Gammons on Wrigley

[J.R.]

Gammons' comments came thanks to leaks from the Ricketts camp.

 

You know what else is more than happenstance? The sudden increase in reports of the deteriorating condition of Wrigley Field. Publicly, Cubs management continues to profess its love and reverence for Wrigley. But privately, the same group is making sure people in baseball are well aware that it would take a massive infusion of dollars to keep Wrigley functional for much longer -- and even that might not be enough.

 

"Honestly, I don't know if that place can survive for five years," said one of those baseball people. "The infrastructure is in brutal shape."

 

Asked whether Wrigley was even a candidate for a Fenway-style renovation, the same source replied: "To be honest? I'd have to say no way."

 

But you won't see anyone in baseball publicly suggesting the Cubs move out of their own little national historic monument. Wrigley is too beloved to mess with -- in any way other than allowing the word to get around that, beneath the ivy and the bleachers, it's no longer the perfect, idyllic ballpark it appears to be. So if you think you've heard the last of this, guess again.

 

I always thought it was a given that the grandstands would have to be dismantled to pull off any kind of substantial renovation. Close the park for a year or two, tear up everything in foul territory, and set the park up for another 100 years. What's so hard about this?

 

Edit for link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings110621

[erik316wttn]

Gammons' comments came thanks to leaks from the Ricketts camp.

 

You know what else is more than happenstance? The sudden increase in reports of the deteriorating condition of Wrigley Field. Publicly, Cubs management continues to profess its love and reverence for Wrigley. But privately, the same group is making sure people in baseball are well aware that it would take a massive infusion of dollars to keep Wrigley functional for much longer -- and even that might not be enough.

 

"Honestly, I don't know if that place can survive for five years," said one of those baseball people. "The infrastructure is in brutal shape."

 

Asked whether Wrigley was even a candidate for a Fenway-style renovation, the same source replied: "To be honest? I'd have to say no way."

 

But you won't see anyone in baseball publicly suggesting the Cubs move out of their own little national historic monument. Wrigley is too beloved to mess with -- in any way other than allowing the word to get around that, beneath the ivy and the bleachers, it's no longer the perfect, idyllic ballpark it appears to be. So if you think you've heard the last of this, guess again.

 

I always thought it was a given that the grandstands would have to be dismantled to pull off any kind of substantial renovation. Close the park for a year or two, tear up everything in foul territory, and set the park up for another 100 years. What's so hard about this?

 

Edit for link: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings110621

 

There's nothing about this that can't be done. The only thing would be finding a place to play 81 "home" dates for the Cubs for the duration of the renovation. Perhaps a split between Milwaukee and The Cell?

 

Absolute worst case, build a new stadium in Wrigleyville, but make it look as much like old Wrigley as possible, at least on the field.

[TruffleShuffle]

it's really not that easy. first you have to find a place for one of the most popular teams in baseball to play 81 games. if they move to cell or milwaukee they'll lose a significant amount of gate revenue because (a) they're not playing at wrigley, which is a huge draw, and (b) they will have to pay the sox/brewers to use their ballparks. that's assuming that the cubs can get the renovation done in about 18 months (which should be do-able, i would hope).

 

as for building another ballpark in wrigleyville, i'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff around there and not just a gigantic open lot waiting for the cubs to come along and build a ballpark on top of it.

[javy knows my name]

it's really not that easy. first you have to find a place for one of the most popular teams in baseball to play 81 games. if they move to cell or milwaukee they'll lose a significant amount of gate revenue because (a) they're not playing at wrigley, which is a huge draw, and (b) they will have to pay the sox/brewers to use their ballparks. that's assuming that the cubs can get the renovation done in about 18 months (which should be do-able, i would hope).

 

as for building another ballpark in wrigleyville, i'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff around there and not just a gigantic open lot waiting for the cubs to come along and build a ballpark on top of it.

 

Wow, he did say that. Not sure how I missed it.

 

If they were going to build another park elsewhere in the city, I would like to see in in the Logan Square area. Would extend the culture from Wicker Park/Bucktown and bring the area up quite a bit, would have blue line access and there is a ton of empty space out there. Some parking, too.

[J.R.]

it's really not that easy. first you have to find a place for one of the most popular teams in baseball to play 81 games. if they move to cell or milwaukee they'll lose a significant amount of gate revenue because (a) they're not playing at wrigley, which is a huge draw, and (b) they will have to pay the sox/brewers to use their ballparks. that's assuming that the cubs can get the renovation done in about 18 months (which should be do-able, i would hope).

