Wrigley Renovation Thread

[davell]

If a new ballpark cost a billion, but the move alone saves the Cubs 100 mill per year, it ought to be considered, shouldn't it?

[WrigleyField 22]

The Ricketts should be doing everything they can to increase their leverage. Rosemont provides that and all people here can do is complain about the lack of public transportation and airplane noise. IT IS A NEGOTIATION ISSUE, NOTHING ELSE. Whether it was intended or not, the Rosemont mayor has increased the Cubs negotiating power. Do I want them to leave the city? Absolutely. Will they? No way.

 

Nobody's really arguing that, it's against the people who are saying hey Rosemont isn't such a bad idea!! Or maybe Skokie!! It's about time the suburbs got their fair share!

 

I would love a new stadium, so I honestly don't think a brand new stadium in Rosemont is a bad idea, per se. It's not my ideal idea, but if that ended up happening, I would definitely be excited about getting a brand new park, which we couldn't do in the city.

 

As someone who hasn't lived in Chicago since I was too young to pay attention to such things, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there would be a non-Wrigley option other than the suburbs. I don't think it's anyone's burning desire to see the Cubs move to the burbs, but if idle threats are going to be made, I don't see where else could be possibly be mentioned.

The best idea I ever heard was the Cabrini Green idea thats been discussed here before and we're about 10 years late and it was literally just an idea and nothing ever discussed, which means there was probably some reason it wouldn't have been viable.

 

I'd say about half the city would be indistinguishable or worse from Rosemont from a convenience and ammenities perspective (other than airplane traffic). Once you eliminated places that aren't feasible space wise, your list is probably empty, maybe some city owned space like Washington Park or something, and the city has no leverage to kill Wrigleyville's economy to prop up an unsure bet in another area of the city. And even if the city does it, they probably bend you over and you don't own the stadium and its a lot like the Bears/CPD relationship. The only real threat is to move out of the city.

 

The only feasible city space is Wrigley and everyone should see that. Thus the question thats been posed, which is essentially "If not Wrigley, where?" Should come with lowered expectations.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[WrigleyField 22]

The Ricketts should be doing everything they can to increase their leverage. Rosemont provides that and all people here can do is complain about the lack of public transportation and airplane noise. IT IS A NEGOTIATION ISSUE, NOTHING ELSE. Whether it was intended or not, the Rosemont mayor has increased the Cubs negotiating power. Do I want them to leave the city? Absolutely. Will they? No way.

 

Nobody's really arguing that, it's against the people who are saying hey Rosemont isn't such a bad idea!! Or maybe Skokie!! It's about time the suburbs got their fair share!

 

I would love a new stadium, so I honestly don't think a brand new stadium in Rosemont is a bad idea, per se. It's not my ideal idea, but if that ended up happening, I would definitely be excited about getting a brand new park, which we couldn't do in the city.

 

As someone who hasn't lived in Chicago since I was too young to pay attention to such things, I'm genuinely curious as to whether there would be a non-Wrigley option other than the suburbs. I don't think it's anyone's burning desire to see the Cubs move to the burbs, but if idle threats are going to be made, I don't see where else could be possibly be mentioned.

The best idea I ever heard was the Cabrini Green idea thats been discussed here before and we're about 10 years late and it was literally just an idea and nothing ever discussed, which means there was probably some reason it wouldn't have been viable.

 

I'd say about half the city would be indistinguishable or worse from Rosemont from a convenience and ammenities perspective (other than airplane traffic). Once you eliminated places that aren't feasible space wise, your list is probably empty, maybe some city owned space like Washington Park or something (even that sucks actually), and the city has no leverage to kill Wrigleyville's economy to prop up an unsure bet in another area of the city. And even if the city does it, they probably bend you over and you don't own the stadium and its a lot like the Bears/CPD relationship. The only real threat is to move out of the city.

 

The only feasible city space is Wrigley and everyone should see that. Thus the question thats been posed, which is essentially "If not Wrigley, where?" Should come with lowered expectations.

