Big Z wants new ballpark

[Gmoney08]

Im all for renovating the grandstand but IMO Wrigley and the base of the stadium should stay the same.

 

I dont get the big problem with Wrigley at all. People here say they feel inferior to other stadiums and I completely disagree. I have been to 7 or 8 different ballparks before and I have never once felt watching baseball was any better at those parks. They may have some cool gadgets, a jumbotron, or something like that. But, that didnt make the stadium experience any better then Wrigleys.

 

Nicer facilities for the players would be my top priority, the fan experience I have no problem with right now. If they want to add some cool glitzy gadgets for the fans in a renovated grandstand thats fine. But, player facilities should be the first priority.

[schaumpton]

The man's right. Wrigley is a dump. It needs to be gutted and totally reworked at the very least.

 

Cosign. I disagree with the poster who suggested the new stadium be built in the suburbs. Wrigleyville is as big a part of going to a Cubs game as Wrigley. No need to do away with that as well. Raze Wrigley and rebuild on the same spot. Cubs can play at Soldiers Field for a year or two.

[Butterscup1679666578]

they'd play at the Cell i'm sure.

[fivepercent]

Im all for renovating the grandstand but IMO Wrigley and the base of the stadium should stay the same.

 

I dont get the big problem with Wrigley at all. People here say they feel inferior to other stadiums and I completely disagree. I have been to 7 or 8 different ballparks before and I have never once felt watching baseball was any better at those parks. They may have some cool gadgets, a jumbotron, or something like that. But, that didnt make the stadium experience any better then Wrigleys.

 

Nicer facilities for the players would be my top priority, the fan experience I have no problem with right now. If they want to add some cool glitzy gadgets for the fans in a renovated grandstand thats fine. But, player facilities should be the first priority.

 

Agreed. I just dont understand how many amenities a fan needs...As long as the view is excellent I really dont care. I'm more than likely not going to leave my seat after the game starts.

[Clem Fandango]

they'd play at the Cell i'm sure.

 

Little Cubs Field!

[UMFan83]

If the Cubs built a new park...

 

The stadium would be much more caneverous and the upper deck of the park would likely be much farther from the field than it is now. Ballparks are simply not built with overhangs anymore, not with luxury boxes as popular as they are. This would leave the cheap seats miles from the ballpark, and the stadium would become much less noisy as it is now. Granted the effect isn't as big in baseball parks as it is in indoor arenas, but this is something we've all but lost with the modern ballpark. Wrigley still has it. Along the same point, the luxury boxes would be the number one priority for the Cubs. They would do everything possible to ensure that the luxury boxes are as spacious and luxurious as possible.

 

The Cubs would likely find a way to incorporate Cubs traditions like the rooftops into the ballpark. However, I don't think the Cubs are trilled with the idea of rooftop owners and only receiving a portion of the revenues. They would probably find a way to "create" rooftops outside the field, and control ownership of those rooftops, making the whole idea cheesy.

 

Meh, I could go on...I'm just completely against a new Wrigley. Sure its not the most comfortable, its cramped, its smelly, it lacks some amenities that fans in almost every other park enjoy. I hate missing 9 outs of a game everytime I want to goto the bathroom unless I'm in the bleachers. But there are certain things that Wrigley has that are impossible to duplicate with a new park. Places like Fenway and Wrigley are so rare in today's game. All other parks are giant generic monsters poking out of the cities skyline. Wrigley is unique that it fits nicely into the neighborhood. It's no different than the 7-11 across the street or the 3 story brownstone across the street. Once Wrigley and Fenway leave, we'll never get places like this back. So I am of the opinion to enjoy what we have as long as we can.

[chuckywang]

The man's right. Wrigley is a dump. It needs to be gutted and totally reworked at the very least.

 

Cosign. I disagree with the poster who suggested the new stadium be built in the suburbs. Wrigleyville is as big a part of going to a Cubs game as Wrigley. No need to do away with that as well. Raze Wrigley and rebuild on the same spot. Cubs can play at Soldiers Field for a year or two.

