New bill would divert amusement tax funds for Wrigley work

[jersey cubs fan]

Whoa, settle down cowboy. I only mentioned it in the context of using Milwaukee AND the Cell for their home games. Using one or the other wouldn't make a different.

 

You still tried to compare Canada and Puerto as similar to Milwaukee and the south side of chicago. The player's union wants to grow revenues, and if it's the only realistic way to upgrade Wrigley, I doubt they would do much more than throw out a token complaint. But just like with Puerto Rico, they will play there.

[Soul]

The folks in Milwaukee aren't likely to want to give over their stadium for Cubs home games.

Cardinals would die first before allowing the Cubs to play there. So would the Sox, I think.

 

STL is unrealistic. But money would be involved so I am sure Milwaukee and the White Sox would welcome some extra income to take on some Cubs home games for a season.

 

Of all the options I put up there, Milwaukee and the Cell are the only two that seem realistic, although still problematic.

 

I think Reinsdorf would dig his heels in. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like he would be horrified at the prospect of allowing the Cubs to play games in his park. I guess we'd have to see how persuasive a pot of money would be for him.

 

Milwaukee might be the best option. There's already an experience of many Cub fans making the trek up to Milwaukee for Cub games. The Brewers would no doubt not want Cub fans taking over their park, but there's also no doubt that they don't mind taking Cub fan money. And when the hurricane hit in Houston, they were willing to allow a Cub/Stros game to take place in their building without too much fuss.

 

I think it would take some league persuasion and some solid dollar figures -- but they'd let it happen. They'd hold their noses and count the money.

[jersey cubs fan]

The folks in Milwaukee aren't likely to want to give over their stadium for Cubs home games.

Cardinals would die first before allowing the Cubs to play there. So would the Sox, I think.

 

STL is unrealistic. But money would be involved so I am sure Milwaukee and the White Sox would welcome some extra income to take on some Cubs home games for a season.

 

Of all the options I put up there, Milwaukee and the Cell are the only two that seem realistic, although still problematic.

 

I think Reinsdorf would dig his heels in. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me like he would be horrified at the prospect of allowing the Cubs to play games in his park. I guess we'd have to see how persuasive a pot of money would be for him.

 

Milwaukee might be the best option. There's already an experience of many Cub fans making the trek up to Milwaukee for Cub games. The Brewers would no doubt not want Cub fans taking over their park, but there's also no doubt that they don't mind taking Cub fan money. And when the hurricane hit in Houston, they were willing to allow a Cub/Stros game to take place in their building without too much fuss.

 

I think it would take some league persuasion and some solid dollar figures -- but they'd let it happen. They'd hold their noses and count the money.

 

I think you are placing goofy fan feelings into the minds of businessmen.

[baseballfan50]

I wouldn't want Cubs home games at my home park (Busch). Even though it would mean a little more revenue, it would also not be popular. Having a large percentage of opposing fans at your park is annoying when the teams are playing each other. But having the Cubs play there regularly would be strange. And it wouldn't make sense. STL and Chicago are about 5 hours apart I think.

 

The Cell would be easiest probably, if the Sox would cooperate. The Browns and Cardinals shares Sportsman's Park, so it can be done. Of course, nobody shares anything anymore.

 

Milwaukee would be second-closest of course, but I can also imagine them not wanting to be taken over by Cubs fans.

 

Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Detroit are each 4-5 hours away. Indianapolis is three hours,I think, but I'm not sure if they have any facilities that are big enough.

[jersey cubs fan]

I wouldn't want Cubs home games at my home park (Busch). Even though it would mean a little more revenue, it would also not be popular. Having a large percentage of opposing fans at your park is annoying when the teams are playing each other. But having the Cubs play there regularly would be strange. And it wouldn't make sense. STL and Chicago are about 5 hours apart I think.

 

The Cell would be easiest probably, if the Sox would cooperate. The Browns and Cardinals shares Sportsman's Park, so it can be done. Of course, nobody shares anything anymore.

 

Milwaukee would be second-closest of course, but I can also imagine them not wanting to be taken over by Cubs fans.

