Deadspin.com take on Wrigley Field

[mjohnson71]

If you demolished all of the ballpark save the bleacher area and field and rebuilt it with much nicer amenities (which I think should be done), I don't think it would detract from the experience at all.

 

I have been to Wrigley more times than I can count, but aside from the view of the field/bleachers/scoreboard (which is uniquely fantastic), the place really does suck.

 

I wouldn't be at all hurt if they rebuilt Wrigley between the foul poles. But I'm talking about a same footprint, small park and keep the obstructed view seats and support girders. Do it cheap like St. Louis and Cincinnati. We don't need to spend a billion + dollars to have marble floors and gold plated faucets like the Yankee Stadium III.

[SouthSideRyan]

If you demolished all of the ballpark save the bleacher area and field and rebuilt it with much nicer amenities (which I think should be done), I don't think it would detract from the experience at all.

 

I have been to Wrigley more times than I can count, but aside from the view of the field/bleachers/scoreboard (which is uniquely fantastic), the place really does suck.

 

I wouldn't be at all hurt if they rebuilt Wrigley between the foul poles. But I'm talking about a same footprint, small park and keep the obstructed view seats and support girders. Do it cheap like St. Louis and Cincinnati. We don't need to spend a billion + dollars to have marble floors and gold plated faucets like the Yankee Stadium III.

 

That's pretty much how it has to be done if it's done in the same spot. You can't fit nicer amenities/more seating into the Wrigley footprint. It's tiny.

[jersey cubs fan]

If you demolished all of the ballpark save the bleacher area and field and rebuilt it with much nicer amenities (which I think should be done), I don't think it would detract from the experience at all.

 

I have been to Wrigley more times than I can count, but aside from the view of the field/bleachers/scoreboard (which is uniquely fantastic), the place really does suck.

 

I wouldn't be at all hurt if they rebuilt Wrigley between the foul poles. But I'm talking about a same footprint, small park and keep the obstructed view seats and support girders. Do it cheap like St. Louis and Cincinnati. We don't need to spend a billion + dollars to have marble floors and gold plated faucets like the Yankee Stadium III.

 

That's pretty much how it has to be done if it's done in the same spot. You can't fit nicer amenities/more seating into the Wrigley footprint. It's tiny.

 

You can make some of the amenities nicer without making them larger. They definitely shouldn't make more seating, the trend in the majors is for smaller parks anyway, so I doubt they would try that. I think they can make it without the obstructed views though.

[SouthSideRyan]

The footprint isn't big enough to allow for unobstructed views.

[jersey cubs fan]

The footprint isn't big enough to allow for unobstructed views.

 

No, you wouldn't be able to eliminate all unobstructed views, but you should be able to significantly reduce the number of them. And while the footprint would be the same (other than how they incorporate the triangle building area), there's no reason why they shouldn't build up a little higher.

[ManEatingTarp]

Keep the new bleachers and the ivy. Replace everything else with an updated version of the existing park.

It would take about 2 games of going to a new park for people to get over "the loss" and embrace it.

 

You can't tell me that the players wouldn't love a new clubhouse. Getting in and out of the park is a pain in the ass. The bathrooms are a horror. What digital advertising and scoreboards they have look out of place and forced. And the food is terrible.

 

Just because it's old doesn't make it good. You're paying "New Stadium" prices for your tickets, so you might as well be able to enjoy what a new stadium can bring to your experience.

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, and there's no money anywhere to spend 800M on a new stadium.

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, and there's no money anywhere to spend 800M on a new stadium.

 

And you'll wind up with a shitty location unless you keep it in the same footprint in which case you have to play elsewhere for a season or 2, and wind up with the same shitty clubhouse, the same obstructed views, the same shitty parking.

[mjohnson71]

Oh, and there's no money anywhere to spend 800M on a new stadium.

 

You don't have to spend $800 million. St. Louis and Cincinnati built perfectly acceptable ballparks completely for $350 million or less. I'm just talking a foulpole to foulpole rebuild. No "Batters Eye" restaurant in dead center, no Ruth's Chris in the left field stands or a 150 foot by 300 foot super HD jumbotron.

 

Then again you might be right with Chicago style government corruption and unions, you're doubling the true cost.

[mjohnson71]

Oh, and there's no money anywhere to spend 800M on a new stadium.

 

And you'll wind up with a [expletive] location unless you keep it in the same footprint in which case you have to play elsewhere for a season or 2, and wind up with the same [expletive] clubhouse, the same obstructed views, the same [expletive] parking.

 

So what do you want to do? Build a new ballpark in the middle of a field out in Naperville?

[SouthSideRyan]

Oh, and there's no money anywhere to spend 800M on a new stadium.

 

And you'll wind up with a [expletive] location unless you keep it in the same footprint in which case you have to play elsewhere for a season or 2, and wind up with the same [expletive] clubhouse, the same obstructed views, the same [expletive] parking.

 

So what do you want to do? Build a new ballpark in the middle of a field out in Naperville?

 

Absolutely not, but people are saying, oh just gut the inside, keep the bleachers and scoreboard, and have it ready for opening day 2010. Oh, and while you're working on it, make sure to build a nice clubhouse, more comfortable seating, and a ton of bathrooms. It's just not do-able in its current location. And if you're not adding all the nice stuff, then why are you building a new ballpark?

[jersey cubs fan]

Absolutely not, but people are saying, oh just gut the inside, keep the bleachers and scoreboard, and have it ready for opening day 2010. Oh, and while you're working on it, make sure to build a nice clubhouse, more comfortable seating, and a ton of bathrooms. It's just not do-able in its current location. And if you're not adding all the nice stuff, then why are you building a new ballpark?

 

In an effort to keep it standing.

 

And you can always build up, and incorporate the triangle area to the west.

