Wrigley Renovation Thread

[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.

I know that's an opinion, but its not even remotely correct.

[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.

I know that's an opinion, but its not even remotely correct.

 

I couldn't be any less shocked to see somebody be so wrong.

[Guest]

Bleacher seats are the furthest from the action, among the more expensive seats in the park, and as this discussion shows, not free from obstructed or incomplete views. How is that not the worst value to see the game?

[Guest]

Bleacher seats are the furthest from the action, among the more expensive seats in the park, and as this discussion shows, not free from obstructed or incomplete views. How is that not the worst value to see the game?

Well for one, they are not the furthest from the action (Home runs, hello?). Second anyone sitting in the bleachers can see more of the field than anyone sitting under the deck (I believe the 400 section and beyond). Third, they are not among the most expensive seats in the park, is that some sort of joke?

 

Besides the first few sections around home plate and down the lines, they are the best seats in the park.

[jersey cubs fan]

Bleacher seats are the furthest from the action, among the more expensive seats in the park, and as this discussion shows, not free from obstructed or incomplete views. How is that not the worst value to see the game?

Well for one, they are not the furthest from the action (Home runs, hello?). Second anyone sitting in the bleachers can see more of the field than anyone sitting under the deck (I believe the 400 section and beyond). Third, they are not among the most expensive seats in the park, is that some sort of joke?

 

Besides the first few sections around home plate and down the lines, they are the best seats in the park.

 

They are among the more expensive only on the resale market for nice days games. They certainly can be the worst, or among the worst for any one game. And they are at least in the discussion overall. Being close to the occasional homerun is not really close to the action, since most of the action takes place very far from where any homerun lands. A huge part of the upper deck is better than the bleachers. Relatively few seats are actually worse.

[UMFan83]

I've always thought people sat in the bleachers because they are told its cool and the atmosphere is a lot looser than the general stands. Was appealing to me in my early 20's, but with the jacked up prices, i'd rather sit in the lower level and enjoy the game from a much better seat. I still enjoy an occasional trip to the bleachers though, if the price is right.

[WrigleyField 22]

Most times I've sat in the bleachers were for bachelor parties. I think once I sat there just for a normal outing, but I 'd choose the rest of the stadium over it, considering cost. Most places the bleachers are attractive because of cost.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

I've always thought people sat in the bleachers because they are told its cool and the atmosphere is a lot looser than the general stands. Was appealing to me in my early 20's, but with the jacked up prices, i'd rather sit in the lower level and enjoy the game from a much better seat. I still enjoy an occasional trip to the bleachers though, if the price is right.

There's no question that I'd rather sit in the lower level infront of the deck, but once you get under the deck you have to deal with horrible lines of sight and poles and sometimes really cold weather. I've sat under there where you couldn't see any fly ball. I'd much rather sit in the bleachers than any of those seats. The upper deck seats are ok, but I feel pretty far from the "action" sitting in those seats as well. I think it's more a matter of taste and how much money you are willing to spend. Aside from the prime seats, I'd rather sit in the bleachers than anywhere else.

[SouthSideRyan]

The back half of the 200 level are all terrible seats. I'd sit in the back row of 500 over them.

[jersey cubs fan]

The back half of the 200 level are all terrible seats. I'd sit in the back row of 500 over them.

 

Would you sit in the second row of a sky box or only the first?

[ConstableRabbit]

The bleachers have a great atmosphere relative to the rest of the stands. Grandmas don't tell you to sit down when you get up for a big moment in the game, for example. It's also fun to heckle opposing players and tease visiting fans.

 

The sightlines are also better than sitting many lower deck reserved seats, imo because the overhang oftentimes blocks the scoreboard. The exception is CF seats, which are awful.

 

That said, if given the choice of bleachers vs. upper or lower deck box, or any reserved seat that allows me to see the scoreboard, I wouldn't pick the bleachers.

 

The lack of assigned seating is also annoying -- especially for weeknight games. Who has time to get to the ballpark at 5?

[UMFan83]

With 5 seconds of thought, I'd rank the seats:

 

1. 100 level or closer in the lower bowl between 3rd and 1st

2. Terrace Box (first rows of 200 level) between 3rd and 1st

3. 400 level between 3rd and 1st

4. 100 level or closer beyond 3rd and 1st

5. Bleachers

6. 500 level

7. Terrace reserve (the rest of the 200 level)

[pitchcs]

Bleachers are great for batting practice, not much else.

[Guest]

Rahm with some on the record comments on the newest proposal...

 

 

“When I first started this discussion, the Cubs wanted $200 million in taxpayer dollars,” Emanuel told reporters. “I said, ‘No.’ Then they said, ‘We’d like $150 million taxpayer dollars,’ and I said, ‘No.’ Then they asked if they could have $100 million in taxpayer subsidies, and I said, ‘No.’ Then, they asked about $55 million in taxpayer subsidies. I said, ‘No.’ The good news is after 15 months, they’ve heard the word, ‘No.’

 

“So, we’re at a point where there will be no taxpayer subsidies for a private entity,” Emanuel said. “That said, Wrigley is important to the neighborhood and to the city — or at least a part of the city that likes to go there — and I want to ensure that it continues that kind of important role that it plays in the North Side, which is why I’m also pleased that they’re also putting a hotel up. So, I asked all the parties involved to finish this up.”

 

Will the city give the Cubs the go ahead to do what they want? Emanuel would only say: “We all have a stake in getting it done. It is not done until all the parts fall in place. There are other things that are necessary to do that. There are 1,200 jobs at stake in buliding and refurbishing Wrigley. But, I want to be clear, I said from the beginning and now it’s absolutely clear and underscored — there will be no taxpayer subsidy in the refurbishing of Wrigley. But, all the parties have a role to play to see it through to the end, and I intent to help do that.”