 

Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Detroit are each 4-5 hours away. Indianapolis is three hours,I think, but I'm not sure if they have any facilities that are big enough.

 

The Giants and Jets share a stadium. So do the Rangers and Knicks. The Devils are letting the Nets hang at their place while they wait to leave the state they are named after. Fans wouldn't want it because fans are irrational beings. But rational people would actually make the decisions.

[baseballfan50]

Well, money talks. I would doubt the Cardinals would do it, because our attendance is really good and we'd probably be plan C behind the Brewers and Sox, anyway. If you find a team that is desperate enough for revenue something could probably be worked out.

 

Last time (and only time) I was at Miller we got $4 tickets and the place was half empty. So they might be willing to talk.

[SouthSideRyan]

Reinsdorf would do it just for the parking income

[jersey cubs fan]

Well, money talks. I would doubt the Cardinals would do it, because our attendance is really good and we'd probably be plan C behind the Brewers and Sox, anyway. If you find a team that is desperate enough for revenue something could probably be worked out.

 

Last time (and only time) I was at Miller we got $4 tickets and the place was half empty. So they might be willing to talk.

 

The Cardinals would do it, but why would the Cubs schedule games in that podunk town a million miles away?

[baseballfan50]

I know Busch wouldn't make any sense because of the distance. Cincinnati is similar as far as distance.

 

I would think Milwaukee or the Sox would be more likely to do it because of the proximity but also because the Brewers attendance is awful. Although ESPN puts the Brewers attendance higher than the Sox.

 

The Cell would definitely make the most sense, as long as the Sox are willing to do it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I think if needed, Selig could get involved and twist the arms of his buddy Reinsdorf to make it happen. He knows Wrigley needs repairing and it's likely he could use his best interest of baseball clause to force it through.

[J.R.]

This is an excellent counterpoint to the madness in today's Tribune.

 

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly obvious fact that $300 million in renovations is much cheaper than the billion dollars that would have to be spent building the Cubs a new stadium in the suburbs (as well as the equally obvious fact that Wrigley has landmark status and you couldn't tear it down if you wanted to), putting the team elsewhere would totally eliminate the main factor behind the Cubs' drawing power. Why would you do that?

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/25909428

[Cubswin11]

I know Busch wouldn't make any sense because of the distance. Cincinnati is similar as far as distance.

 

I would think Milwaukee or the Sox would be more likely to do it because of the proximity but also because the Brewers attendance is awful. Although ESPN puts the Brewers attendance higher than the Sox.

 

The Cell would definitely make the most sense, as long as the Sox are willing to do it.

They have drawn over 2.7m fans per season since 2007, over 3m twice. However their attendance will likely trend down now through the near future due to them not being competitive. Milwaukee/Wisconsin will support the Brewers when they win, but once they start losing they abandon them pretty quickly.

[baseballfan50]

This is an excellent counterpoint to the madness in today's Tribune.

 

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly obvious fact that $300 million in renovations is much cheaper than the billion dollars that would have to be spent building the Cubs a new stadium in the suburbs (as well as the equally obvious fact that Wrigley has landmark status and you couldn't tear it down if you wanted to), putting the team elsewhere would totally eliminate the main factor behind the Cubs' drawing power. Why would you do that?

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/25909428

 

A new stadium doesn't have to cost a billion dollars (unless you're the Yankees) but I see his overall point.

[Soul]

I wouldn't want Cubs home games at my home park (Busch). Even though it would mean a little more revenue, it would also not be popular. Having a large percentage of opposing fans at your park is annoying when the teams are playing each other. But having the Cubs play there regularly would be strange. And it wouldn't make sense. STL and Chicago are about 5 hours apart I think.

 

The Cell would be easiest probably, if the Sox would cooperate. The Browns and Cardinals shares Sportsman's Park, so it can be done. Of course, nobody shares anything anymore.

 

Milwaukee would be second-closest of course, but I can also imagine them not wanting to be taken over by Cubs fans.

 

Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Detroit are each 4-5 hours away. Indianapolis is three hours,I think, but I'm not sure if they have any facilities that are big enough.

