Wrigley Renovation Thread

[Guest]

Goony,

 

You've gone from "the Cubs won't draw consistently unless they win" to "the Cubs won't draw unless they are in Wrigley"

 

If they moved to somewhere in the central 294 area and consistently won 90+ games a year, you seriously think they wouldn't draw crowds?

[Guest]

If you did a time average of every Cubs fan from their daytime location and considered the transportation options available, I think you'd find several hotspots in the metro area that would come close to the optimal overall commute time for fans.

 

I'm also pretty sure that Wrigley wouldn't be one of those optimal locations.

 

Again, I'm sure things will get worked out and I'm happy to have the Cubs in a rebuilt Wrigley. But a move to another location wouldn't be the disaster that some of you are painting. It would simply benefit a different group of fans.

[SouthSideRyan]

If you did a time average of every Cubs fan from their daytime location and considered the transportation options available, I think you'd find several hotspots in the metro area that would come close to the optimal overall commute time for fans.

 

I'm also pretty sure that Wrigley wouldn't be one of those optimal locations.

 

Again, I'm sure things will get worked out and I'm happy to have the Cubs in a rebuilt Wrigley. But a move to another location wouldn't be the disaster that some of you are painting. It would simply benefit a different group of fans.

 

The optimal location for any team is in the actual city

[Guest]

If you did a time average of every Cubs fan from their daytime location and considered the transportation options available, I think you'd find several hotspots in the metro area that would come close to the optimal overall commute time for fans.

 

I'm also pretty sure that Wrigley wouldn't be one of those optimal locations.

 

Again, I'm sure things will get worked out and I'm happy to have the Cubs in a rebuilt Wrigley. But a move to another location wouldn't be the disaster that some of you are painting. It would simply benefit a different group of fans.

 

The optimal location for any team is in the actual city

In general, I agree. But it's not a death knell to be outside the city, either. For example, Texas, Anaheim, Milwaukee draw just fine with suburban / remote from downtown stadiums.

 

Why do you feel it would be so horrific to have the team outside the city?

[Derwood]

because he lives in the city, durrrr

[Guest]

There are plenty of parts of the city that would be much worse than Rosemont or even Schaumburg.

[Guest]

BTW - the Sox have a city ballpark with good public transportation but they can't draw a crowd even when their team is good.

 

I think the whole "city ballpark with good public transportation is everything" argument is less than convincing.

[Derwood]

BTW - the Sox have a city ballpark with good public transportation but they can't draw a crowd even when their team is good.

 

I think the whole "city ballpark with good public transportation is everything" argument is less than convincing.

 

Because 35th and the Dan Ryan is EXACTLY the same as Wrigleyville

[Guest]

BTW - the Sox have a city ballpark with good public transportation but they can't draw a crowd even when their team is good.

 

I think the whole "city ballpark with good public transportation is everything" argument is less than convincing.

 

Because 35th and the Dan Ryan is EXACTLY the same as Wrigleyville

 

he said, "city ballpark with good public transportation." he didn't say anything about wrigleyville.

[XZero771679666304]

BTW - the Sox have a city ballpark with good public transportation but they can't draw a crowd even when their team is good.

 

I think the whole "city ballpark with good public transportation is everything" argument is less than convincing.

 

I'm not a proponent of moving the team to the burbs, but saying they couldn't draw there is just a paper thin cover for the real reason they hate the idea: that city residents would then be the ones inconvenienced.

 

The Cubs would routinely sell a suburban park out just fine, logistical issues withstanding. It'd be a far less desirable setting for a ballpark, but it wouldn't kill attendance.

[Derwood]

No one is saying that you can stick a stadium anywhere in the city as long as it's by an El stop

[Guest]

Of course the Cubs are not going to become the Sox if they have a suburban ballpark. The point is that it needlessly will lower attendance by killing walk-up and tourist attendance, without much benefit. For the majority of the metro area, Wrigley is 45-90 minutes away. If they move to Rosemont, the majority of the metro area is still 45-90 minutes away. Sure they can monetize better, at the expense of 600+ million dollars and the dilution of the ballpark experience. The Cubs will draw when they win 90+ if they're playing in Wrigley, Rosemont, or a ferry on Lake Michigan. If they move to Rosemont they're throwing away millions in revenue when they aren't good from walk ups and people there for the Wrigleyville/city experience.

[Guest]

No one is saying that you can stick a stadium anywhere in the city as long as it's by an El stop

 

Some people sort of are...

[XZero771679666304]

No one is saying that you can stick a stadium anywhere in the city as long as it's by an El stop

 

Some people sort of are...

 

 

Pretty much.

[Guest]

Of course the Cubs are not going to become the Sox if they have a suburban ballpark. The point is that it needlessly will lower attendance by killing walk-up and tourist attendance, without much benefit. For the majority of the metro area, Wrigley is 45-90 minutes away. If they move to Rosemont, the majority of the metro area is still 45-90 minutes away. Sure they can monetize better, at the expense of 600+ million dollars and the dilution of the ballpark experience. The Cubs will draw when they win 90+ if they're playing in Wrigley, Rosemont, or a ferry on Lake Michigan. If they move to Rosemont they're throwing away millions in revenue when they aren't good from walk ups and people there for the Wrigleyville/city experience.

 

Doesn't the amount of benefit depend entirely on how unwilling the city is to relent on revenue stream issues and how much whatever suburb gives them to sweeten the deal? Not to mention getting out of the absurd amusement tax.

