Wrigley Renovation Thread

[jersey cubs fan]

If the city or neighborhood starts seriously pushing back on this proposal, it's time Ricketts starts exploring alternatives outside of the city limits. Let the neighborhood and city determine whether it's in their best interests to take care of a decaying "landmark" with no professional sports team playing in it.

 

I am completely opposed to the suburban ballpark idea, but if they can't get reasonable responses in negotiations they have to explore it.

[Guest]

If the city or neighborhood starts seriously pushing back on this proposal, it's time Ricketts starts exploring alternatives outside of the city limits. Let the neighborhood and city determine whether it's in their best interests to take care of a decaying "landmark" with no professional sports team playing in it.

 

I am completely opposed to the suburban ballpark idea, but if they can't get reasonable responses in negotiations they have to explore it.

 

At the very least, somewhere in the city but outside of that neighborhood.

 

$500M can get you a long way.

[jersey cubs fan]

If the city or neighborhood starts seriously pushing back on this proposal, it's time Ricketts starts exploring alternatives outside of the city limits. Let the neighborhood and city determine whether it's in their best interests to take care of a decaying "landmark" with no professional sports team playing in it.

 

I am completely opposed to the suburban ballpark idea, but if they can't get reasonable responses in negotiations they have to explore it.

 

At the very least, somewhere in the city but outside of that neighborhood.

 

$500M can get you a long way.

 

They won't be able to use a move to another part of the city as any sort of realistic leverage.

 

Plus, you need the land in the first place, which won't come cheap anywhere desirable in the city.

[KingCubsFan]

If the city or neighborhood starts seriously pushing back on this proposal, it's time Ricketts starts exploring alternatives outside of the city limits. Let the neighborhood and city determine whether it's in their best interests to take care of a decaying "landmark" with no professional sports team playing in it.

 

I am completely opposed to the suburban ballpark idea, but if they can't get reasonable responses in negotiations they have to explore it.

Oh, there's no doubt it would suck if they actually had to build a stadium in the suburbs. But the option has to be put on the table.

[Guest]

Here's what Tunney is apparently asking of the Cubs...

 

Tunney's Priorities Include:

A 10-year extension of the Neighborhood Protection ordinance that would include a limit on night games and concerts held annually at Wrigley Field.

A dedicated police detail unit for all Wrigley Field events, especially post game coverage.

An improved streetscape—lighting, sidewalks, traffic signals, identifiers and landscaping—on Clark Street to enhance commercial activity and on Sheffield Avenue to preserve the residential district.

A commitment to restore the CTA Sheridan Red Line El Station.

A limit on street closures of Sheffield or Waveland Avenues for any Cubs Street Festivals.

An updated planned development for the proposed Triangle building and plaza on Clark Street north of Addison. This development should include space for public and community events like farmer's markets and ice skating.

A long-term agreement between the Chicago Cubs and its rooftop partners concerning advertising inside and outside of Wrigley Field that has the approval of the Landmarks Commission, the City and our community.

 

http://lakeview.patch.com/articles/tunney-talks-wrigley-field-lists-his-demands

 

Seriously, [expletive] that [expletive] guy and that [expletive] neighborhood with regard to the night game limits.

[MWV]

Here's what Tunney is apparently asking of the Cubs...

 

I haven't followed this issue as closely as some, but aren't those essentially the same concessions/assurances that Tunney has sought from the Cubs in the past?

[Guest]

So, the Cubs said "we'll pay for the renovations if you lift these restrictions", and Tunney's saying "that's okay with us, as long as we keep all the restrictions and you do some other stuff"? Is that about right?

[Guest]

So, the Cubs said "we'll pay for the renovations if you lift these restrictions", and Tunney's saying "that's okay with us, as long as we keep all the restrictions and you do some other stuff"? Is that about right?

 

Sure seems that way.

[J.R.]

Here's what Tunney is apparently asking of the Cubs...

 

Tunney's Priorities Include:

A 10-year extension of the Neighborhood Protection ordinance that would include a limit on night games and concerts held annually at Wrigley Field.

A dedicated police detail unit for all Wrigley Field events, especially post game coverage.

An improved streetscape—lighting, sidewalks, traffic signals, identifiers and landscaping—on Clark Street to enhance commercial activity and on Sheffield Avenue to preserve the residential district.

A commitment to restore the CTA Sheridan Red Line El Station.

A limit on street closures of Sheffield or Waveland Avenues for any Cubs Street Festivals.

An updated planned development for the proposed Triangle building and plaza on Clark Street north of Addison. This development should include space for public and community events like farmer's markets and ice skating.

A long-term agreement between the Chicago Cubs and its rooftop partners concerning advertising inside and outside of Wrigley Field that has the approval of the Landmarks Commission, the City and our community.

 

http://lakeview.patch.com/articles/tunney-talks-wrigley-field-lists-his-demands

 

Seriously, [expletive] that [expletive] guy and that [expletive] neighborhood with regard to the night game limits.

