Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

It looks [expletive] hedious and stands out like a canker sore on a [expletive]. I hope that "mock up" isn't close.

http://www.ultimatefowl.com/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=2044

[J.R.]

I think it is safe to assume that the finished product would look a lot less like a roadside billboard than that quick-and-dirty mockup. Perhaps some green steel framing, pennants aloft, "Wrigley Field" signage.

 

This makes me want to wretch, but I am resigned to the board's inevitability. I can only hope that it won't be used to pipe useless noise and idiocy into the park like the other 29 MLB video screens.

[imb]

wow, i hate that so much

[Guest]

Comcast SportsNet ‏@CSNChicago 41s

.@thekapman reports #Cubs and City of Chicago are rushing to try to hammer out deal by end of business today -- http://bit.ly/Zwoa1b

 

After weekend-long negotiations failed to produce an agreement between the Cubs and the City of Chicago, both sides will be back at the bargaining table on Monday to attempt to hammer out a deal by the close of business today to meet the April 1st deadline set by the Ricketts family.

 

 

If the sides are unable to reach a common ground so that steel can be ordered and a construction plan put into place for work to begin at the end of the 2013 baseball season, the Ricketts are expected to begin the process of evaluating their options other than Wrigley Field.

[Guest]

So was this ever actually reported, or did Mooney just sort of break something?

 

https://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/epstein-waiting-cubs-get-wrigley-renovation-deal-done

 

The Cubs lost their $150 million renovation subsidy last May when team owner/family patriarch Joe Ricketts and his anti-Obama “Super PAC” made national headlines and angered Emanuel during a bitter presidential campaign.

[Sammy Sofa]

Huh? That's what people have been saying for a year.

[Guest]

Huh? That's what people have been saying for a year.

 

People have speculated that negotiations had broken down over public funding, but I hadn't seen it reported as fact that a $150M deal was lost.

[Sammy Sofa]

Huh? That's what people have been saying for a year.

 

People have speculated that negotiations had broken down over public funding, but I hadn't seen it reported as fact that a $150M deal was lost.

 

I think that's all he's just regurgitating since he doesn't actually point to a specific source. Lazy sportswriter is lazy. Also: oxymoron.

[Guest]

 

Not really sure where to put this, but uh... Russell? Really?

 

Anyway, looks like Garza, Rizzo, Castro, Marmol, Samardzija, Soriano, Russell, Fujikawa, Barney, Jackson, xxx, and DeJesus have banners...

 

Who is xxx?

 

Feldman?

[jersey cubs fan]

It has to be Feldman.

 

A RHP with an F or P to start his name

[UMFan83]

So I'm guessing the deal didn't happen and the deadline will pass.

[Cubswin11]

So I'm guessing the deal didn't happen and the deadline will pass.

Theo was spotted at a Starbucks in Rosemont with a land contract in his hand an hour ago

[Guest]

David Haugh ‏@DavidHaugh 6m

Wrigley renovation negotiations between Cubs, city made enough progress to continue discussion Tuesday, according to source close to talks.

 

 

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/sports/April-1-Wrigley-Deadline-Arrives-With-No-Deal-200912561.html?_osource=SocialFlowTwt_CHBrand

[Tangled Up in Plaid]

Yay.

[RammyFanny]

New deadline is Monday's home opener apparently.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Wild speculation: Deal could have been done today, someone in the city wanted to make a point about the Cubs setting arbitrary deadlines.

[Cubswin11]

Wild speculation: Deal could have been done today, someone in the city wanted to make a point about the Cubs setting arbitrary deadlines.

Could be, mine is I think they want to do a grand ribbon cutting/glad handing/photo op thing opening day Monday at Wrigley with all the parties out on the field before the game and guys giving interviews to local media/broadcasts.

[Guest]

But seriously.... James Russell?

[SouthSideRyan]

But seriously.... James Russell?

 

There weren't many other locks to be on the active roster(as much as a pitcher can be) through the midway point of the season. Would Nate Schierholtz really have been that much better?

[MSG T]

But seriously.... James Russell?