 

The Giants and Jets share a stadium. So do the Rangers and Knicks. The Devils are letting the Nets hang at their place while they wait to leave the state they are named after. Fans wouldn't want it because fans are irrational beings. But rational people would actually make the decisions.

 

There's a certain rationale to listening to your goofy fans, if they're loud & angry enough. At least make it look like you're taking them into consideration.

[KingCubsFan]

This is an excellent counterpoint to the madness in today's Tribune.

 

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly obvious fact that $300 million in renovations is much cheaper than the billion dollars that would have to be spent building the Cubs a new stadium in the suburbs (as well as the equally obvious fact that Wrigley has landmark status and you couldn't tear it down if you wanted to), putting the team elsewhere would totally eliminate the main factor behind the Cubs' drawing power. Why would you do that?

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/25909428

Ricketts could use that fact to his advantage. The state would love paying millions a year to keep up an old, empty stadium.

[Garwilly]

This is an excellent counterpoint to the madness in today's Tribune.

 

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly obvious fact that $300 million in renovations is much cheaper than the billion dollars that would have to be spent building the Cubs a new stadium in the suburbs (as well as the equally obvious fact that Wrigley has landmark status and you couldn't tear it down if you wanted to), putting the team elsewhere would totally eliminate the main factor behind the Cubs' drawing power. Why would you do that?

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/25909428

Ricketts could use that fact to his advantage. The state would love paying millions a year to keep up an old, empty stadium.

 

 

But Ricketts (or whomever he sells it to in this scenario) owns Wrigley. Why would the state be responsible for the upkeep on a privately owned building? Does simply having a building with landmark status entitle it to funding?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

This is an excellent counterpoint to the madness in today's Tribune.

 

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly obvious fact that $300 million in renovations is much cheaper than the billion dollars that would have to be spent building the Cubs a new stadium in the suburbs (as well as the equally obvious fact that Wrigley has landmark status and you couldn't tear it down if you wanted to), putting the team elsewhere would totally eliminate the main factor behind the Cubs' drawing power. Why would you do that?

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/25909428

Ricketts could use that fact to his advantage. The state would love paying millions a year to keep up an old, empty stadium.

 

 

But Ricketts (or whomever he sells it to in this scenario) owns Wrigley. Why would the state be responsible for the upkeep on a privately owned building? Does simply having a building with landmark status entitle it to funding?

 

I may be wrong, but the landmark status limits you from tearing down or making changes to the building, but it doesn't legally require you to spend for upkeep.

[Garwilly]

This is an excellent counterpoint to the madness in today's Tribune.

 

Ignoring for a moment the incredibly obvious fact that $300 million in renovations is much cheaper than the billion dollars that would have to be spent building the Cubs a new stadium in the suburbs (as well as the equally obvious fact that Wrigley has landmark status and you couldn't tear it down if you wanted to), putting the team elsewhere would totally eliminate the main factor behind the Cubs' drawing power. Why would you do that?

http://www.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/entry/22297882/25909428

Ricketts could use that fact to his advantage. The state would love paying millions a year to keep up an old, empty stadium.

 

 

But Ricketts (or whomever he sells it to in this scenario) owns Wrigley. Why would the state be responsible for the upkeep on a privately owned building? Does simply having a building with landmark status entitle it to funding?

 

I may be wrong, but the landmark status limits you from tearing down or making changes to the building, but it doesn't legally require you to spend for upkeep.

 

That doesn't obligate the state to pay for anything.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

 

That doesn't obligate the state to pay for anything.

 

No, but the building could become an eyesore if the owners did nothing to maintain it.

[baseballfan50]

I may be mistaken, but I don't think a building having landmark status entirely prevents its demolition. It makes demolition next to impossible, though. From my understanding, a building on the national register of historic places can get Federal rehab money. I think in Missouri an income-producing property (like a business) gets Federal and State tax credits, whereas a property that does not produce income (like a private residence) can only get Federal tax credits.