 

Ouch! Your post sends a shiver down my spine. Demolishing Wrigley Field is an absolute no-no, IMO. If the Cubs get a new stadium, it will have to be somewhere else. It would be a shame though, since Wrigleyville *might* go south if it happens (although Wrigleyville is still pretty popular during the colder months), but you can have a new Wrigleyville wherever the new stadium happens to be. Just don't sell the naming rights so it's something stupid like Sears Park.

[Cubswin11]

It's clear something needs to be done, either renovations or build a new stadium. I think it's going to be renovations as long as there aren't too many issues with getting permits and what not since Wrigley is a historic site or whatever. The Cubs could either play home games at Miller Park, The Cell or Soldier Field.

[Tyrant]

Wrigley has lots of nostalgia, but it IS a dump compared to most other parks.

 

Like it or not, the issue is going to have to be addressed at some point, whether it's 2015 or 2050, the Cubs are going to have to either gut and rebuild Wrigley, or get a new stadium.

[manbearcub]

i really doubt Soldier Field is a viable option. No infield, seats arent retractable, etc.

[Cubswin11]

How about the Cubs agree to a deal with the Nationals that the Cubs will play in Washington, while Wrigley is being renovated, for the 2010 and 2011 seasons (since the Cubs can actually get fans into games) in exchange for the rights to draft Strasburg this year? I think it's a pretty fair trade off.

[NCCubFan]

Now Z claims he was misquoted.

[SouthSideRyan]

Wrigley's footprint is too small to make tearing it down and building a new one in the same place a viable solution.

[Soul]

Wrigley is fine the way it is.

 

It really isn't. Which is why they've been slowly replacing it over time.

[erik316wttn]

I'd be on board for "gut and rebuild" myself. The whole Wrigleyville experience is irreplaceable, and building anywhere else would take that away.

 

Plus, I've always wanted to take my son to Wrigley when he's old enough to truly appreciate it.

[mjohnson71]

By the start of the 2010 season, the Cubs will be one of only eight teams (Cubs, Red Sox, Jays, Rays, A's, Dodgers, Marlins, Royals) to not play in a "modern" venue (a baseball-only venue built or renovated extensively after 1990) and of those eight, the Marlins will have a new ballpark within five years, Kauffmann just finished its renovations (though to the best of my knowledge, they don't include upgrades to the clubhouse facilities), Fenway is upgraded a little bit every offseason and the Rogers Centre is still a relatively modern facility, though I obviously can't speak as to the quality of the clubhouse facilities of the last three.

 

I don't know. Isn't Kauffman's renovation almost a total gut rehab that will end up costing more than Busch Stadium III?

EDIT: almost. Kauffman's renovations will cost around $265 million while a whole new cheaply built Busch stadium cost around $300 million.

 

My guess is that after a couple of years the Red Sox will get a bad case of stadium envy and build a new place.

Edited April 6, 2009 by mjohnson71

[Sammy Sofa]

I hate Wrigleyville. That neighborhood is the reason there aren't more night games and why any construction and remodeling that needs to be done at the park is a drawn-out, tortuous process, if it gets done at all.

 

The main thing I wat for the Cubs is significantly expanding seating capacity. It's ridiculous they top out around 42k when they could clearly get so much more. I want all of that extra revenue to be available to ideally keep the payroll high or help it go even higher.

[mjohnson71]

My fear is that Mayor Daley will push the Cubs out to the suburbs into the middle of some huge parking lot.

[SouthSideRyan]

By the start of the 2010 season, the Cubs will be one of only eight teams (Cubs, Red Sox, Jays, Rays, A's, Dodgers, Marlins, Royals) to not play in a "modern" venue (a baseball-only venue built or renovated extensively after 1990) and of those eight, the Marlins will have a new ballpark within five years, Kauffmann just finished its renovations (though to the best of my knowledge, they don't include upgrades to the clubhouse facilities), Fenway is upgraded a little bit every offseason and the Rogers Centre is still a relatively modern facility, though I obviously can't speak as to the quality of the clubhouse facilities of the last three.

 

I don't know. Isn't Kauffman's renovation almost a total gut rehab that will end up costing more than Busch Stadium III?

EDIT: almost. Kauffman's renovations will cost around $265 million while a whole new cheaply built Busch stadium cost around $300 million.

