Wrigley Renovation Thread

[SouthSideRyan]

I think the bleachers are included as well. They had to go through the process to expand, and for the godless Toyota sign

[Lefty]

One potential ill affect of this proposal is that there are a lot of Wrigleyville businesses that rely heavily on baseball season and if the Cubs left Wrigley even for one season, it could have a rough effect on them. Baseball season is to them what Christmas season is to retail. I know people who have bar tended at some of those bars, and on a good night game, they can rake in a G. Even the offseason business that they would get could be turned off due to the construction.

 

That's not the Cubs problem. Maybe this'll help Ricketts buy up more Wrigleyville property. Club 162(Since it's re-opening I've seen a total of roughly 3 people in on non-baseball days.) I'm looking at you.

Correct. That blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the City of Chicago. The Cubs have tried to secure funds to renovate Wrigley without any downtime, but have been denied. Maybe this is just a threat, but if it's not, that area is in trouble and have nobody to blame but the city.

 

I tend to think that the blame lies with the tribune more than anybody. Alot of improvements that could have been done in a month or two in the offseason were neglected for years resulting in the mess we have now. Also asking the city for funds in the middle of the recession, which makes sense from a business perspective, is just asking for too much in this climate when teachers and police officers are being laid off. Even if the city did hand them the money the original plan called for the cubs to play else where. they'll get it figured out even if Ricketts has to foot the bill initially with assurances and tax breaks to pay him back

 

Also you have to realize that in a single offseason from oct- march there may only be a month at best two months where construction workers can actually work because of the weather. Concrete for instance just wont cure right when its very cold out.

 

Were that it true. It's not.

[jersey cubs fan]

Umm, have you tried to build ANYTHING in the last 15 years? There are always committees.

 

Besides, Wrigley is only restricted on a few of its historical pieces, such as the ivy, scoreboard and I believe the exterior marque. There is plenty that can be done to it without upsetting "the committee". If you want an extreme example, look at what was done with Soldier Field which had a very simular designation

 

What the hell are you talking about? How does that negate what I am saying? The committee controls anything that happens to the bleachers and the marque. Stating that there are several layers of bureaucracies that get in the way doesn't mean this isn't a bureauracy that gets in the way. Soldier Field was a clusterpuck specifically because of the need to keep the columns, which severely limited their ability to make actual improvements. It was a problem.

[KingCubsFan]

Umm, have you tried to build ANYTHING in the last 15 years? There are always committees.

 

Besides, Wrigley is only restricted on a few of its historical pieces, such as the ivy, scoreboard and I believe the exterior marque. There is plenty that can be done to it without upsetting "the committee". If you want an extreme example, look at what was done with Soldier Field which had a very simular designation

I think Soldier Field is a federally-designated landmark, whereas Wrigley is a Chicago landmark.

[minnesotacubsfan]

The committee "controls" very little. A good design team can work around all of that.

 

As for SF, I said extreme example for a reason.

[minnesotacubsfan]

Umm, have you tried to build ANYTHING in the last 15 years? There are always committees.

 

Besides, Wrigley is only restricted on a few of its historical pieces, such as the ivy, scoreboard and I believe the exterior marque. There is plenty that can be done to it without upsetting "the committee". If you want an extreme example, look at what was done with Soldier Field which had a very simular designation

I think Soldier Field is a federally-designated landmark, whereas Wrigley is a Chicago landmark.

right, Wrigley is eligible for the national trust where as SF was on it, but it has been removed.

[Omar]

Hypothetically, if the Cubs had to play in Soldier Field during the construction, here's an idea of what the dimensions would be:

 

http://i.imgur.com/YQlxKl.jpg

Edited February 16, 2012 by Omar

[MWV]

Hypothetically, if the Cubs had to play in Soldier Field during the construction, here's an idea of what the dimensions would be:

Using those numbers, the field would be way too small. <200 feet to the corners and ~385 feet to straight away center with really weird alleys (assuming a geometry in which CF points north). Alternatively, you could have one 400 foot corner and one 200 foot corner with about 290 feet to CF.

Are any of the seats removable? If not, I don't think soldier field could possibly work. I'm calculating these numbers in my head, so I could be way off, but this would not appear to be a tenable solution.

[Derwood]

just do what they did at the LA Coliseum and put a big chain link fence up down the short foul line. Anything hit off the fence is in play.

 

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/lamem4.jpg

 

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/lacol903.jpg

 

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/03/30/sp_gyi0051669163.jpg

[Guest]

Ha, the turf even looks shitty from space

[Banedon]

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/03/30/sp_gyi0051669163.jpg

 

Soriano to play short center?