 

I think they would play all 81 at the Cell. The park is owned by the ISFA, and Rahm will insist that something be worked out.

 

They could make the carrying over of season tickets in "new" Wrigley contingent on maintaining the accounts through the gypsy period.

 

Ricketts can maintain the draw of Wrigley by closing it for a bit, or lose it entirely by going elsewhere. Really, 1060 W. Addison is the only option. He owns the land, the draw of the neighborhood is undeniable and the team has already put lots of cash into the bleachers, which should be viable for decades to come. The Triangle Building makes a lot more sense if built into a new grandstand rather than via the duct tape approach we've been sold so far.

[javy knows my name]

it's really not that easy. first you have to find a place for one of the most popular teams in baseball to play 81 games. if they move to cell or milwaukee they'll lose a significant amount of gate revenue because (a) they're not playing at wrigley, which is a huge draw, and (b) they will have to pay the sox/brewers to use their ballparks. that's assuming that the cubs can get the renovation done in about 18 months (which should be do-able, i would hope).

 

I think they would play all 81 at the Cell. The park is owned by the ISFA, and Rahm will insist that something be worked out.

 

They could make the carrying over of season tickets in "new" Wrigley contingent on maintaining the accounts through the gypsy period.

 

Ricketts can maintain the draw of Wrigley by closing it for a bit, or lose it entirely by going elsewhere. Really, 1060 W. Addison is the only option. He owns the land, the draw of the neighborhood is undeniable and the team has already put lots of cash into the bleachers, which should be viable for decades to come. The Triangle Building makes a lot more sense if built into a new grandstand rather than via the duct tape approach we've been sold so far.

 

What's wrong with my Logan idea? Or do you not know the city that well?

[KaiserCesar]

it's really not that easy. first you have to find a place for one of the most popular teams in baseball to play 81 games. if they move to cell or milwaukee they'll lose a significant amount of gate revenue because (a) they're not playing at wrigley, which is a huge draw, and (b) they will have to pay the sox/brewers to use their ballparks. that's assuming that the cubs can get the renovation done in about 18 months (which should be do-able, i would hope).

 

as for building another ballpark in wrigleyville, i'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff around there and not just a gigantic open lot waiting for the cubs to come along and build a ballpark on top of it.

 

Wow, he did say that. Not sure how I missed it.

 

If they were going to build another park elsewhere in the city, I would like to see in in the Logan Square area. Would extend the culture from Wicker Park/Bucktown and bring the area up quite a bit, would have blue line access and there is a ton of empty space out there. Some parking, too.

 

Living in Logan Square, I gotta say that there's not many open lots within a fair shot of the blue line here, either. The entire atmosphere of Wicker Park/Logan is completely different from the neighborhoods on the north side around Wrigleyville, it doesn't really seem like a fit. Any move within the city would probably involve some 'dead' area around a transit line, not something that would displace a bunch of people and create a lot of opposition.

[J.R.]

What's wrong with my Logan idea? Or do you not know the city that well?

 

I don't believe any move is viable. The neighborhood and the team are inexorably linked.

[davearm2]

I'd be concerned about whether it's even plausible to build an entirely new grandstand structure on the same footprint of the current Wrigley.

 

You're going to want larger concourses, bigger bathrooms, more concessions, not to mention batting cages, strength and conditioning facilities, bigger clubhouses, a better cafeteria, and on and on.

 

Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

[SouthSideRyan]

Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

 

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground.

[davearm2]

Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

 

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground.

At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage.

[KingCubsFan]

it's really not that easy. first you have to find a place for one of the most popular teams in baseball to play 81 games. if they move to cell or milwaukee they'll lose a significant amount of gate revenue because (a) they're not playing at wrigley, which is a huge draw, and (b) they will have to pay the sox/brewers to use their ballparks. that's assuming that the cubs can get the renovation done in about 18 months (which should be do-able, i would hope).

 

as for building another ballpark in wrigleyville, i'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff around there and not just a gigantic open lot waiting for the cubs to come along and build a ballpark on top of it.

 

Wow, he did say that. Not sure how I missed it.

 

If they were going to build another park elsewhere in the city, I would like to see in in the Logan Square area. Would extend the culture from Wicker Park/Bucktown and bring the area up quite a bit, would have blue line access and there is a ton of empty space out there. Some parking, too.

 

Living in Logan Square, I gotta say that there's not many open lots within a fair shot of the blue line here, either. The entire atmosphere of Wicker Park/Logan is completely different from the neighborhoods on the north side around Wrigleyville, it doesn't really seem like a fit. Any move within the city would probably involve some 'dead' area around a transit line, not something that would displace a bunch of people and create a lot of opposition.

