Wrigley Renovation Thread

[apete6]

Sounds like a deal has basically been reached. Final compromises:

 

Jumbotron: 4,500 feet (Cubs wanted 6k, Tunney wanted 4k, current scoreboard is ~2k)

Right Field Sign: 650 feet stationary--similar to current Toyota sign (Cubs wanted 10k & moving, Tunney wanted less)

Fireworks: There will be no fireworks or pyrotechnics allowed

 

Sounds like a win-win to me. 6k would have been enormous.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/21256243-761/extra-inning-wrigley-compromise-2-signs-shrink-fireworks-snuffed.html

 

Sounds like the Cubs got dominated there, no?

You don't ask for what you want when it comes to business negotiations. You ask for more than what you want knowing you will have to negotiate down.

 

Agreed. And the 6k really would have been obnoxious. I was at the game last night and due to the score really spent some time looking at it. If it would have been 3x the size of the scoreboard, it would have really taken away from the scoreboard and the rest of the stadium. Honestly, I'm glad it is 4500...unless that extra space would have been profitable enough to change the baseball budget. The other sign is going to look pretty big as well.

 

Now I just wish it wasn't going to be 4+ years of a half assed experience at Wrigley. I still wish they could have closed it down and played at the Cell/Milwaukee for 1 year, worked around the clock for 18 months and gotten it done, but oh well.

[Sammy Sofa]

I still wish they could have closed it down and played at the Cell/Milwaukee for 1 year, worked around the clock for 18 months and gotten it done, but oh well.

 

Me too, but was it ever an issue that they "couldn't" do it so much as the Ricketts just never considered it? Given what the Cubs draw I'd have to assume that it wouldn't have taken much to convince the Sox or Brewers to such an arrangement for a nice little short term profit.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

If we did that, we'd have to pay for it all upfront rather than with the ad revenue it will generate.

[Sammy Sofa]

Good point.

[jersey cubs fan]

If we did that, we'd have to pay for it all upfront rather than with the ad revenue it will generate.

 

They could probably get it on an installment plan.

[treebird]

If we did that, we'd have to pay for it all upfront rather than with the ad revenue it will generate.

 

They could probably get it on an installment plan.

 

plus they could write it off

[Elwood]

If we did that, we'd have to pay for it all upfront rather than with the ad revenue it will generate.

 

They could probably get it on an installment plan.

 

plus they could write it off

 

All these big companies, they write off everything.

[Guest]

@fspielman Emotional Ald. Tom Tunney: "I can’t support a proposal that so dramatically effects the quality of life for my residents."

 

@fspielman @AldTomTunney notes that video board would be 30 ft. away from the nearest home and that lights will be seen from blocks and blocks away.

 

@fspielman Ald. Tunney demands that #Cubs compensate taxpayers for taking out a lane of traffic and a sidewalk. Rahm aides say city will be reimbursed

[KingCubsFan]

@fspielman @AldTomTunney notes that video board would be 30 ft. away from the nearest home and that lights will be seen from blocks and blocks away.

 

Kind of like the other lights already at Wrigley?

[apete6]

@fspielman @AldTomTunney notes that video board would be 30 ft. away from the nearest home and that lights will be seen from blocks and blocks away.

 

Kind of like the other lights already at Wrigley?

 

Seriously. [expletive] him. The Cubs should have him throw out the first pitch the day after this thing is signed just so the fans can boo his dumb ass. What a complete douche.

[Guest]

@DannyEcker Tunney says he gets complaints of lights being on from all over neighborhood. Afraid it will be same thing with LED screen.

 

I really need to stop reading the things that Tom Tunney is saying, it's breaking my brain.

[UMFan83]

@DannyEcker Tunney says he gets complaints of lights being on from all over neighborhood. Afraid it will be same thing with LED screen.

 

I really need to stop reading the things that Tom Tunney is saying, it's breaking my brain.

 

OMG the lights from the 100 year old ballpark that has had lights for 25 years is bothering me at the house that I moved into 2 years ago. How come nobody told me that this stupid ballpark would need lights to play baseball at night?

[Sammy Sofa]

"The lights from the gigantic baseball stadium we knew was there when we moved in ARE REALLY BOTHERING US, Tom."