[Sammys Boombox]

Anybody know why the Cell's capacity has dropped from 47,xxx to 41,xxx since 2003? Did they add a bunch of suites?

[Guest]

Anybody know why the Cell's capacity has dropped from 47,xxx to 41,xxx since 2003? Did they add a bunch of suites?

 

They've fixed a lot of things that were bad about the park since it was built. Painted things different colors....went from blue to more traditional green seats. They also removed a bunch of rows off of the top of that incredibly steep upper deck and changed the roof design. This would be the main reason for that drop in capacity.

 

http://www.minorleagueballparks.com/comisk.jpg

 

http://www.ballparktour.com/USCell_Roof.jpg

 

http://www.ballparktour.com/USCell_Fandeck.jpg

 

http://www.valdomain.com/images/Sox-Park.jpg

seat changes clearly in progress in that one

[SouthSideRyan]

Anybody know why the Cell's capacity has dropped from 47,xxx to 41,xxx since 2003? Did they add a bunch of suites?

 

Big re-modeling of the upper deck to prevent vertigo. I think that was another gift from Daley.

[jersey cubs fan]

I sat in those upper deck seats once in high school. They really were stupid. But old Yankee Stadium was worse up there.

[Irishoshea21]

I sat in those upper deck seats once in high school. They really were stupid. But old Yankee Stadium was worse up there.

 

The renovated Cell is much nicer than it used to be. Still has lots of issues, but I enjoy watching a few games a year there.

 

Old Yankee Stadium was a mess. That upper deck was scary.

[Omar]

Shea stadium's upper deck also looked pretty scary.

[jersey cubs fan]

Shea stadium's upper deck also looked pretty scary.

 

I froze my butt off up there once in college and I don't remember it being the sort of steep and narrow situation that comiskey/Yankee stadium had. It was way the hell up there and away from the action, but nothing memorable.

[Omar]

Also, the Polo Grounds method is also an option.

 

http://www.ballparktour.com/Polo_Grounds_Dia.gif

 

http://www.footballforum.com/photopost/data/2/medium/10-2-1951_polo_grounds_litho_above.jpg

[ConstableRabbit]

I sat in those upper deck seats once in high school. They really were stupid. But old Yankee Stadium was worse up there.

 

The renovated Cell is much nicer than it used to be. Still has lots of issues, but I enjoy watching a few games a year there.

 

Old Yankee Stadium was a mess. That upper deck was scary.

They took some cues from Wrigley when they flattened the roof, changed the seats to green, and added ivy on the batter's eye.

 

It's no longer a bad place to watch a game.

[seanimal]

i love the polo grounds idea, but there's no way these games happen at soldier field.

 

what i don't get is why would anyone not want to play a season at the cell? it would be awesome. the "world's largest gay bar" t-shirt opportunity alone is worth the price of admission.

[MWV]

Also, the Polo Grounds method is also an option.

Below is a diagram of the football field layout at wrigley from the NU-Illinois game:

 

http://www.andrewclem.com/Baseball/Diag/WrigleyField_FB_2010.gif

 

Here is an overhead shot of Soldier Field:

 

http://www.4aerial.com/gallery/main/24-Soldier_Field-028.jpg

 

 

Superimpose (in your mind, I guess; I'm too lazy to do it) Soldier Field's playing surface over the football field in the first pic, and you get a sense of how short the distance down the line (or lines, depending upon orientation) would be. Even with Derwood's suggested "LA Coliseum fix", left field would be way too short (<200 feet). Using a Polo Grounds geometry (CF due north) would place the OF walls just over 100 feet down either line. I don't think there are any viable options (other than the cell) in the area that the team and the league would be happy with.

[UMFan83]

Ps I'm now certain they renovating the RF bleachers and eventually installing that LCD. I walked by there last night and the whole area is blocked from view and there are nets hanging on the outside under the overhang to prevent debris from falling. The lights have been on at Wrigley the last 2 nights and there are portable lights particularly focused on the RF bleachers. Hopefully we can get an interior view as I'd love to get a preview of the finished product.

[Backtobanks]

just do what they did at the LA Coliseum and put a big chain link fence up down the short foul line. Anything hit off the fence is in play.

 

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/lamem4.jpg

 

http://www.ballparksofbaseball.com/past/lacol903.jpg

 

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/03/30/sp_gyi0051669163.jpg

 

Put up a 40-ft. Cubbie Blue monster in LF (something else we took from the Red Sox).

[erik316wttn]

http://imgs.sfgate.com/c/pictures/2008/03/30/sp_gyi0051669163.jpg

 

Soriano to play short center?

 

I remember seeing this picture semi-recently. What was it from again?