[fivepercent]

Unless you're there for something other than watching the game, I'm not sure what benefits the amenities of a new stadium brings to the fans(outside of the bathroom situation). Obviously adding all these clubs and suites and what not for people that just want to drink and socialize would generate revenue for the team, but that doesnt really affect the baseball fan other than possibly having a better team to watch.

 

I really wouldnt mind a rebuild, but I just dont see how it would work. As said before, theres no room on the current plot to build anything bigger than whats there now. To build a new stadium in another part of town and take the Cubs out of Wrigleyville wouldnt go over well at all.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Unless you're there for something other than watching the game, I'm not sure what benefits the amenities of a new stadium brings to the fans(outside of the bathroom situation). Obviously adding all these clubs and suites and what not for people that just want to drink and socialize would generate revenue for the team, but that doesnt really affect the baseball fan other than possibly having a better team to watch.

 

From that argument, why is it so important to keep the old field? If you are just there to watch the game, why do you need the ivy, the bleachers, etc.?

[manbearcub]

we get it, you like to argue for the sake of arguing

[fivepercent]

Unless you're there for something other than watching the game, I'm not sure what benefits the amenities of a new stadium brings to the fans(outside of the bathroom situation). Obviously adding all these clubs and suites and what not for people that just want to drink and socialize would generate revenue for the team, but that doesnt really affect the baseball fan other than possibly having a better team to watch.

 

From that argument, why is it so important to keep the old field? If you are just there to watch the game, why do you need the ivy, the bleachers, etc.?

 

Because the way the bleachers shape the dimensions of the field and the way the ivy affects the play of the ball IMO add to the game. Those other things provide a distraction to the game.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Unless you're there for something other than watching the game, I'm not sure what benefits the amenities of a new stadium brings to the fans(outside of the bathroom situation). Obviously adding all these clubs and suites and what not for people that just want to drink and socialize would generate revenue for the team, but that doesnt really affect the baseball fan other than possibly having a better team to watch.

 

From that argument, why is it so important to keep the old field? If you are just there to watch the game, why do you need the ivy, the bleachers, etc.?

 

Because the way the bleachers shape the dimensions of the field and the way the ivy affects the play of the ball IMO add to the game. Those other things provide a distraction to the game.

 

So it's the dimensions of Wrigley that make it great?. Tiny foul space, wind having a huge affect day to day, deep lines and too-short power alleys. Those are not the elements of a park that shapes great baseball.

 

The tall grass is nice, though.

[fivepercent]

Unless you're there for something other than watching the game, I'm not sure what benefits the amenities of a new stadium brings to the fans(outside of the bathroom situation). Obviously adding all these clubs and suites and what not for people that just want to drink and socialize would generate revenue for the team, but that doesnt really affect the baseball fan other than possibly having a better team to watch.

 

From that argument, why is it so important to keep the old field? If you are just there to watch the game, why do you need the ivy, the bleachers, etc.?

 

Because the way the bleachers shape the dimensions of the field and the way the ivy affects the play of the ball IMO add to the game. Those other things provide a distraction to the game.

 

So it's the dimensions of Wrigley that make it great?. Tiny foul space, wind having a huge affect day to day, deep lines and too-short power alleys. Those are not the elements of a park that shapes great baseball.

 

The tall grass is nice, though.

 

Shape great baseball in the opinion of who?

 

And I didnt mean that I like the way it plays necessarily by saying it adds to the game. I more or less meant it influences the game, something that suites or amenities dont do, which is the answer to your original question.

[jersey cubs fan]

Unless you're there for something other than watching the game, I'm not sure what benefits the amenities of a new stadium brings to the fans(outside of the bathroom situation). Obviously adding all these clubs and suites and what not for people that just want to drink and socialize would generate revenue for the team, but that doesnt really affect the baseball fan other than possibly having a better team to watch.

 

Why can't you be there for watching the game and still enjoy amenities? You don't need ferris wheels and hot tubs. But the simple act of being able to walk around a stadium and take in the view from multiple angles can be enjoyable, not to mention a wider selection of food/drink.

 

 

And everybody keeps saying the footprint has to be the same and therefore no changes can be made. But we're talking about a building constructed in a very different era, that doesn't even fill in the entire footprint. They found a way to fit 2500 extra seats in the bleachers, I'm sure they can find a way to make a new Wrigley better. And you can always build up.

[Guest]

And everybody keeps saying the footprint has to be the same and therefore no changes can be made. But we're talking about a building constructed in a very different era, that doesn't even fill in the entire footprint. They found a way to fit 2500 extra seats in the bleachers, I'm sure they can find a way to make a new Wrigley better. And you can always build up.

 

I'm not sure about the "footprint" argument. I'm no expert in building construction but it seems to me that there is a helluva lot of room on the sidewalks on Clark and Addison. They could turn Sheffield and Waveland into a pedestrian walkway like Yawkee Way. They would be able to increase the size and not necessarily hurt traffic or commerce.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=google%20earth&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

[jersey cubs fan]

And everybody keeps saying the footprint has to be the same and therefore no changes can be made. But we're talking about a building constructed in a very different era, that doesn't even fill in the entire footprint. They found a way to fit 2500 extra seats in the bleachers, I'm sure they can find a way to make a new Wrigley better. And you can always build up.

 

I'm not sure about the "footprint" argument. I'm no expert in building construction but it seems to me that there is a helluva lot of room on the sidewalks on Clark and Addison. They could turn Sheffield and Waveland into a pedestrian walkway like Yawkee Way. They would be able to increase the size and not necessarily hurt traffic or commerce.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=google%20earth&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

 

There is plenty of room off of Clark, and a good amount off the corner of Addison/Waveland. I don't think you can entirely shut down the streets and turn them into pedestrian malls. Though you could build over them.