Tunney is a hack, but the family can't expect to just issue demands and walk away from the negotiations.

 

In the neighborhood's defense - the Cubs (under Tribune control) agreed to build the Triangle Building and a signalized intersection at Clark/Waveland in exchange for the extra night games ... neither have materialized. Sheffield is a residential street and the residents' rights do count for something. Fans do trash the neighborhood after night games, so the extra police presence would be welcomed. An upgraded Sheridan stop could conceivably take pressure off the Addison station.

 

The impacts of 40,000+ streaming into Lakeview stretch beyond Clark, Addison, Waveland and Sheffield, beyond the glow of the light standards. Much as I want Tunney to back down, I would argue that he does have legitimate interests to protect.

[Guest]

I don't think anyone is all that opposed to increased police presence, rebuilt L stops, and the like(although I'm not all that sympathetic to the complaints about street closures, you know where you're living). It's that he's asking for those things and then saying "nope, no more night games, let's limit this street closure thing as much as possible, and a sweetheart deal for the rooftop owners would be good as well" that's obnoxious and in bad faith.

[jersey cubs fan]

So, the Cubs said "we'll pay for the renovations if you lift these restrictions", and Tunney's saying "that's okay with us, as long as we keep all the restrictions and you do some other stuff"? Is that about right?

 

Sure seems that way.

 

Seems to me like the language leaves some room for things like extra night games and more ads, which is essentially what the Cubs are asking for in return of investing in the neighborhood/stadium.

 

A 10-year extension of the Neighborhood Protection ordinance that would include a limit on night games and concerts held annually at Wrigley Field.

 

An extension "that would include a limit" doesn't say to me an extension of the exact same limit. The next several things are relatively meaningless.

 

"A limit on street closures" seems like a reasonable request so as not to allow them to shut the street down permanently, or for every event. There's room for negotiation there.

 

A long-term agreement between the Chicago Cubs and its rooftop partners concerning advertising inside and outside of Wrigley Field that has the approval of the Landmarks Commission, the City and our community.

 

That seems to be something the Cubs should be amenable to. I don't think Ricketts believes he's going to get carte blanche here, he can't expect to get everything they asked for.

[Guest]

it better be a [expletive] of night games if we're stuck with the outcome for 10 years.

[Sammy Sofa]

Wrigleyville is the worst. I honestly would have zero problem with a suburban stadium at this point.

[UMFan83]

Tunney is such a [expletive]

[XZero771679666304]

Wrigleyville is the worst. I honestly would have zero problem with a suburban stadium at this point.

 

The larger part of me would be really depressed by that, but another part of me would really love to see those smug motherfuckers left with no baseball and a dilapidated Wrigley in their laps as return for their audacity (especially the rooftop owners).

 

I understand that some neighborhood rights should be protected, but I get the distinct feeling many of them feel like the Cubs owe them everything and they owe the Cubs nothing. Seriously, screw those people. I would pay to see the looks on their faces if the Cubs announced they were leaving Wrigleyville.

[jersey cubs fan]

Seriously, screw those people. I would pay to see the looks on their faces if the Cubs announced they were leaving Wrigleyville.

 

That could be fun, but the problem is we'd be looking at a rewrite of the script when it comes to how the team will go about spending money on the actual product on the field. Presumably that type of decision is not close to happening. They would have to turn around and work the with the state and some other town to start the process, then probably go out and spend a hell of a lot more than they were intending on spending on the Wrigley upgrade. It would mean years of waiting for that new stadium while staying in Wrigley without any increased revenue streams in the meantime.

[XZero771679666304]

Seriously, screw those people. I would pay to see the looks on their faces if the Cubs announced they were leaving Wrigleyville.

 

That could be fun, but the problem is we'd be looking at a rewrite of the script when it comes to how the team will go about spending money on the actual product on the field. Presumably that type of decision is not close to happening. They would have to turn around and work the with the state and some other town to start the process, then probably go out and spend a hell of a lot more than they were intending on spending on the Wrigley upgrade. It would mean years of waiting for that new stadium while staying in Wrigley without any increased revenue streams in the meantime.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it'll happen, or that it would even be seriously considered. If/when push comes to shove, I think the neighborhood will make concessions.

 

 

I'd just like to see those deluded Wrigleyville twits get their comeuppance. It's a fantasyland scenario.

[J.R.]

The mayor wants this to happen. Every other Wrigleyville business besides the rooftops wants this to happen. It stands to reason that a plurality of Lakeview residents want this to happen.

 

The Cubs will get 80% of their demands, Tunney will be able to declare victory and we'll all move on.

[Pushfrog98]

It would be nice for a burb to step up and say, "Here's some land, here's how we could make this work." and for the Cubs to go, "Looks good. If we're not getting what we need here, we'll let you know."

 

And yes, it would suck for the Cubs to move to the burbs, but what I wouldn't do to see the looks on that asshat Tunney's face.

[Derwood]

Don't even move it to the burbs. Just move it to another area of the city (if possible).