 

If Illinois is similar in that, I would assume that Wrigley being on the historic register would qualify it for tax credits, but it also makes it more difficult (though not impossible if the right people approve it) to demolish it or make major changes. In St. Louis a building with historic status or in an historic district can be torn down, but demolition has to be approved by preservation board and aldermen and all of those boards and stuff. If that's the case in Chicago, tearing down Wrigley would not be impossible, but still very difficult. The different boards have to approve it and citizens certainly have the right to protest.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Soldier Field was on the historic landmark list until the renovations in 2001. In 2006 it was taken off the list because the owners changed the look so much that it was no longer considered historic. From my understanding, with the historic status, while you may get some tax credits or money to offset the costs, there are also very strict rules about what can and can't be done to the stadium, and demolition is next to impossible, though still legally possible.

 

I'm not an expert in this, though, and I'm not sure about Illinois laws specifically. But the historic status kind of seems both positive and negative for the Rickettses, because it restricts what they can do. They have to tread carefully.

 

Would the Rickettses let the stadium crumble if the city refused to pay for the renovations? I don't know. But if the Ricketts did do that and someone were to get hurt then the Rickettses would be responsible and the fans certainly wouldn't like it. It's not like the Cubs can threaten to move anywhere. This might be stalemate for a while.

 

Through the adoption of a “demolition review ordinance,” older buildings (generally those over 50 years) cannot be demolished without review by a preservation commission or special committee to determine whether a building is historically significant. If the building qualifies as significant, then a commission may delay the issuance of a demolition permit to explore preservation alternatives, such as designating the building as a historic landmark or finding a purchaser who may be interested in rehabilitating the building.

Demolition review does not always prevent the demolition of historically significant

buildings or structures.

 

But it would make Wrigley's demolition very difficult.

 

Demolition delay provisions in historic preservation ordinances are used to prevent the

demolition of buildings or structures that have already been designated as historic landmarks

or as contributing structures in a historic district for a specific amount of time, usually ranging

from 6 to 24 months. During that time, the preservation commission, preservation organizations, concerned citizens, and others may explore alternatives to demolition, such as

finding a purchaser for the structure or raising money for its rehabilitation. These provisions are typically used by communities that lack the authority to deny demolition permits. For example, in North Carolina, local jurisdictions generally only have the authority to delay a demolition permit up to 365 days unless the structure at issue has been determined by the State Historic Preservation Officer to have “statewide significance.”

See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A.400.14.

 

http://www.preservationnation.org/issues/teardowns/additional-resources/demolition_review.pdf

 

The Demolition-Delay Ordinance, adopted by City Council in 2003, establishes a hold of up to 90 days in the issuance of any demolition permit for certain historic buildings in order that the Department of Zoning and Land Use Planning can explore options, as appropriate, to preserve the building, including but not limited to landmark designation.

 

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/zlup/supp_info/demolition_delay.html

 

If Ricketts pushed the right button and got public support, the city probably could not stop Wrigley from being demolished, but they could delay it. Still, the Rickettses would need everything to go their way,

[baseballfan50]

 

That doesn't obligate the state to pay for anything.

 

No, but the building could become an eyesore if the owners did nothing to maintain it.

 

I'm pretty sure the city would not be happy with that, in fact, there are probably building code violations tied to it and if the stadium failed inspection, wouldn't the Cubs have to play somewhere else? The Rickettses could certainly get fined for that.

 

I have a feeling if this battle starts up then it could get nasty and last a while, especially with all the red tape and legal talk involved.

[Splendid Splinter]

Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Detroit are each 4-5 hours away. Indianapolis is three hours,I think, but I'm not sure if they have any facilities that are big enough.

 

Victory Field in Indianapolis can only hold about 15,000 (that's maybe squeezing a few in as well- the highest I've seen is probably a shy over 14,000 on 4th of July a couple years ago and it was pretty packed)... If they move there, Cubs would surely suck as their fielding dimensions is HUGE compared to Wrigley IMO. LF 320 ft/LCF 418 ft/CF 402 ft/RCF 362/RF 320. It's a pitchers park for sure.

