Where should a new Wrigley be built?

[blazedays]

We were bored at work and arguing about this, especially after the Yankees new stadium anouncement. Let's say the Cubs absolutely, positively have to build a new ballpark: where should it go?

 

The "heavy duty remodel" is kinda like what the Yankees did in the mid 70's: a whole new upper deck.

 

If you vote "Lakefront" "Suburbs" or "Other", please give a location.

[CuseCubFan69]

Syracuse New York. :D

[Roast]

Lowell Indiana. We have a nice big field.

 

Then we could call ourselves the Chicago Cubs of Lowell Indiana.

[Omar]

In my opinion, ballparks like Wrigley, Fenway, Yankee, and Dodger should never be replaced. They just have to much history to be replace. I dont have a problem with rebuilding them inside-out, but im not a big fan of replacing.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I voted other because Wrigley should stay as it is. The Trib will make little changes over time like they have done the last several years. There is no reason to replace it.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I hope the Cubs stay in Wrigley as long as it is structurally feasible to do so. I have no idea how long that is, but considering the improvements like the new parking garage and the bleacher addition, I doubt there are any plans for a "new" Wrigley anytime soon.

[mhuber92211]

I voted other because Wrigley should stay as it is. The Trib will make little changes over time like they have done the last several years. There is no reason to replace it.

 

exactly why I voted other as well. How could you make Wrigley better?

[Roast]

How could you make Wrigley better?

 

 

A 2005 world series banner.

[Outshined_One]

If the Cubs HAVE to build a new one, why not the lakeshore? I grant you, getting there would likely be an absolute nightmare via car unless a bunch of routes are diverted/created, but it would be a pretty neat place, especially seeing stuff like home runs hit into Lake Michigan and some nice potential updates to everything (especially the food!).

 

However, I think Wrigley has plenty of years left in it and even if the Cubs leave it, the city will leave it standing. Do with it what the Yankees are going to do with Yankee Stadium, ya know? Turn it into a museum, loan it out to local colleges, high schools, and little league teams to play on it, add a couple of restaurants and bars, and make it into something fans can enjoy even without the Cubs.

 

It'd be much better than demolishing it, imo.

[blazedays]

I voted other because Wrigley should stay as it is. The Trib will make little changes over time like they have done the last several years. There is no reason to replace it.

 

I agree with you 1000%: the Cubs should stay in Wrigley. But that's not the point of this poll.

 

My boss said the same thing you did and voted "other". But I rephrased it this way:

Say a smallish tornado rips through Wrigley and takes out part of the upper deck: damaging it to a point where it can't be fixed with no amount of money. What should the Cubs do?

[blazedays]

If the Cubs HAVE to build a new one, why not the lakeshore? I grant you, getting there would likely be an absolute nightmare via car unless a bunch of routes are diverted/created, but it would be a pretty neat place, especially seeing stuff like home runs hit into Lake Michigan and some nice potential updates to everything (especially the food!).

 

However, I think Wrigley has plenty of years left in it and even if the Cubs leave it, the city will leave it standing. Do with it what the Yankees are going to do with Yankee Stadium, ya know? Turn it into a museum, loan it out to local colleges, high schools, and little league teams to play on it, add a couple of restaurants and bars, and make it into something fans can enjoy even without the Cubs.

 

It'd be much better than demolishing it, imo.

 

Aramark (who does the food at Wrigley) sucks a**. They also do the cafeteria and catering at my office and they stink there.

[sandberg23]

If the Cubs HAVE to build a new one, why not the lakeshore? I grant you, getting there would likely be an absolute nightmare via car unless a bunch of routes are diverted/created, but it would be a pretty neat place, especially seeing stuff like home runs hit into Lake Michigan and some nice potential updates to everything (especially the food!).

 

However, I think Wrigley has plenty of years left in it and even if the Cubs leave it, the city will leave it standing. Do with it what the Yankees are going to do with Yankee Stadium, ya know? Turn it into a museum, loan it out to local colleges, high schools, and little league teams to play on it, add a couple of restaurants and bars, and make it into something fans can enjoy even without the Cubs.

 

It'd be much better than demolishing it, imo.

 

Aramark (who does the food at Wrigley) sucks a**. They also do the cafeteria and catering at my office and they stink there.

 

They did the food at my college...ate lots of homecooked meals.

[hardcorecubfan]

economically that area of chicago depends on the ballpark. Move it and you have just condemned the neighborhood.

[Derwood]

I meant to vote for option b), but accidenatlly voted for c). Fixable?

[Omar]

Boy this poll is old.. My opinion still stands.

[Cubbie_Gal]

In my opinion, ballparks like Wrigley, Fenway, Yankee, and Dodger should never be replaced. They just have to much history to be replace. I dont have a problem with rebuilding them inside-out, but im not a big fan of replacing.

 

Totally agree! The reason Wrigley is so well known is it's location, look and feel. It's a community in an of itself, not just a ballpark. While some rehab needs to be done, I don't think the location should be changed.

[J.R.]

If the Cubs HAVE to build a new one, why not the lakeshore? I grant you, getting there would likely be an absolute nightmare via car unless a bunch of routes are diverted/created, but it would be a pretty neat place, especially seeing stuff like home runs hit into Lake Michigan and some nice potential updates to everything (especially the food!).

 

However, I think Wrigley has plenty of years left in it and even if the Cubs leave it, the city will leave it standing. Do with it what the Yankees are going to do with Yankee Stadium, ya know? Turn it into a museum, loan it out to local colleges, high schools, and little league teams to play on it, add a couple of restaurants and bars, and make it into something fans can enjoy even without the Cubs.

 

It'd be much better than demolishing it, imo.

 

Aramark (who does the food at Wrigley) sucks a**. They also do the cafeteria and catering at my office and they stink there.

 

Aramark has been booted out of Wrigley.

[treebird]

lose wrigley. nothing good has ever happened there, except to other teams.

 

it has all kinds of history, but very little in the way of history that i actually want to think about.

 

and don't build a crappy retro park either.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

economically that area of chicago depends on the ballpark. Move it and you have just condemned the neighborhood.

 

:?:

 

That area has taken off. (not just because of Wrigley either) It is one of the most popular spots in the city for night life, restaurants, etc. Moving Wrigley would just open up more room for new bars and restaurants.

 

I'm almost positive they can't put it on the lakeshore. There is a city law that states no more buildings will be put on the east side of lake shore drive. It's the original Daley's plan to preserve the lakefront. And moving the team to the suburbs would break every Chicagoins heart.

 

In my opinion, you give it landmark status like Fenway is trying to get. And then you just fix what's broken. You don't replace it.

[sandberg23]

economically that area of chicago depends on the ballpark. Move it and you have just condemned the neighborhood.

 

:?:

 

That area has taken off. (not just because of Wrigley either) It is one of the most popular spots in the city for night life, restaurants, etc. Moving Wrigley would just open up more room for new bars and restaurants.

 

I'm almost positive they can't put it on the lakeshore. There is a city law that states no more buildings will be put on the east side of lake shore drive. It's the original Daley's plan to preserve the lakefront. And moving the team to the suburbs would break every Chicagoins heart.

 

In my opinion, you give it landmark status like Fenway is trying to get. And then you just fix what's broken. You don't replace it.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the city give it landmark status? Or were simply trying to and it hasn't happened yet?