, eh?

[J.R.]

There is no way to do that except to tear down most of Wrigley. They may be able to rip out the seats for better sight lines but they're isn't much they can do about the obstructed seats unless they tear down the entire upper deck. I suppose they could leave the field and the outfield bleachers and the 100 level seats and tear up everything else, but that would probably cost nearly as much (and maybe more) than just building a new stadium.

 

I assume we're looking at a demolition of the entire upper level (400s/500s/suites) and a refurbishment of the existing lower level (200s/100s/10s). The new upper deck would presumably be built taller to eliminate the "tunnel vision" that exists in most of the 200 level seats, and with wider aisles to accommodate handicapped fans and better crowd flow.

 

The current upper deck went up separately from the rest of the park in the 1920s. In theory, it could be switched out with an updated version so long as the park's foundation could take it (which it possibly could; a study done in the early 2000s showed that Wrigley was still very stout at its base.)

[seanimal]

There is no way to do that except to tear down most of Wrigley. They may be able to rip out the seats for better sight lines but they're isn't much they can do about the obstructed seats unless they tear down the entire upper deck. I suppose they could leave the field and the outfield bleachers and the 100 level seats and tear up everything else, but that would probably cost nearly as much (and maybe more) than just building a new stadium.

 

I assume we're looking at a demolition of the entire upper level (400s/500s/suites) and a refurbishment of the existing lower level (200s/100s/10s). The new upper deck would presumably be built taller to eliminate the "tunnel vision" that exists in most of the 200 level seats, and with wider aisles to accommodate handicapped fans and better crowd flow.

 

The current upper deck went up separately from the rest of the park in the 1920s. In theory, it could be switched out with an updated version so long as the park's foundation could take it (which it possibly could; a study done in the early 2000s showed that Wrigley was still very stout at its base.)

 

If I'm picturing it correctly, the problem with the tunnel vision is not necessarily the presence of the upper deck, it's the boxes that hang from the lowest part of the upper deck.

[J.R.]

If I'm picturing it correctly, the problem with the tunnel vision is not necessarily the presence of the upper deck, it's the boxes that hang from the lowest part of the upper deck.

 

This is true.

[TruffleShuffle]

If I'm picturing it correctly, the problem with the tunnel vision is not necessarily the presence of the upper deck, it's the boxes that hang from the lowest part of the upper deck.

 

This is true.

 

whoa, j.r.? j.r.!!!

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Found this tidbit on the Cubs Reporter blog...

 

aplan also spoke tonight with Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin. In the course of that conversation, Kaplan said his sources tell him that the Cubs are talking deal with a major, Chicago-based corporation which would pay less than the $40 million bandied about for naming rights. The company would be paying for “significant” signage all over the ballpark but would voluntarily forego renaming the park and in a selfless gesture of corporate goodness, allow the place to remain “Wrigley Field.”

 

Nice folks, those selfless, major Chicago corporate guys.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Found this tidbit on the Cubs Reporter blog...

 

aplan also spoke tonight with Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin. In the course of that conversation, Kaplan said his sources tell him that the Cubs are talking deal with a major, Chicago-based corporation which would pay less than the $40 million bandied about for naming rights. The company would be paying for “significant” signage all over the ballpark but would voluntarily forego renaming the park and in a selfless gesture of corporate goodness, allow the place to remain “Wrigley Field.”

 

Nice folks, those selfless, major Chicago corporate guys.

 

Damn it, Vance..... you'd bitch if we hung you with a new rope !!!

[CoBleacherBum]

Found this tidbit on the Cubs Reporter blog...

 

aplan also spoke tonight with Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin. In the course of that conversation, Kaplan said his sources tell him that the Cubs are talking deal with a major, Chicago-based corporation which would pay less than the $40 million bandied about for naming rights. The company would be paying for “significant” signage all over the ballpark but would voluntarily forego renaming the park and in a selfless gesture of corporate goodness, allow the place to remain “Wrigley Field.”

 

Nice folks, those selfless, major Chicago corporate guys.

 

Not a bad compromise -- depending of course how the "significant signage" looks.

[BCVM22]

Any bets on the "major, Chicago-based corporation?"

[Illini Iceman]

Any bets on the "major, Chicago-based corporation?"

 

Sears

[CoolHandLuke]

Any bets on the "major, Chicago-based corporation?"

 

Sears

 

Playboy

[BCVM22]

Playboy

 

Lots of potential for signage.