 

The Cubs are willing to pay $300 million in renovation plans, to be done over five offseasons, but want the city to let the team add more advertising signage, have more night games, and be able to close off Sheffield avenue on weekends.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

lol, pretty much spiked the football in Ricketts' face.

[Sammy Sofa]

How do you figure that? The city has made it clear they don't want to help in the cost, and the Cubs have presented an option to get it done without city money, so how is this Rahm "spiking the ball?" If they deny them the ability to have more ads, more night games and the street fair, how are they "working to get it done" or whatever the [expletive] [expletive] he's spewing without city money?

[jersey cubs fan]

How do you figure that? The city has made it clear they don't want to help in the cost, and the Cubs have presented an option to get it done without city money, so how is this Rahm "spiking the ball?" If they deny them the ability to have more ads, more night games and the street fair, how are they "working to get it done" or whatever the [expletive] [expletive] he's spewing without city money?

 

It's more peacocking than spiking the ball in Ricketts face. He's boasting to voters how he was able to avoid screwing them to help a rich man, while keeping the door open to do exactly what the Cubs said they would like to see done.

[Guest]

I'm sort of on the no tax money side, but I see no reason for the mayor to try to down play the significant financial impact the cubs make to the city. That's just being a petty [expletive].

[jersey cubs fan]

I'm sort of on the no tax money side, but I see no reason for the mayor to try to down play the significant financial impact the cubs make to the city. That's just being a petty [expletive].

 

He's negotiating on the side of the tax payer (in theory) and has no incentive to do anything but downplay the impact.

[Sammys Boombox]

When I first read that I thought Rahm was being a complete jerk, and I still do. "I told those rich guys, no, no, no, no." Meanwhile, he completely ignores the significant tax revenue that is generated by that private enterprise. At the very least it could have been worded with a lot more tact.

 

Even if you agree with Rahm's decision (which there are a lot of good reasons to agree with him), you have to admit the delivery was not very good. Chalk one up for political posturing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

How do you figure that? The city has made it clear they don't want to help in the cost, and the Cubs have presented an option to get it done without city money, so how is this Rahm "spiking the ball?" If they deny them the ability to have more ads, more night games and the street fair, how are they "working to get it done" or whatever the [expletive] [expletive] he's spewing without city money?

 

The Cubs gave up after almost two years of begging and him telling them no. He just reminded them of that with that quote.

[Guest]

I mean, that's certainly one interpretation, but the ownership has been pretty consistent with the message that they wanted the funding because of the restrictive ordinances. If the city wants to beat their chest about lifting the ordinances that's their prerogative, but anyone who's paid attention to the story should be able to see it's not exactly the Ricketts' bending to the iron fist of the city.

[Sammy Sofa]

How do you figure that? The city has made it clear they don't want to help in the cost, and the Cubs have presented an option to get it done without city money, so how is this Rahm "spiking the ball?" If they deny them the ability to have more ads, more night games and the street fair, how are they "working to get it done" or whatever the [expletive] [expletive] he's spewing without city money?

 

The Cubs gave up after almost two years of begging and him telling them no. He just reminded them of that with that quote.

 

So what? He can't say no to what they need to get it done on their own.

[Sammys Boombox]

Dear Season Ticket Holders,

 

There has been quite a bit of media coverage this week about the remarkable proposal being considered by the Cubs and the Ricketts family to help restore Wrigley Field. The project we are sharing is based on creative ideas for how to improve the ballpark, input from tens of thousands of fans and neighbors and research to preserve the historic features fans cherish.

 

Over the coming weeks, we will continue to discuss these plans with the City and our community, as we work through designs and ask for help to allow signage in the outfield, flexibility regarding concerts, night events and other issues. But with this help, no tax dollars are needed for this project. We remain the only major professional sports team in Chicago with no public funding and the only Major League Baseball ballpark in the country to get no financial support from its home city, while contributing more than $14 million in amusement taxes annually.

 

Below are some of the conceptual illustrations we shared at the Cubs Convention. They show how the $300 million investment by the Ricketts family will help restore Wrigley Field for future generations of Cubs fans, while adding modern amenities and services that you’ve told us you want, such as more and larger restroom facilities, improved concessions, a restaurant, enhanced suites and club and group entertainment spaces – all with the intended goal of reducing congestion so you can watch more baseball from your seat.

 

Separately, the Ricketts family is also considering an investment outside Wrigley Field. For many years, we have discussed a vision for an open space plaza, office building and retail on our triangular-shaped piece of land just west of Wrigley Field. The Ricketts family has signed an agreement with Starwood Hotels and Resorts to develop a boutique hotel on the land currently housing a McDonald’s restaurant on Clark Street. The community has expressed a desire for a hotel in the area and we look forward to working with Alderman Tunney, our neighbors and the Ricketts family as the design and plan develop.

 

The hotel is a critical part of a more-than-$500 million plan to reinvest in Wrigley Field and the neighborhood. The Ricketts family is working to create 800 construction jobs and 1,300 full-time jobs, preserve Wrigley Field as one of the top three tourist destinations in the state and grow the ballpark’s $650 million annual economic impact to Chicago and the region.

 

Inside the ballpark, we hope to begin construction following the 2013 baseball season. We plan to build in the offseason, without leaving Wrigley Field or impacting the neighborhood businesses that have come to rely on the baseball season. It will take approximately five offseasons to complete the project. We’re sure you have lots of questions as to how these changes will benefit you. As plans develop, we will keep you informed along the way.

 

We're excited to present these upgrades to you today and look forward to working together as partners to renew beautiful Wrigley Field into a world-class facility for our players and fans. Thank you again for all your help and support for our team.

 

Best,

 

Colin Faulkner

Vice President, Ticket Sales and Service

[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.