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

[WrigleyField 22]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

A lot of suburban areas could still be pretty inconvenient. That 6 million is pretty spread out though. You're not gonna make all 6 million of those happy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SouthSideRyan]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

[NewUserName]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

I do not live in Kankankee, but Tim has a point. Going to Wrigley is a nightmare at times if you are driving in from out of town.

[KaiserCesar]

I don't really understand the negative commentary on blue line considering that the amount of time it takes to travel from O'hare to the Loop is mostly a matter of distance. The Jefferson Park and O'hare extensions are relatively new pieces of track, especially when compared to the Red Line. The only big problem I see with the blue line itself is that you can't express any trains since there are only two tracks.

 

The Rosemont location has enough proximity to the city (and the suburbs) to be more viable than a lot of the other suburban ideas. The transit options would evolve over time, possibly with some East-West Bus Rapid Transit which would connect some of the train lines and the north side. Also keep in mind that Metra, CTA and Pace will be moving towards a unified fare system by 2015, so it would be easier from a fan perspective to use some of the integrated services.

 

All this being said, I hope the strengths that I see in this option are only used as a bargaining chip to get a better deal for a Wrigley renovation and associated revenue. Sentimentality aside, it seems that a lot of the Cubs value as a brand comes from the history and imagery which is tied into the location and the park. The fact that this can happen without any public money is a pretty big accomplishment.

[UMFan83]

The Blue Line is slow because it has a crap load of "slow zones" that are still in place even after track improvements.

[pitchcs]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

I do not live in Kankankee, but Tim has a point. Going to Wrigley is a nightmare at times if you are driving in from out of town.

 

In from out of town as in, Elmhurst or Rockford or Des Moines?

[KaiserCesar]

The Blue Line is slow because it has a crap load of "slow zones" that are still in place even after track improvements.

 

On the O'hare Branch? There doesn't seem to be too many outside of the area between California and Western. I've only ridden between Montrose and O'hare a handful of times in the last few years, but I'm not aware of any recent issues out there.

[Guest]

The blue line is fine, idiots. The red line is a [expletive] nightmare in comparison. And the reports of slowness are exaggerated.

 

That said, the blue line would barely be viable transportation for the hypothetical location of the park, because people won't want to walk a mile, and the shuttle situation would be a disaster.

[seanimal]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

tedious

[ManCrushOnNomar]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

That's what I'm saying. Of course it would reduce my commute from an hour in traffic to 20 minutes, so I'm more than a little biased.

[Cubswin11]

How much ownership do the Ricketts have in Wrigley field? All of it, or just majority? That also plays a role here, with a move they are likely stuck with a near non-performing asset. Unless they feel like they could add a bunch more concerts, NCAA football games and HS/College baseball games (which I doubt those baseball games would add a ton of revenue) and I'm guessing Tunney/Neighborhood wouldn't be wild about allowing that much more stuff there if they move. Just a thought.

[SouthSideRyan]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

I do not live in Kankankee, but Tim has a point. Going to Wrigley is a nightmare at times if you are driving in from out of town.

 

Define out of town. Anecdotally, the Cubs probably get the most out of towners visiting their park in the country. But I'm sure they'll love the park built on a swamp in Momence too.

[Guest]

The blue line is fine, idiots. The red line is a [expletive] nightmare in comparison. And the reports of slowness are exaggerated.

 

That said, the blue line would barely be viable transportation for the hypothetical location of the park, because people won't want to walk a mile, and the shuttle situation would be a disaster.

How far do people have to walk now after they park? I'm usually a mile away.

[SouthSideRyan]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

tedious

 

If Tim's going to keep citing the numbers for Chicago metro to show unfair it is to Naperville that the Chicago Cubs play in Chicago, I think it should be pointed out what exactly the Chicago metro area is.

[Guest]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

tedious

 

If Tim's going to keep citing the numbers for Chicago metro to show unfair it is to Naperville that the Chicago Cubs play in Chicago, I think it should be pointed out what exactly the Chicago metro area is.