 

Why are we assuming that if this actually got closer to reality, there wouldn't be significant funding involved too?

[Guest]

No one is saying that you can stick a stadium anywhere in the city as long as it's by an El stop

 

Some people sort of are...

 

 

Pretty much.

 

There's a matter of degrees here. Wrigley >> Stadium in the heart of the city > Stadium in the city as long as an El stop is close > Stadium in Rosemont. Neither come close to the current ideal, but one is clearly better than the other.

[Guest]

I'd much rather go to a stadium in Rosemont than the Cell.

 

Hell, I'd rather go to Milwaukee than the Cell - and I don't hate the White Sox...nothing to do with that. That area just sucks.

[XZero771679666304]

 

Why are we assuming that if this actually got closer to reality, there wouldn't be significant funding involved too?

 

I'm positive there would be. Getting the Cubs would be a coup for any of these towns, and I'm sure they'b be willing to provide partial funding.

[Guest]

Of course the Cubs are not going to become the Sox if they have a suburban ballpark. The point is that it needlessly will lower attendance by killing walk-up and tourist attendance, without much benefit. For the majority of the metro area, Wrigley is 45-90 minutes away. If they move to Rosemont, the majority of the metro area is still 45-90 minutes away. Sure they can monetize better, at the expense of 600+ million dollars and the dilution of the ballpark experience. The Cubs will draw when they win 90+ if they're playing in Wrigley, Rosemont, or a ferry on Lake Michigan. If they move to Rosemont they're throwing away millions in revenue when they aren't good from walk ups and people there for the Wrigleyville/city experience.

 

Doesn't the amount of benefit depend entirely on how unwilling the city is to relent on revenue stream issues and how much whatever suburb gives them to sweeten the deal? Not to mention getting out of the absurd amusement tax.

 

Why are we assuming that if this actually got closer to reality, there wouldn't be significant funding involved too?

 

Well sure, if they get half a billion dollars from a suburb that might make it a little closer, but the lost revenue from leaving the city/Wrigley is lost year after year.

[Guest]

Of course the Cubs are not going to become the Sox if they have a suburban ballpark. The point is that it needlessly will lower attendance by killing walk-up and tourist attendance, without much benefit. For the majority of the metro area, Wrigley is 45-90 minutes away. If they move to Rosemont, the majority of the metro area is still 45-90 minutes away. Sure they can monetize better, at the expense of 600+ million dollars and the dilution of the ballpark experience. The Cubs will draw when they win 90+ if they're playing in Wrigley, Rosemont, or a ferry on Lake Michigan. If they move to Rosemont they're throwing away millions in revenue when they aren't good from walk ups and people there for the Wrigleyville/city experience.

 

Doesn't the amount of benefit depend entirely on how unwilling the city is to relent on revenue stream issues and how much whatever suburb gives them to sweeten the deal? Not to mention getting out of the absurd amusement tax.

 

Why are we assuming that if this actually got closer to reality, there wouldn't be significant funding involved too?

 

Well sure, if they get half a billion dollars from a suburb that might make it a little closer, but the lost revenue from leaving the city/Wrigley is lost year after year.

 

How much is lost if they can add a bunch of revenue streams that the city might not be allowing them to have (we're assuming that the city doesn't give in and that it actually gets to this point - which I don't think any of us expect to happen)?

[XZero771679666304]

No one is saying that you can stick a stadium anywhere in the city as long as it's by an El stop

 

Some people sort of are...

 

 

Pretty much.

 

There's a matter of degrees here. Wrigley >> Stadium in the heart of the city > Stadium in the city as long as an El stop is close > Stadium in Rosemont. Neither come close to the current ideal, but one is clearly better than the other.

 

I think that's all pretty implicit, but the notion that even the worst of those options is a "disaster" scenario (so bad it can't seriously be considered) is pretty ridiculous.

 

I don't think anyone would argue that a properly refurbished Wrigley isn't by far the best (and most likely, hopefully) scenario, but the Cubs really have to take some of their freedom back from the neighborhood/city.

[jersey cubs fan]

BTW - the Sox have a city ballpark with good public transportation but they can't draw a crowd even when their team is good.

 

I think the whole "city ballpark with good public transportation is everything" argument is less than convincing.

 

Nobody said anything about build it and they will come. You still need a fan base that cares about the team (and can afford to buy tickets to go to games).

[jersey cubs fan]

There's a matter of degrees here. Wrigley >> Stadium in the heart of the city > Stadium in the city as long as an El stop is close > Stadium in Rosemont. Neither come close to the current ideal, but one is clearly better than the other.

 

A stadium butted up against an airport, minimizing access points that will choke access points from all those drivers parking in the huge lots and airplanes taking off or landing every 45 seconds would be a disaster and to suggest otherwise is idiotic.

[XZero771679666304]

There's a matter of degrees here. Wrigley >> Stadium in the heart of the city > Stadium in the city as long as an El stop is close > Stadium in Rosemont. Neither come close to the current ideal, but one is clearly better than the other.

 

A stadium butted up against an airport, minimizing access points that will choke access points from all those drivers parking in the huge lots and airplanes taking off or landing every 45 seconds would be a disaster and to suggest otherwise is idiotic.

 

 

They'd still sell it out (when they are good). It'd be an undesirable logistical hairball, but that wouldn't decimate attendance as much as some here are saying.

 

To me, a disaster would be if they only half filled the stadium on an consistent basis.

[Guest]

Can you seasoned vets figure out your quotes FFS??