Wrigley Renovation Thread

[J.R.]

I really don't see the point of the new signage that would run the length of the upper bleacher sections.

 

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y225/southfork76/1357590239064943_zpsfd131de6.jpg

 

Using the obstruction introduced by the current camera box as a guide - if something of that height were built as indicated by the renderings, the view of the warning track and significant portions of the CF grass would be obstructed from every vantage point in the upper bleachers.

[Fro]

Really love the concept renderings.

 

I'm sure Rahm will twist some arms to make it happen. Seems like a no-brainer for the city.

[J.R.]

Looks like the mayor's office is on board with the new funding plan, but the rooftop owners might get in the way.

 

I've learned that the proposal has at least preliminary backing from Mayor Rahm Emanuel and was produced after extensive negotiations between Cubs officials and top aides to the mayor. That could be critical.

But the plan still faces one huge obstacle: owners of the rooftop clubs adjoining Wrigley and their staunch ally, Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th. By all indications, both of them remain opposed to any deal that involves increased signage inside the ballpark that could block views from rooftops to the east and north. But without revenues from more signage, the numbers in the Ricketts deal won't add up.

Ergo, if Mr. Emanuel wants a big economic and public relations success that a rebuilt Wrigley and a nearby hotel would be, Mr. Emanuel may have to more than twist Mr. Tunney's arm. Whether he will — or whether some other plan can be concocted — will be this spring's real drama at the ol' ballpark.

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130121/BLOGS02/130129990/ricketts-moves-rahm-on-wrigley-but-not-rooftops#ixzz2Ie2t5m5n

 

Said rooftop owner Beth Murphy in a statement, "The rooftops are a fabric of the experience at Wrigley Field. Any relaxation of the landmark ordinance that blocks our views violates our current 20-year contract with the Cubs and would jeopardize the tremendous economic contribution rooftops make to Chicago as businesses, taxpayers and members of the community."

 

Actually, your facilities are humongous eyesores. Neighborhood blight built up to take advantage of a parasitic relationship.

 

I really like the idea of a modern Wrigley remaining under team ownership with more subtle signage (I have gotten used to the Toyota board) and the slow return of the buildings across the street to the status of quaint residences.

[KingCubsFan]

Looks like the mayor's office is on board with the new funding plan, but the rooftop owners might get in the way.

 

I've learned that the proposal has at least preliminary backing from Mayor Rahm Emanuel and was produced after extensive negotiations between Cubs officials and top aides to the mayor. That could be critical.

But the plan still faces one huge obstacle: owners of the rooftop clubs adjoining Wrigley and their staunch ally, Ald. Tom Tunney, 44th. By all indications, both of them remain opposed to any deal that involves increased signage inside the ballpark that could block views from rooftops to the east and north. But without revenues from more signage, the numbers in the Ricketts deal won't add up.

Ergo, if Mr. Emanuel wants a big economic and public relations success that a rebuilt Wrigley and a nearby hotel would be, Mr. Emanuel may have to more than twist Mr. Tunney's arm. Whether he will — or whether some other plan can be concocted — will be this spring's real drama at the ol' ballpark.

 

http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130121/BLOGS02/130129990/ricketts-moves-rahm-on-wrigley-but-not-rooftops#ixzz2Ie2t5m5n

 

Said rooftop owner Beth Murphy in a statement, "The rooftops are a fabric of the experience at Wrigley Field. Any relaxation of the landmark ordinance that blocks our views violates our current 20-year contract with the Cubs and would jeopardize the tremendous economic contribution rooftops make to Chicago as businesses, taxpayers and members of the community."

 

Actually, your facilities are humongous eyesores. Neighborhood blight built up to take advantage of a parasitic relationship.

 

I really like the idea of a modern Wrigley remaining under team ownership with more subtle signage (I have gotten used to the Toyota board) and the slow return of the buildings across the street to the status of quaint residences.

Whenever I hear them talk about the "rooftop experience" I think of that new rooftop all the way behind the upper deck in right field, where you probably can't see more than 75% of the outfield and 10% of the infield.

[Guest]

The roof tops were cute when it was a hand full of guys standing on top of the roof grilling [expletive] and drinking beer. Now they are just an eyesore and blatant money grab. [expletive] them.

[pitchcs]

True.

[treebird]

The roof tops were cute when it was a hand full of guys standing on top of the roof grilling [expletive] and drinking beer. Now they are just an eyesore and blatant money grab. [expletive] them.

 

agreed completely

[Sammy Sofa]

[expletive] them so [expletive] hard. I loathe that neighborhood with a mighty and just passion.

[seanimal]

don't worry guys!

 

http://americannewspost.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/rahmfurher1.png

[Old Style]

That looks amazing.

[Derwood]

Should've put the rooftop owners in their place a decade ago. The fact that they feel entitled to ANYTHING is a complete [expletive] joke. They don't even deserve a seat at the table

[Pushfrog98]

Should've put the rooftop owners in their place a decade ago. The fact that they feel entitled to ANYTHING is a complete [expletive] joke. They don't even deserve a seat at the table

I always wondered how they got away with those seats. Up until I was about 20, or so, I thought the Cubs owned those seats.