Because Kanakee would be optimizing things for Chicago metro. Your point is well taken.

[SouthSideRyan]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

tedious

 

If Tim's going to keep citing the numbers for Chicago metro to show unfair it is to Naperville that the Chicago Cubs play in Chicago, I think it should be pointed out what exactly the Chicago metro area is.

Because Kanakee would be optimizing things for Chicago metro. Your point is well taken.

 

Perhaps you should stop citing the 6 million number like it means [expletive] all then.

 

ETA: Nothing says optimization like moving the team out of the center of those 6 million with something actually desirable nearby.

[MSG T]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

I do not live in Kankankee, but Tim has a point. Going to Wrigley is a nightmare at times if you are driving in from out of town.

 

In from out of town as in, Elmhurst or Rockford or Des Moines?

 

 

I live a ways NE of Des Moines. We actually stay in Joliet when we come over for games (used to live there and still have a bunch of friends there). It's cheaper for a hotel and we just take the Metra in then walk over to the Red Line.

 

That said, I wouldn't have a problem with either option. My #1 choice is for them to refurbish Wrigley, but either way, I can live with it. Now, I can see why someone that lives in the city and goes to more than a couple of series per year would have a problem with them actually moving, but I have no idea why someone would have a problem with it being used as a bargaining chip in an effort to get a deal for Wrigley done.

[KaiserCesar]

Is Kankakee even in the Chicago metro area and part of that 9 mill figure? At least you could say something like Elgin.

[ctcf]

Oh dear, Alderman Tunney. You done goofed.

 

Determined to preserve the birds-eye view from rooftop clubs overlooking Wrigley Field, Ald. Tom Tunney (44th) has made a bold suggestion to the Cubs: replace the iconic landmarked centerfield scoreboard with a video scoreboard that would generate millions without blocking anybody’s view.

 

Two sources close to the negotiations said Tunney has made that suggestion repeatedly in his continuing effort to protect rooftop club owners whom the aldermen counts among his most reliable campaign contributors.

 

http://www.suntimes.com/18969116-761/wrigley-aldermans-pitch-scrap-famed-scoreboard-for-video-version-as-big-as-you-want-sources.html

[seanimal]

For the six million (repeat, six million) people living outside the city, Wrigley is currently in a horrendous location with no decent parking solution.

 

While I'd prefer to refurbish, I'd be fine with a move to a more driver-friendly location.

 

Yes, let's pour some out for brethren from Kankakee

 

tedious

 

If Tim's going to keep citing the numbers for Chicago metro to show unfair it is to Naperville that the Chicago Cubs play in Chicago, I think it should be pointed out what exactly the Chicago metro area is.

 

meh

 

also;

 

- the chicago metropolitan area is like 7.5 million people, unless we're counting a bunch of counties in indiana and one in wisconsin. and kankakee, of course. why would anyone do that?

 

- rosemont as being "driver friendly" is laughable. it's a concrete hellscape that is nearly impossible to navigate during any sort of traffic surge, such as the ones that happen twice a day, every day. let's add the area's most popular sports attraction to the mix! dumb

 

- while planes taking off and landing is pretty cool to watch, it's a horrible thing to have going on in the background of a professional sporting event, a la doral

 

- that new hofbrauhaus replica opened in rosemont recently. point rosemont

 

- that new hofbrauhaus is next door to the toby keith rohypnol emporium. negative eight points rosemont

[Guest]

The blue line is fine, idiots. The red line is a [expletive] nightmare in comparison. And the reports of slowness are exaggerated.

 

That said, the blue line would barely be viable transportation for the hypothetical location of the park, because people won't want to walk a mile, and the shuttle situation would be a disaster.

How far do people have to walk now after they park? I'm usually a mile away.

 

I wasn't taking into account driving to the park currently. I'm not much for incentivizing people to drive somewhere they could take public transportation to, so I'm not super concerned about how much you have to walk from your car now. People who take public transportation having to walk the same distance that you do now after you drive in (which the city doesn't want you to do)? That's not good.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Castro's Spray Chart