 

And yeah, I'm sure there are some residents who have been there for more than 25 years. There's not a lot of them.

[UMFan83]

"The lights from the gigantic baseball stadium we knew was there when we moved in ARE REALLY BOTHERING US, Tom."

 

And yeah, I'm sure there are some residents who have been there for more than 25 years. There's not a lot of them.

 

Yeah and those people (assuming they haven't been renting for 25 years) have likely seen their houses value triple over the time they've owned the house, largely due to the neighborhood built up because of the giant ballpark.

[TruffleShuffle]

if tom tunney and the rooftop people don't like it, then it's probably good.

[Clem Fandango]

According to this article Brett posted, those "compromises" on the video board being 4,500 ft were premature...

 

Despite an overnight report that the Cubs and Alderman Tom Tunney had come to a compromise on the size of the signage, it seems the only agreement that was struck came between the Cubs and the City of Chicago. That agreement, which saw Mayor Emanuel’s office supporting the Cubs’ signage plan, probably netted the Cubs the approval they received from the Landmarks Commission today, but may have cost them any chance of maintaining Alderman Tunney’s support through what remains of the approval process.

 

The approved signage is as follows, according to Crain’s Danny Ecker who ably covered the entire five hour ordeal: a 5,700 square foot sign in left field, a large portion of which is the video board, and smaller portions of which are a neon sign on top and lights (that’s why there was some confusion about the size of the JumboTron – the entire sign size is the total size of the video board and the other parts); a 650 square foot see-through sign in right field. The Cubs had requested 6,000 and 1,000 square feet, respectively. So, they just about got what they wanted on the JumboTron, but compromised significantly on the right field sign.

[Cubswin11]

According to this article Brett posted, those "compromises" on the video board being 4,500 ft were premature...

 

Despite an overnight report that the Cubs and Alderman Tom Tunney had come to a compromise on the size of the signage, it seems the only agreement that was struck came between the Cubs and the City of Chicago. That agreement, which saw Mayor Emanuel’s office supporting the Cubs’ signage plan, probably netted the Cubs the approval they received from the Landmarks Commission today, but may have cost them any chance of maintaining Alderman Tunney’s support through what remains of the approval process.

 

The approved signage is as follows, according to Crain’s Danny Ecker who ably covered the entire five hour ordeal: a 5,700 square foot sign in left field, a large portion of which is the video board, and smaller portions of which are a neon sign on top and lights (that’s why there was some confusion about the size of the JumboTron – the entire sign size is the total size of the video board and the other parts); a 650 square foot see-through sign in right field. The Cubs had requested 6,000 and 1,000 square feet, respectively. So, they just about got what they wanted on the JumboTron, but compromised significantly on the right field sign.

See-through? So like the Toyota sign in LF right now?

[Banedon]

According to this article Brett posted, those "compromises" on the video board being 4,500 ft were premature...

 

Despite an overnight report that the Cubs and Alderman Tom Tunney had come to a compromise on the size of the signage, it seems the only agreement that was struck came between the Cubs and the City of Chicago. That agreement, which saw Mayor Emanuel’s office supporting the Cubs’ signage plan, probably netted the Cubs the approval they received from the Landmarks Commission today, but may have cost them any chance of maintaining Alderman Tunney’s support through what remains of the approval process.

 

The approved signage is as follows, according to Crain’s Danny Ecker who ably covered the entire five hour ordeal: a 5,700 square foot sign in left field, a large portion of which is the video board, and smaller portions of which are a neon sign on top and lights (that’s why there was some confusion about the size of the JumboTron – the entire sign size is the total size of the video board and the other parts); a 650 square foot see-through sign in right field. The Cubs had requested 6,000 and 1,000 square feet, respectively. So, they just about got what they wanted on the JumboTron, but compromised significantly on the right field sign.

See-through? So like the Toyota sign in LF right now?

 

Yes. And the Cubs wanted it to move, but it will be stationary.