 

Don't get me wrong here... Victory Field is a great ballpark. The best minor league park I've been to so far. There's seriously not a bad seat in that stadium. I just don't think there's enough seating (unless they renovate it to add some more seating adding to the 2nd level down the 1B/3B lines to make it to 20,000+ ppl or make seating in the OF area where they add a lot of seats, but I like the lawn as it is great for families to come and watch the Pirates AAA team) and it might too far from Chicago. Plus I don't know how the clubhouses and everything else are within in the stadium that you can't see...

 

Also if they went with this route, they might found out if Indianapolis is a suitable host for a MLB team or not in the future (due to expansion/contraction/team moving/etc...). If they do well with the attendance and everything, then I can see Indy being at the top of the list for the next city to have a MLB team.

[javy knows my name]

Cincinnati, St. Louis, and Detroit are each 4-5 hours away. Indianapolis is three hours,I think, but I'm not sure if they have any facilities that are big enough.

 

Victory Field in Indianapolis can only hold about 15,000 (that's maybe squeezing a few in as well- the highest I've seen is probably a shy over 14,000 on 4th of July a couple years ago and it was pretty packed)... If they move there, Cubs would surely suck as their fielding dimensions is HUGE compared to Wrigley IMO. LF 320 ft/LCF 418 ft/CF 402 ft/RCF 362/RF 320. It's a pitchers park for sure.

 

Don't get me wrong here... Victory Field is a great ballpark. The best minor league park I've been to so far. There's seriously not a bad seat in that stadium. I just don't think there's enough seating (unless they renovate it to add some more seating adding to the 2nd level down the 1B/3B lines to make it to 20,000+ ppl or make seating in the OF area where they add a lot of seats, but I like the lawn as it is great for families to come and watch the Pirates AAA team) and it might too far from Chicago. Plus I don't know how the clubhouses and everything else are within in the stadium that you can't see...

 

Also if they went with this route, they might found out if Indianapolis is a suitable host for a MLB team or not in the future (due to expansion/contraction/team moving/etc...). If they do well with the attendance and everything, then I can see Indy being at the top of the list for the next city to have a MLB team.

Those are Minute Maid Park dimensions. That is incredibly shallow down both lines. CF is the same as at Wrigley. This field must look like it has a gigantic tumor in the LF power alley

[questionmarkgrace]

Ricketts is a businessman and this is how big businesses interact with government so you cant blaming him for trying. Heck he strong armed the city of Mesa to figure something out for the spring training complex or he would move it to naples. And it worked. Its pretty clear that in its current form it wont work here for reasons outlined above. Plus I think that the two hundred million dollar investment in the area amounts to the planned triangle building structure. So really this deal would be incredibly one sided.

 

Is the structure of wrigley field really that unstable? I just dont see whats wrong with a rehab plan that occurs over then next ten years without closing the stadium. Really, whether it needs to be closed or not he needs to just man up and pay for it. As cubs fans we pay enough and two raises in ticket prices in the same amount of years to watch what amounts to hot garbage is not endearing him to fans. Nor is the fact that payroll has been reduced in the same time period, our first round pick this year was a DII player or signability pick, we arent competing for decent free agents, and now as tax payers we are being asked to divert money from the future revenue pool? I get the feeling that our owner is a big time penny pincher.

[Splendid Splinter]

Those are Minute Maid Park dimensions. That is incredibly shallow down both lines. CF is the same as at Wrigley. This field must look like it has a gigantic tumor in the LF power alley

 

It's more the shape of Petco Park really. In RF, right off the line it looks like Fenway Park in how the fence goes away from the plate then goes toward CF. It's the same way at LF, but not as bad. Also the OF fence is pretty tall as well. I think from LCF to RF it's 8-10 ft. and LF-LCF is like 10-12 ft. I can't find any details about the height yet.

 

Here's a pic of what Victory Field looks like...

 

http://www.ticketwood.com/images/maps/victoryfieldindy_all.gif

 

Give you an idea what the fence looks like as well... This shows from LF to CF.

 

http://www.bdmd.com/images/landscape%20architecture/Victory%20Field%2067.jpg