 

My guess is that after a couple of years the Red Sox will get a bad case of stadium envy and build a new place.

 

And Kauffman doesn't even have a softball field next door.

[Roast]

I wouldn't go so far as to say wrigley is a dump, but I can't fault Z for wanting to play in a more modern facility, either.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

By the start of the 2010 season, the Cubs will be one of only eight teams (Cubs, Red Sox, Jays, Rays, A's, Dodgers, Marlins, Royals) to not play in a "modern" venue (a baseball-only venue built or renovated extensively after 1990) and of those eight, the Marlins will have a new ballpark within five years, Kauffmann just finished its renovations (though to the best of my knowledge, they don't include upgrades to the clubhouse facilities), Fenway is upgraded a little bit every offseason and the Rogers Centre is still a relatively modern facility, though I obviously can't speak as to the quality of the clubhouse facilities of the last three.

 

I don't know. Isn't Kauffman's renovation almost a total gut rehab that will end up costing more than Busch Stadium III?

EDIT: almost. Kauffman's renovations will cost around $265 million while a whole new cheaply built Busch stadium cost around $300 million.

 

My guess is that after a couple of years the Red Sox will get a bad case of stadium envy and build a new place.

 

And Kauffman doesn't even have a softball field next door.

 

Oh yes it does.

[mjohnson71]

By the start of the 2010 season, the Cubs will be one of only eight teams (Cubs, Red Sox, Jays, Rays, A's, Dodgers, Marlins, Royals) to not play in a "modern" venue (a baseball-only venue built or renovated extensively after 1990) and of those eight, the Marlins will have a new ballpark within five years, Kauffmann just finished its renovations (though to the best of my knowledge, they don't include upgrades to the clubhouse facilities), Fenway is upgraded a little bit every offseason and the Rogers Centre is still a relatively modern facility, though I obviously can't speak as to the quality of the clubhouse facilities of the last three.

 

I don't know. Isn't Kauffman's renovation almost a total gut rehab that will end up costing more than Busch Stadium III?

EDIT: almost. Kauffman's renovations will cost around $265 million while a whole new cheaply built Busch stadium cost around $300 million.

 

My guess is that after a couple of years the Red Sox will get a bad case of stadium envy and build a new place.

 

And Kauffman doesn't even have a softball field next door.

 

Oh yes it does.

 

Unless you're saying they play softball at Arrowhead, then no.

[Guest]

I'd be on board for "gut and rebuild" myself. The whole Wrigleyville experience is irreplaceable, and building anywhere else would take that away.

 

Plus, I've always wanted to take my son to Wrigley when he's old enough to truly appreciate it.

The Wrigleyville experience is easily replaceable. The only problem is the cost.

 

If they could build a stadium near the Museums along the lake front that would be awesome, but they probably can't.

[Coach C]

By the start of the 2010 season, the Cubs will be one of only eight teams (Cubs, Red Sox, Jays, Rays, A's, Dodgers, Marlins, Royals) to not play in a "modern" venue (a baseball-only venue built or renovated extensively after 1990) and of those eight, the Marlins will have a new ballpark within five years, Kauffmann just finished its renovations (though to the best of my knowledge, they don't include upgrades to the clubhouse facilities), Fenway is upgraded a little bit every offseason and the Rogers Centre is still a relatively modern facility, though I obviously can't speak as to the quality of the clubhouse facilities of the last three.

 

I don't know. Isn't Kauffman's renovation almost a total gut rehab that will end up costing more than Busch Stadium III?

EDIT: almost. Kauffman's renovations will cost around $265 million while a whole new cheaply built Busch stadium cost around $300 million.

 

My guess is that after a couple of years the Red Sox will get a bad case of stadium envy and build a new place.

 

And Kauffman doesn't even have a softball field next door.

 

Oh yes it does.

 

Unless you're saying they play softball at Arrowhead, then no.

 

It's not a softball park, per-se. It's technically what's called "Little K" for kids, which is located at Left Center field.

[David]

I wonder if the Olympics could result in a new stadium for the Cubs somehow, sort of like what happened in Atlanta. :-k

 

 

 

Are they planning any facilities that wouldn't be temporary?