 

 

It does have a very Major League feel to it doesn't it? You just picture some construction worker going "Sheerhatz? Who is that [expletive] guy?"

[Guest]

But seriously.... James Russell?

 

There weren't many other locks to be on the active roster(as much as a pitcher can be) through the midway point of the season. Would Nate Schierholtz really have been that much better?

 

I mean, I guess not... but even Travis Wood or Villanueva would seem to make more sense. Or Castillo?

[Post Count Padder]

But seriously.... James Russell?

He's been the only consistent member of the pen, aside from Marmol and they probably wanted at least a couple guys up there who likely won't be traded during the season.

[Guest]

Looks like a deal might be nearing

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/04/02/sources-wrigley-renovation-deal-could-be-done-by-home-opener/

 

CHICAGO (CBS) – The Chicago Cubs and their Wrigleyville neighbors appeared close to an agreement Tuesday to give Cubs owners the green light for their planned renovation of the team’s landmark stadium.

 

CBS 2 Chief Correspondent Jay Levine reports a deal to modernize Wrigley Field and build a nearby hotel complex could happen just before or shortly after the Cubs’ home opener next Monday.

 

The Cubs originally set an April 1 deadline to finish a deal on long-term improvements for Wrigley Field, but contrary to earlier reports, a dispute over a Jumbotron-type video screen and its impact on views from rooftop clubs wasn’t the only sticking point.

 

Local residents also have expressed concerns about parking and congestion, given the Cubs plans for an open air plaza on the triangle-shaped parking lot on Clark Street; as well as a new hotel across the street, on land bought from McDonalds in 2011.

 

The community has raised concerns about the ambitious expansion plans, and more night games at Wrigley, and how they would affect traffic and overall congestion in the area.

 

But the dispute isn’t really the Cubs vs. the mayor. The mayor’s office has been acting much like a mediator in the dispute between the community represented by Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) and the Ricketts family, which owns the Cubs.

 

Issues like additional remote parking, more security, and new video scoreboards and signs inside the stadium were still on the table when the April 1 deadline came and went.

 

“I did not set the deadline,” Mayor Rahm Emanuel said Tuesday.

 

The Ricketts set that deadline on an agreement to pave way for their plan to spend $300 million on the ballpark – without any taxpayer assistance – in addition to building the $200 million hotel.

 

As for plans to replace the triangle parking lot with an open air plaza, the lost parking spaces would be replaced by a new parking structure one block north of the stadium, on a lot already owned by the Cubs. That would solve one problem holding up a deal.

 

Other concerns include neighborhood security for the extra night and late afternoon games the Cubs want, as well as what might be the stickiest problem, despite affecting the fewest people: the views from the rooftop clubs across the street.

 

The club owners have big money invested in those rooftop seats, and agreements with the Cubs which protect the views.

 

Last week, sources told WBBM Newsradio’s George Ofman that the Cubs want a 6,000-square-foot video scoreboard in left field. But the rooftop clubs are worried such a large video screen would obstruct their views of the stadium, and sources said the city wants to limit the screen to no more than 3,000 square feet.

 

But Levine was told the reason the deal is taking so long is not the rooftops, it’s having to start all over again after the Cubs decided not to seek any city funding for the $500 million stadium and hotel project.

[Banedon]

Looks like a deal might be nearing

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/04/02/sources-wrigley-renovation-deal-could-be-done-by-home-opener/

 

But Levine was told the reason the deal is taking so long is not the rooftops, it’s having to start all over again after the Cubs decided not to seek any city funding for the $500 million stadium and hotel project.

 

Someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old. Why would it be a problem that Ricketts is paying for it without city funding?

[Guest]

Looks like a deal might be nearing

 

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2013/04/02/sources-wrigley-renovation-deal-could-be-done-by-home-opener/

 

But Levine was told the reason the deal is taking so long is not the rooftops, it’s having to start all over again after the Cubs decided not to seek any city funding for the $500 million stadium and hotel project.

 

Someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old. Why would it be a problem that Ricketts is paying for it without city funding?

 

Maybe they drastically altered the plans?

 

At the very least in search of more ad revenue to pay for the job...not necessarily downscaling renovations.