[Guest]

seriously, [expletive] this guy

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130712/BLOGS02/130719922/ald-tunney-likely-to-continue-wrigley-battle-with-mayor-emanuel

[Coach C]

seriously, [expletive] this guy

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130712/BLOGS02/130719922/ald-tunney-likely-to-continue-wrigley-battle-with-mayor-emanuel

 

Does Tunney get elected by the voters, or does he get picked by the Mayor? Just wondering, don't know how the politics do in Chicago.

 

If he is voted by the voters, then do what I would do. Vote him out in the next election.

[UMFan83]

seriously, [expletive] this guy

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130712/BLOGS02/130719922/ald-tunney-likely-to-continue-wrigley-battle-with-mayor-emanuel

 

Does Tunney get elected by the voters, or does he get picked by the Mayor? Just wondering, don't know how the politics do in Chicago.

 

If he is voted by the voters, then do what I would do. Vote him out in the next election.

 

It's voting but he has pretty strong support in the Ward despite this. I believe his ward also covers Boystown and he is the first openly gay alderman.

 

Edit: nevermind the alderman of the 46th ward is also gay

[Guest]

seriously, [expletive] this guy

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130712/BLOGS02/130719922/ald-tunney-likely-to-continue-wrigley-battle-with-mayor-emanuel

 

Does Tunney get elected by the voters, or does he get picked by the Mayor? Just wondering, don't know how the politics do in Chicago.

 

If he is voted by the voters, then do what I would do. Vote him out in the next election.

 

It's voting but he has pretty strong support in the Ward despite this. I believe his ward also covers Boystown and he is the first openly gay alderman.

 

Edit: nevermind the alderman of the 46th ward is also gay

 

If I remember correctly, he's run unopposed for years and years. He's fucked at the end of this term.

[SouthSideRyan]

seriously, [expletive] this guy

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130712/BLOGS02/130719922/ald-tunney-likely-to-continue-wrigley-battle-with-mayor-emanuel

 

Does Tunney get elected by the voters, or does he get picked by the Mayor? Just wondering, don't know how the politics do in Chicago.

 

If he is voted by the voters, then do what I would do. Vote him out in the next election.

 

It's voting but he has pretty strong support in the Ward despite this. I believe his ward also covers Boystown and he is the first openly gay alderman.

 

Edit: nevermind the alderman of the 46th ward is also gay

 

If I remember correctly, he's run unopposed for years and years. He's [expletive] at the end of this term.

 

How do you figure?

[dfnowak]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-tunney-threatens-to-try-to-block-wrigley-unless-changes-made-20130717,0,5478115.story

 

Weeks ago, Tunney said the Cubs needed to give up a pedestrian bridge over Clark Street connecting the planned hotel at Clark and Addison streets to the park. He also called on the Ricketts family to move the hotel entrance and a proposed outdoor patio above the entrance off of residential Patterson Avenue, where he said they would be too close to people’s homes.

 

On Wednesday, Tunney said the bridge is a concern because an inebriated fan walking over the street could drop a beer on a passing car. “It’s a safety issue,” he said.

I can understand the entrance and patio to the hotel, but what is wrong with the pedestrian bridge? Doesn't that help alleviate pedestrian traffic? And how are the 2 story bars that were approved in Tunney's ward any less of a "safety concern"?

 

Wrigleyville community group the Lake View Citizens' Council was to hold a Wednesday evening rally for the corner of Clark and Patterson Wednesday evening to protest what they say has been a lack of public input in developing the plan.

There should be a counter protest to these assholes. If you decide to move next to a ballpark, you know what you are getting into.

[Guest]

seriously, [expletive] this guy

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130712/BLOGS02/130719922/ald-tunney-likely-to-continue-wrigley-battle-with-mayor-emanuel

 

Does Tunney get elected by the voters, or does he get picked by the Mayor? Just wondering, don't know how the politics do in Chicago.

 

If he is voted by the voters, then do what I would do. Vote him out in the next election.

 

It's voting but he has pretty strong support in the Ward despite this. I believe his ward also covers Boystown and he is the first openly gay alderman.

 

Edit: nevermind the alderman of the 46th ward is also gay

 

If I remember correctly, he's run unopposed for years and years. He's [expletive] at the end of this term.

 

How do you figure?

 

Because no one is really getting what they want, he's flying directly in the face of mayor, and a bunch of challengers to his seat are popping up already.