 

I still mourn the missed opportunity of Cabrini Green

[javy knows my name]

This double standard between the two teams drives me absolutely bug [expletive]. "I know we just did it for the White Sox, but we're super broke now. You have to pay for your own stadium. But you have to upgrade it, because it looks like [expletive]. But you have to leave most of it alone. And you can't run your franchise like a business because people live there. You aren't allowed to generate the revenue streams that the other 29 teams enjoy because neighborhood. And you can help us with public works stuff, right? Right. And those plans to increase traffic to the area twofold with a hotel across the street? Yeah, we're gonna really need to pour over those together."

 

[expletive]. YOU. Wrigleyville.

[dfnowak]

it better be a [expletive] of night games if we're stuck with the outcome for 10 years.

As for additional night games, I think they only really need to add Friday night games to be similar to the rest of the league. The first two games of a three game series are usually night games anyways. And, like most teams, getaway days, Saturdays (due to FOX) and Sundays are day games.

 

And I agree with the general sentiment in this thread regarding the selfishness of Wrigleyville residents. If it weren't for the Cubs, their inflated property values wouldn't be so high.

[KingCubsFan]

Here's what Tunney is apparently asking of the Cubs...

 

Tunney's Priorities Include:

A 10-year extension of the Neighborhood Protection ordinance that would include a limit on night games and concerts held annually at Wrigley Field.

A dedicated police detail unit for all Wrigley Field events, especially post game coverage.

An improved streetscape—lighting, sidewalks, traffic signals, identifiers and landscaping—on Clark Street to enhance commercial activity and on Sheffield Avenue to preserve the residential district.

A commitment to restore the CTA Sheridan Red Line El Station.

A limit on street closures of Sheffield or Waveland Avenues for any Cubs Street Festivals.

An updated planned development for the proposed Triangle building and plaza on Clark Street north of Addison. This development should include space for public and community events like farmer's markets and ice skating.

A long-term agreement between the Chicago Cubs and its rooftop partners concerning advertising inside and outside of Wrigley Field that has the approval of the Landmarks Commission, the City and our community.

 

http://lakeview.patch.com/articles/tunney-talks-wrigley-field-lists-his-demands

 

Seriously, [expletive] that [expletive] guy and that [expletive] neighborhood with regard to the night game limits.

He can't possibly be asking the Cubs for all of this. It must be a combination of the Cubs and the city. A "commitment to restore" the Sheridan stop? Why would the Cubs ever throw money at a public transit station blocks away from the stadium? Same thing with an improved streetscape on Sheffield and Clark. That's not the Cub's problem. They put up lights on the sidewalk when they did the bleacher expansion.

 

I'm not too familiar with city politics, but what can Tunney possibly do if Rahm decides this is what Rahm wants? Can Tunney block anything?

[Guest]

More information in this article...

 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/cityhall/17755063-418/finish-this-up-emanuel-says-after-cubs-proposal-for-wrigley.html#

 

City Hall sources said the mayor is prepared to lift the 30-game-per-season ceiling on the number of night games to the 37-to-44 range, with some of the dates reserved for concerts. Additional 3:05 p.m. starts could also be part of the mix.

 

The night game piece must come first because of the scheduling demands of Major League Baseball.

 

That will be followed by a move to lift the restrictions on outfield signs and open Sheffield Avenue for street fairs on game days, but probably not every game as the Cubs have requested.

 

Sources said Emanuel is trying to broker an elusive agreement between the Cubs and the owners of 17 rooftop clubs overlooking Wrigley that could pave the way for at least some of the new signs to be placed on top of the rooftops, instead of inside the stadium blocking the rooftops’ bird’s-eye view.

 

To appease club owners who have invested millions to meet city standards, sources said the mayor’s office is prepared to support giving the rooftops “a little bit” of the advertising revenue from new signs.

 

The compromise could also extend under the same terms an agreement with ten more years to run that requires the rooftops to share 17 percent of their revenues with the Cubs. Additional capacity beyond the current, 200-seats-per-club limit, is also a possibility.

 

So far, the rooftops have adopted a hard line, emboldened by local Ald. Tom Tunney (44th), who has received at least $171,356 in direct campaign contributions from rooftop club owners and another $15,675 to the alderman’s 44th Ward Democratic Organization.

 

But, sources said time is running out for the rooftops to get on board.

 

“We’re not trying to screw them at all. But, we’ve seen this movie before,” said a City Hall source familiar with the negotiations.

 

“They like delay and the status quo. But, the ship is sailing. You need to find a way to be a constructive partner. There’s no reason why this can’t get done in a matter of weeks. [but, if it doesn’t], I don’t think the rooftops will appreciate the alternative.”

 

Pressed on whether City Hall was prepared to side with the Cubs over the rooftops and Tunney, the City Hall source said, “We are, but I don’t think it’ll come to that. There is a path to give both sides what they’re looking for.”

[Sammy Sofa]

Basically any negotiations between the Cubs and the rooftop owners should go something like this:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XYJOAW7r03s