Are there concrete plans for Cabrini Green yet?

[Sammy Sofa]

Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

 

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground.

At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main points of the triangle building would be moving the FO space and as much as the non-baseball/fan space over there as possible.

[Sammy Sofa]

Are there concrete plans for Cabrini Green yet?

 

Probably, but man, I always think that would be an amazing spot for a new stadium.

[SouthSideRyan]

Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

 

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground.

At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main points of the triangle building would be moving the FO space and as much as the non-baseball/fan space over there as possible.

 

You are correct.

[javy knows my name]

Are there concrete plans for Cabrini Green yet?

 

Probably, but man, I always think that would be an amazing spot for a new stadium.

 

It totally would. A south-facing stadium there would obliterate every other view in baseball.

[davearm2]

Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

 

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground.

At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main points of the triangle building would be moving the FO space and as much as the non-baseball/fan space over there as possible.

I guess it's not clear to me how building the triangle building is going to open up the space needed to expand and add modern player facilities underneath the 3rd base grandstands. If somehow it does, then great.

[Sammy Sofa]

Seems like there just isn't space for all that without expanding the square footage of the lot itself.

 

There isn't. Any player/front office amenities need to go in a different building/underground.

At that point aren't you spending a bazillion dollars and still not getting something that's properly functional? It's not like a guy warming up to pinch hit can quick run across the street to use the batting cage.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought one of the main points of the triangle building would be moving the FO space and as much as the non-baseball/fan space over there as possible.

I guess it's not clear to me how building the triangle building is going to open up the space needed to expand and add modern player facilities underneath the 3rd base grandstands. If somehow it does, then great.

 

Well, on it's own it's not going to do much outside of expanding the commercial areas. For it to truly work they need to do the grandstand renovation that needs to be done and the Ricketts obviously want to do.

[davearm2]

I would think the triangle building and any large-scale grandstand renovation would be mutually-exclusive options.

 

That is to say, if you're doing the latter, then you just integrate the former into the master plan, so you've got everything under one roof, rather than two distinct new structures.

[SouthSideRyan]

I would think the triangle building and any large-scale grandstand renovation would be mutually-exclusive options.

 

That is to say, if you're doing the latter, then you just integrate the former into the master plan, so you've got everything under one roof, rather than two distinct new structures.

 

How do you integrate the grandstand into the triangle building?

[Guest]

I would think the triangle building and any large-scale grandstand renovation would be mutually-exclusive options.

 

That is to say, if you're doing the latter, then you just integrate the former into the master plan, so you've got everything under one roof, rather than two distinct new structures.

 

Well it's not like the triangle building is on the other side of town. I don't think you could fit all the triangle building amentities in to the grandstand renovations without making the park a mile high.

[J.R.]

How do you integrate the grandstand into the triangle building?

 

Think Yankee Stadium's "great hall." The park facade stretches to the street, but it's a false wall. The Cubs' design could take that concept and improve on it.

 

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/sportingscene/yankee-great-hall.jpg

 

All plans up to now show the Triangle Building as an add-on with piecemeal access from the main stands. A new grandstand could integrate the features with optimal ingress/egress.

[davearm2]

I would think the triangle building and any large-scale grandstand renovation would be mutually-exclusive options.

 

That is to say, if you're doing the latter, then you just integrate the former into the master plan, so you've got everything under one roof, rather than two distinct new structures.

 

How do you integrate the grandstand into the triangle building?

You integrate the triangle building into the grandstand, obviously. Not the other way around.

 

As it is conceived now, the old grandstand remains intact and the triangle building abuts it.

 

If you're tearing down the old grandstand, then you may as well integrate the two by building all of the triangle facilities into a larger grandstand.

 

Along Clark street between Addison and Waveland, instead of this:

---------------

-----

 

you have this:

===========

[jersey cubs fan]

I think people underestimate the opportunity for increased square footage both at the corner of Addison/Sheffield and where the triange building would be. There is no reason that building can't be attached to Wrigley's grandstand, either by a couple above ground walkways, or a full-on enclosed structure.

[J.R.]

I think people underestimate the opportunity for increased square footage both at the corner of Addison/Sheffield and where the triange building would be. There is no reason that building can't be attached to Wrigley's grandstand, either by a couple above ground walkways, or a full-on enclosed structure.

 

The footprint is entirely adequate when you consider the underutilized corners, the implementation of more efficient internal layouts and the potential for a basement level from foul pole to foul pole, as well as facilities under the playing field.