[Guest]

Should've put the rooftop owners in their place a decade ago. The fact that they feel entitled to ANYTHING is a complete [expletive] joke. They don't even deserve a seat at the table

I always wondered how they got away with those seats. Up until I was about 20, or so, I thought the Cubs owned those seats.

 

A little over 10 years ago, the Cubs went at it with the rooftop owners. Put up tarps against the bleacher fencing to block their views. The result of that was an agreement between the Cubs and rooftops that the rooftops would have to pay the team a cut of what they made.

[Guest]

That was less than 10 years ago, wasn't it? I thought it was like 2006-2007.

[Guest]

That was less than 10 years ago, wasn't it? I thought it was like 2006-2007.

 

Pretty sure it was around 01-02. I remember talking about it with my coworkers at that time (worked at Abt).

 

Also, I'm pretty sure it started because of the rooftop owners' objections to the original bleacher expansion plans. The new (downsized expansion) bleachers made their debut in 2006, didn't they?

[jersey cubs fan]

That was less than 10 years ago, wasn't it? I thought it was like 2006-2007.

 

The expansion took place in 2005/06, the fight took place from like 2002-04

[jersey cubs fan]

I really don't see the point of the new signage that would run the length of the upper bleacher sections.

 

The point is creative sources of revenue from an overly restricted plot of real estate.

 

Using the obstruction introduced by the current camera box as a guide - if something of that height were built as indicated by the renderings, the view of the warning track and significant portions of the CF grass would be obstructed from every vantage point in the upper bleachers.

 

That is a mighty small price to pay. A whole bunch of seats at Wrigley have some sort of obstructed view. If you can't make it through a game without seeing the entire warning track for some reason, the bleachers aren't the place for you anyway.

[J.R.]

The point is creative sources of revenue from an overly restricted plot of real estate.

That's not terribly creative. The static boards won't bring in near the revenue that the current LED board provides - and the current setup, while ugly, only obstructs a few benches under the scoreboard.

 

That is a mighty small price to pay. A whole bunch of seats at Wrigley have some sort of obstructed view. If you can't make it through a game without seeing the entire warning track for some reason, the bleachers aren't the place for you anyway.

Ridiculous statement. Bleacher tickets are terribly overpriced as it is without inventing further impediments to the view. Unless they are going to discount the whole upper tier (a la the Denver Rockpile) this is nothing less than an affront to the paying customer.

[Sammy Sofa]

So what? Like Jersey said, there's always going to be tons of seats that can't see all of the field. Why should the bleachers be exempt from that?

[J.R.]

It just seems wrong to throw up new walls in the fans' faces while prices creep ever higher. Contrary to popular belief, there are people out there who pay to see the game.

 

Having said all that, I don't think anyone will cancel their tickets over this.

[Sammy Sofa]

It just seems wrong to throw up new walls in the fans' faces while prices creep ever higher. Contrary to popular belief, there are people out there who pay to see the game.

 

Then they shouldn't be buying bleacher tickets to begin with.

[jersey cubs fan]

It just seems wrong to throw up new walls in the fans' faces while prices creep ever higher. Contrary to popular belief, there are people out there who pay to see the game.

 

Having said all that, I don't think anyone will cancel their tickets over this.

 

Prices in the bleachers have plateaued have they not? Plus, it's the bleachers, obstacles to a perfect view are the norm. Also, they aren't just throwing up new walls, they are creating new sources of revenue. They aren't just going to arbitrarily make changes that won't add revenue.

[Old Style]

It just seems wrong to throw up new walls in the fans' faces while prices creep ever higher. Contrary to popular belief, there are people out there who pay to see the game.

 

Then they shouldn't be buying bleacher tickets to begin with.

Yeah. How dare someone want to have fun while watching the game. [expletive] those idiots.

[Guest]

It just seems wrong to throw up new walls in the fans' faces while prices creep ever higher. Contrary to popular belief, there are people out there who pay to see the game.

 

Then they shouldn't be buying bleacher tickets to begin with.

Yeah. How dare someone want to have fun while watching the game. [expletive] those idiots.

 

If you're "paying to see the game," the bleacher tickets are by far your worst value in the park.

[Sammy Sofa]

It just seems wrong to throw up new walls in the fans' faces while prices creep ever higher. Contrary to popular belief, there are people out there who pay to see the game.

 

Then they shouldn't be buying bleacher tickets to begin with.

Yeah. How dare someone want to have fun while watching the game. [expletive] those idiots.

 

You can be as meatball-y as you want, I don't give a [expletive]; my point is that someone complaining about not being able to watch all of the game is undercutting their complaint by buying bleacher tickets to begin with. It's a terrible place to actually try and watch the game from regardless of what's blocked.